House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Before we begin, I would like to wish everyone a very happy Lancashire Day from the red rose county.
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Fleur Anderson)
Happy Lancashire Day to you as well, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State and I were deeply saddened by the recent passing of former UTV political editor Ken Reid, who was a close follower of Northern Ireland oral questions. Our thoughts are with his family and his many peers across journalism.
I recently attended the launch of Invest NI’s business innovation grant, which received £440,000 of UK Government funding. This will complement the Government’s work to target high-growth sectors in Northern Ireland, including the digital and technologies sector, through our industrial strategy.
Chris Murray
My constituency in Edinburgh has two universities, both of which do excellent work with our counterparts in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister tell us how the Government are working with universities to support innovation in Northern Ireland?
Fleur Anderson
It is fantastic to hear of those close links, which are so important for innovation and business growth, in combination with the university sector. Northern Ireland’s universities are key partners in boosting innovation and growth; for example, through the UK Government’s new deal for Northern Ireland, £11 million of funding is helping Queen’s University Belfast’s centre for secure information technologies to deliver a cyber-artificial intelligence hub—a leading cyber-security research centre. This investment is unlocking a further £4.5 million of investment from the private sector.
Dan Aldridge
Free trade across the UK single market, from major tech hubs in London, Edinburgh and Cardiff to smaller towns such as Weston-super-Mare, is vital to supporting innovation in Northern Ireland and across the UK. What steps is the Minister taking to streamline Northern Ireland’s ability to trade with all corners of the UK, and vice versa?
Fleur Anderson
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point and the connection to Weston-super-Mare. There is a lot of work that we can do to support innovation across the whole country, including through the business innovation grant that I mentioned, which is especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. It offers grants of up to £20,000 to enable those enterprises to come into the market.
Matt Western
Beyond its excellent universities, Northern Ireland is home to major innovative businesses such as Wrightbus, Spirit AeroSystems and Harland & Wolff, which specialise respectively in hydrogen vehicles, composite wing and aerostructure manufacture, and modular construction and shipping. Given the economic importance of those businesses, can I ask the UK Government to look again at the future of the whole-site operation at Spirit, as well as at Harland & Wolff, to ensure that those investments and jobs stay in Northern Ireland?
Fleur Anderson
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the important aspect of business innovation and for mentioning those businesses, which are important to Northern Ireland’s economy. We are working with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure the best outcome for Short Brothers and its staff in relation to Spirit. The Department for Business and Trade remains in contact with Spirit, Airbus, Boeing and other potential buyers. We want to see an outcome that includes a commitment to develop Short Brothers and its supply chain as part of any acquisition and that provides the best possible opportunity for growth in Northern Ireland. The Department for Business and Trade continues to provide over £13 million of support for Short Brothers’ research and development activity.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Across these islands, Northern Ireland is at the forefront for fibre broadband due to our confidence and supply deal with the previous Government. Can the Minister indicate what is being done to promote this golden innovative opportunity nationally, which would help small businesses right across Northern Ireland?
Fleur Anderson
This Government are working across the whole of the UK to promote those businesses, and the industrial strategy provides an excellent opportunity to have this discussion. The UK Government are working with businesses, trade unions, local and devolved leaders, experts and international partners to develop that international strategy, which will cement this work and growth. Eight growth-driving sectors have been identified, including some that my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) has already identified—advanced manufacturing, clean energy industries, creative industries and so on. The transition to net zero also provides huge opportunities, and we will make the most of them.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Has the Minister yet studied the national semiconductor strategy for Ireland published by the Irish Government? If so, can she say how Northern Ireland will be able to exploit that strategy, and how the whole of the United Kingdom will be able to compete with Ireland, which has plainly identified this as an important growth sector?
Fleur Anderson
I thank the right hon. Member for raising that issue. This is an excellent opportunity to raise something that I have not yet looked at. I will go away and study it, because it sounds like a very important aspect of our joint working. We have many international business opportunities to work with our counterparts in the Republic of Ireland, and I will take it up with them as well.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
May I associate myself with the condolences to the widow and family of the late Ken Reid? The family are constituents of mine in North Antrim, and Ken was such a part of the political architecture.
On innovation, there is no greater trailblazer in Northern Ireland than Wrightbus in my constituency, which has really set the pace on hydrogen. How far have the Government invested in advancing that, and in ensuring that public funds, when they are needed, are there to build the hydrogen infrastructure that is so key to advancing that matter?
Fleur Anderson
I thank the hon. and learned Member for rightly singing the praises of Wrightbus. The transition to net zero presents huge opportunities, as he has identified, for businesses like Wrightbus in Ballymena. It is producing 1,000 low-carbon buses, securing 500 jobs in its factory and creating 1,500 additional jobs across the UK supply chain. This shows that Northern Ireland is leading the way, and we will continue to work on such opportunities through our industrial strategy.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Fleur Anderson)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I would like to start by paying tribute to Anna Lo, who passed away earlier this month. As the first ethnic minority politician elected to the Assembly, she was a trailblazer, and I extend my sympathies to her family and friends.
The Northern Ireland Assembly currently has no Members from ethnic minorities or ethnic minority backgrounds. I have met many community groups that have raised this matter with me. The key to changing it is the membership and selection processes of the political parties in Northern Ireland, and we should think about what we can all do as Members to speak with people from ethnic minority backgrounds and represent them.
Adam Jogee
I wish the Secretary of State a happy birthday for yesterday—[Interruption.] And a happy Lancashire Day to you, Mr Speaker.
I join the Minister in paying tribute to Anna Lo. Anna was the first non-white Member of the Assembly, but she cannot be the last. I urge the Minister to encourage all parties in the Assembly to redouble their efforts to ensure that all the people of Northern Ireland can look to their Assembly and see someone like them.
Fleur Anderson
I recently met Lilian Seenoi Barr, the first mayor in Northern Ireland from an ethnic minority background, who is showing the way for others. I agree that people must see themselves represented, so I join my hon. Friend in urging all parties across Northern Ireland to look at their selection processes and their invitations to meetings, and to make sure that all parties welcome everyone from every background.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Jay Basra is a 20-year-old Ulster Unionist candidate who ran in Mid Ulster at the last general election. Jay describes himself as Punjabi-British. When he announced his candidacy, he received a torrent of online abuse, which he described as “dehumanising” and “abhorrent”. He said:
“It reduces me down to my skin colour rather than myself as a person.”
However, he has also said:
“If anything I’m even more determined to run again and increase the Ulster Unionist vote like I did in the general election.”
What words of encouragement does the Minister have for people such as Jay?
Fleur Anderson
I am horrified to hear of that online abuse, and I am horrified to hear of any abuse that any politicians receive. I commend Jay for his courage in saying, “Actually, this is not putting me off. I want to stand again.” The hon. Member is quite right to raise this matter, as we would all want to do, and to show support for Jay and others who want to be able to say that they can stand and not receive such abuse. We should call it out whenever we see it.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
This Government are providing the Executive with an £18.2 billion funding settlement for 2025-26. This represents a £1.5 billion increase on this year and is the largest settlement since devolution. It is now for the Executive to decide how the funding is spent.
Bambos Charalambous
One of the central aspects of the reconciliation process arising from the Good Friday agreement is the need to facilitate and encourage integrated education, so will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the continued support for integrated education in the autumn Budget?
Hilary Benn
I certainly will, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. Poll after poll in Northern Ireland shows that there is strong support for integrated education from the public. From memory, about 8% of pupils study in integrated schools, and I hope we would all like that number to increase. Last week, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Education Secretary visited an integrated school. The Education Secretary was, I think, the 15th Minister apart from myself who has visited Northern Ireland since the election.
Mark Ferguson
Does the Secretary of State agree that the recent Budget gives the Northern Ireland Executive the opportunity to really go for growth after many years of uncertainty?
Hilary Benn
I do. There is no doubt that the funding the Northern Ireland Executive received as a result of the Budget was more than they had anticipated, but all government is about making choices with the resources we have and the income we can raise, and deciding what our priorities are. The Budget provides a sound foundation for the Northern Ireland Executive to take the decisions they need to take.
Deirdre Costigan
Does the Secretary of State agree that to ensure sustainable finances, the Northern Ireland Executive need to set out clear steps to reform both the NHS and broader public services?
Hilary Benn
I do agree with that. As my hon. Friend and the House will know, the longest waiting lists in the health service in the United Kingdom are to be found in Northern Ireland. That is not acceptable, above all for those people who are waiting far too long. There is a plan for reform, which I welcome, but the people of Northern Ireland want to see progress happening.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Just last week, I attended and spoke at a rally hosted by the Ulster Farmers’ Union in response to the change to agricultural property relief. It was attended by 6,000 farmers, with every political party in Northern Ireland standing together in opposition to the change. When will the Government acknowledge that their figures are not reflective of the average farm, and that this death tax will result in the break-up of family farms as we know them, the selling of land to pay the tax, and the purchasing of devalued land by big businesses that are not interested in using it to feed our nation? Will the Secretary of State outline whether he has shared the concerns of Northern Ireland farmers with the Chancellor?
Hilary Benn
I have spoken to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and a Treasury Minister about this. I understand that the changes are unwelcome and difficult, but given the fiscal position, the Government are having to take difficult decisions. There is, however, a difference of view about how many farms will be affected, and the Treasury estimate is about 500 claims a year. We cannot infer from land values an inheritance tax liability, because it depends on the ownership structure of the farm.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
The Secretary of State knows that there is extra funding for the running of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and about the issues with police recruitment, but there is also the issue of not having a new police college. Will he give a commitment that he will speak to the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Justice Minister to ensure that that police college is built at Kinnegar?
Hilary Benn
That is an issue for the Executive, but as the hon. Member alluded to, the position on police funding has been improved, with additional money being given to the PSNI by the Executive out of extra funding that the Budget provided. The UK Government have also increased the additional security funding that is given in recognition of the security needs in Northern Ireland.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
With 14 miles between my constituency of Dumfries and Galloway and Northern Ireland, I know how much we have in common. Unfortunately, we also share the fact that hospitality businesses in Northern Ireland and much of Scotland are not benefiting from a 75% discount on business rates bills. That cannot be called “headwinds”; to quote Van Morrison, it is a “Full Force Gale”. Does the Secretary of State agree that by increasing employer national insurance contributions rather than growing the economy on both sides of the North channel, we are threatening jobs, stopping investment, jacking up prices, and putting business viability at risk?
Hilary Benn
The businesses I meet in Northern Ireland are vibrant and looking forward to the future. Of course the increase in employer national insurance contributions presents challenges for some businesses, but there is no getting away from the fiscal inheritance that this Government found when we arrived in office. The foundations had to be fixed, and that is what we are doing.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I associate Conservative Members with the remarks that the Under-Secretary of State made about Ken Reid; he will be very much missed. A belated happy birthday to the Secretary of State for yesterday.
Last week, the Secretary of State suggested to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that the Treasury had not yet conducted a detailed analysis of how the Budget will affect farmers in Northern Ireland. Has he now asked it to do so?
Hilary Benn
The Treasury has conducted an analysis of the overall number of farms that it thinks will be affected. It is important that people look at all the arrangements that we have put in place, including how, as the hon. Gentleman will know, individuals can pass £1.5 million on to family members and couples up to £3 million when all the allowances are added together, as well as interest-free payments over 10 years. Of course, land transferred seven years before death can go to children with no inheritance tax paid.
I should have congratulated the hon. Gentleman on his double-hatted appointment: he is shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as well as shadow Secretary of State. He will now have many a merry conversation with himself about the Windsor framework.
Alex Burghart
And, I hope, conversations with the Secretary of State. He will know that the make-up of farming in Northern Ireland is slightly different from that in the rest of the UK: there is a greater density of farms in sole ownership and agricultural land is worth more. That means that farms in Northern Ireland are more exposed to Labour’s family farms tax. The farmers I have met in Northern Ireland are deeply concerned about that.
As the Secretary of State said, there is disagreement nationally about the figures. On one side, we have the Government who say that not many farms will be affected. On the other side, we have the experts who say that very many farms will be affected. Transparency will help everyone. Will the Secretary of State commit to asking the Chancellor to publish detailed Treasury working on the Budget’s impact on farms in Northern Ireland so that independent experts can check their figures?
Hilary Benn
To understand the impact, we have to look at the ownership structure of each individual farm. I am not entirely sure whether the hon. Gentleman is advocating that the Government should do that for all farms right across the country. It will be for farmers to look at the arrangements that will apply from 2026 and to take advice on how they can ensure that they can continue to pass their family farms to their children and grandchildren.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Total income from farming in Northern Ireland fell by 44% last year amid volatile markets, soaring costs and declining output. More than 6,000 Northern Ireland farmers recently gathered in the Eikon exhibition centre to highlight the impact that the changes to agricultural property relief will have on their sector. With dairy farming facing serious economic challenges and gross agricultural output declining, can the Secretary of State commit to publishing a full impact assessment of APR removal for Northern Ireland’s farming sector, as well as its wider implications?
Hilary Benn
As I indicated in answer to the same question a moment ago, until we understand the ownership structure of each farm, I do not see how an impact assessment that would answer the hon. Member’s question could be done. Now that farmers know what the new arrangements are going to be, I urge them to take advice. There are a number of things that they can do. Last week, I met the Ulster Farmers’ Union and a number of young farmers, and I am in no doubt about the concern that they have expressed. It is really important that we discuss it on the basis of the facts and that people look at how they can plan for their future.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
It was a pleasure to sign the heads of terms document for the Mid South West growth deal alongside the First Minister, Deputy First Minister and Minister for Finance on 6 November. These deals are a partnership between the Northern Ireland Executive, the UK Government, local authorities and businesses. The aim of our joint investment in all four deals is to encourage economic growth in Northern Ireland.
Sarah Edwards
As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, I am pleased that Belfast has seen a successful economic redevelopment, partly driven by embracing its heritage, which will now be further supported by the Belfast region city deal. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must continue to support heritage as a regenerative tool in Northern Ireland and the wider UK with deals like this?
Hilary Benn
I agree. These deals are all about partnerships and places, including their heritage. All those are an integral part of the approach. In Belfast, the city deal is roaring ahead with things such as the advanced manufacturing centre and considerable investment in digital.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
I appreciate the Government’s focus on growth, especially green-lighting the city and growth deals, and their transformative impact on our often overlooked economy and infrastructure. The forthcoming Windsor framework review presents an opportunity to look not just at east-west trade, which is important, but at other overlooked issues, to allow us to realise the growth potential of our unique trading arrangements. Will the Secretary of State consider ambitious terms of reference for that review, to allow us to maximise growth and innovation by exploring issues such as dual market access and north-south co-operation?
Hilary Benn
As set out in law, whether there is an independent review depends on the outcome of the consent vote that will take place in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Government would be under a legal obligation to commission a review if it is not passed with cross-community consent. I would expect the review to focus on articles 5 to 10 of the Windsor framework, but it would be for the reviewer to consider how they conduct it.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I associate myself with the Minister of State’s remarks about Ken Reid. He was a colossus of Northern Ireland politics, and journalism more broadly across the country. I thank her for those comments.
The Secretary of State will know that getting the city and growth deals back on track was good, following the disappointment of the pause that followed the incoming Government. He will also know that there was a commitment in the spring Budget to support a skills and education centre at the Crusaders football club, for £2.2 million. That remains paused. I think the Minister of State has taken an interest in that project, and I would be keen for the Secretary of State to confirm that he will raise it with the Deputy Prime Minister.
Hilary Benn
I am aware of the pause that affects the particular project to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Consideration will then have to be given to how that may or may not be taken forward, but I note his interest and I will follow developments carefully.
Gavin Robinson
The Secretary of State knows that city and growth deals are about economic growth and ensuring prosperity within Northern Ireland. Is he aware of the concerns among businesses in England, Wales and Scotland, who are saying that, as a result of the general product safety standards emanating from the European Union, they cannot send their products to Northern Ireland? That is in stark contrast to the British Government’s position to maintain standards on CE markings with the European Union. What advice and support can he give those businesses in Northern Ireland who want to trade, and to consumers who want to buy, in their own country but are currently frustrated from doing so?
Hilary Benn
Advice is being provided about the general product safety regulation. Many companies already meet its terms, because they are exporting from the UK to the European Union. There are steps that some businesses will have to take, but I hope the impact will be very small, because there is a way to get through it.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Fleur Anderson)
White Ribbon Day this week marks the start of 16 days of activism against violence against women and girls. The scale of this violence in our country is unacceptable, and this Government is treating it as the national emergency that it is. Every woman and girl deserves to feel safe wherever she is. That is why the Labour Government have set out our ambition to halve violence against women and girls within a decade. The Government want to take a joined-up approach across the UK, and I have discussed this issue with the First and Deputy First Ministers and the Deputy Prime Minister. We will continue to work collaboratively with the Executive—
Mr Speaker
Order. We want to get to PMQs, but we will not achieve it at this rate.
David Smith
According to Women’s Aid, a fifth of all crime in Northern Ireland is domestic abuse. We know that paramilitary organisations make reporting, confronting or escaping such abuse even more difficult. How are the Government working with the Northern Ireland Executive to break down those coercive barriers to support for women and girls?
Fleur Anderson
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that question. Alongside the alarming femicide statistics, there are other factors that add to the complexity of gender-based violence in Northern Ireland, and it is important to recognise and take action to prevent these factors—paramilitarism is one of them. We need to tackle the grip of paramilitaries to end this abuse.
Alistair Strathern
The theme of this year’s White Ribbon Day is, “It starts with men”. Does the Minister agree that it is incumbent on us all, especially men, to play our part in stamping out violence against women and girls wherever we find it? How is she working with the Executive in Northern Ireland to deliver on our shared mission and do exactly that?
Fleur Anderson
I am delighted to see so many men raising this issue today at Northern Ireland questions. Yesterday, I met with Tahnee McCorry from White Ribbon Northern Ireland, who is working with men in football and Gaelic Athletic Association teams and in prisons. We absolutely all have a role to play to have those difficult conversations and really change our society.
Chris Bloore
The Northern Ireland Executive’s strategic framework to end violence against women and girls acknowledges the rise of online influencers who have a toxic influence on men and boys. Will the Minister provide an update on discussions she has had on sharing best practice on how to challenge these influencers and promote healthier and safer attitudes towards consent and relationships across the UK?
Fleur Anderson
I am very supportive of the Executive’s strategic framework to tackle violence against women and girls. I am in constant dialogue with organisations such as White Ribbon NI to learn and share best practice. That is how we are going to achieve this—in partnership with the Executive. The Government are committed to tackling online abuse and violence against women and girls with the Online Safety Act 2023 and further work we will be doing on this matter.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Last year in Northern Ireland, six women were murdered by men. All the men have been arrested, and their cases are pending. Last year, some 800 women and children stayed in a Women’s Aid refuge, and 10 babies were born in a refuge. There is an epidemic of violence against women in Northern Ireland. What can the Minister do in discussions with the Northern Ireland Assembly to make that better?
Fleur Anderson
I pay tribute to all the Women’s Aid organisations across Northern Ireland, which do absolutely fantastic work. It is about prevention and provision of services. Tackling online abuse and violence against women and girls wherever we see it—by everyone in this House and across the UK—is the only way that we will change this situation.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the low number of police officers in Northern Ireland hinders the fight against violence against women and girls? Will she work with the Executive to ensure that the number of officers is increased to the 7,500 recommended?
Fleur Anderson
Action by police officers is fundamental, and we are looking at how we can change the justice system, as we are doing across the UK, as our target to halve violence against women and girls is essential. It is, however, about much more than that—it is about a whole-of-society change and tackling misogyny wherever we see it. Every organisation needs to get involved in this. Action by the police is one part of it, but it is about so much more than that.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Following on from my hon. Friend’s question, the key to reducing violence against women and girls is, of course, effective policing, which was a clear commitment in New Decade, New Approach. When does the Minister expect policing numbers in Northern Ireland to reach the levels set out in that commitment?
Fleur Anderson
In the Budget, this Government provided a record-breaking devolution settlement of £18.2 billion, with £640 million this year and £1.5 billion next year. It is now up to the Chief Constable to spend those figures.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
The sympathies of everyone in this House will be with those affected by the devastating flooding that we have seen recently. Our thanks go to all those working tirelessly to support the affected communities. We have committed £2.4 billion over the next two years to build, maintain and repair vital defences to protect more communities from the awful impact of the flooding.
The ceasefire announced in Lebanon is long overdue, but demonstrates that diplomacy can succeed even in the most challenging of circumstances. We must seize this opportunity to build trust, de-escalate tensions and push for a wider ceasefire.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Daisy Cooper
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks.
West Hertfordshire teaching hospitals NHS trust has eliminated 65-week waits and has now met all three national cancer standards. Those remarkable achievements by the staff are happening despite their working in terrible buildings that are life-expired and crumbling. If the Government are looking for a project that is high-performing and shovel-ready, that is it. Will the Prime Minister give our trust the green light to build a new hospital without further delay?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue, which is of importance to her constituents and beyond. The new hospital programme we inherited was a failure of the previous Government. We are committed to delivering, and we are reviewing to ensure that we can deliver. The Health Secretary will set out further details, but I am very happy for her to have a meeting with the relevant Minister if she wants to follow up on the specifics.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Yes, we will do so. I agree that the last Government totally failed to tackle the unfairness of the leasehold system. We will provide homeowners with more powers, protection and data rights by bringing that legislation forward.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
At the CBI conference on Monday, the Chancellor said:
“I’m clear…I’m not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes”.
I know that telling the truth to the House is important to the Prime Minister, so will he repeat his Chancellor’s pledge now?
The Prime Minister
We set out our position at the Budget that was just set out. We are fixing the foundations. We are dealing with the £22 billion black hole that the Conservatives left. I am not going to write the next five years of Budgets at the Dispatch Box. We said that we would not hit the payslips of working people. We passed the Budget, we invested in the future and we kept that promise.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is not fixing any foundations; he is making everything worse. The whole House will have heard him refuse to repeat the Chancellor’s pledge, a pledge as worthless as the manifesto promises that he is talking about. If he is fixing foundations, why is it that the PMI index shows that business confidence has crashed since the Budget?
The Prime Minister
We are fixing the foundations. We got record investment into this country. The right hon. Lady talks about tax rises. Two weeks ago, she stood there and said that she wanted all the investment and all the benefits of the Budget, but she did not know how she was going to pay for it. I notice that, having come here criticising the national insurance rises over and over again, on Monday she admitted that she would not reverse the position. Meanwhile, her shadow science Minister was saying energetically that he would do the opposite. They haven’t got a clue what they are doing.
Mrs Badenoch
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to know what Conservatives would do, he should resign and find out. [Hon. Members: “More!”]
Mrs Badenoch
Until then, I am the one asking the questions. There is a petition out there with 2 million people asking the right hon. and learned Gentleman to go. He is the one who does not know how things work. It is not Governments who create growth; it is business. His Minister for Employment, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern)—I do not see her here—wants more young people in work, but businesses say that they are cutting jobs because of the Chancellor’s Budget. His Deputy Prime Minister’s Employment Rights Bill—she is not here—will stop businesses hiring. That is what they say. The CBI said on Monday that the dots of the Government’s policy do not join up. It is right, isn’t it?
The Prime Minister
On Monday the right hon. Lady said that she would not reverse the increase in national insurance. Yesterday, on their predecessor legacy legislation, the Opposition could not decide what their position was. Today, they have launched a policy commission asking other people to give them some ideas for government.
The right hon. Lady talks about a petition. We had a massive petition on 4 July in this country. We spent years taking our party from a party of protest to a party of government; they are hurtling in the opposite direction.
Mrs Badenoch
What a load of nonsense. We had a Budget in March this year, and tractors were not blockading the streets of Whitehall afterwards.
Let me give the Prime Minister another example of a real business. Following his Budget, the head of McVitie’s said that it was “harder to understand” what the case for investment in the UK was. While the Prime Minister has been “hobnobbing” in Brazil, businesses have been struggling to “digest” his Budget. Is it not the case that the Employment Rights Bill shows that it is not only the “ginger nut” that is causing him problems?
The Prime Minister
I was attending the G20 summit. I suspect that, on their current trajectory, the Opposition do not know whether they would attend the G20. Perhaps the policy commission will come up with an answer on that one.
We have had record overseas investment in this country. The right hon. Lady keeps carping from the sidelines. She says at the Dispatch Box that she wants all the benefits of the Budget, all the investment, but she does not want to pay for any of it. She has racked up £6.7 billion of unfunded commitments in just three weeks as Leader of the Opposition. When it comes to the economy, we are the ones who are growing the economy.
Mrs Badenoch
The investment for which the Prime Minister is taking the credit was our work. When I was the Business Secretary, we negotiated those deals that he announced. The bottom line, however, is that in all that he has said, he does not seem to care about the young people who will lose their jobs as a result of his Budget. Perhaps he can show concern for the 1,100 people who found out yesterday that they could lose their jobs at Vauxhall’s plant in Luton. While he flies around making unilateral commitments, back at home the real-world effects are businesses closing in Bedfordshire and Basildon. Does he stand by his promise to ban the sale of petrol cars by 2030, even if more jobs will be lost? [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
I would not normally invite a heckle, but that one was accurate.
The question of the position of jobs in Luton is a very serious one—families and workers will be very worried, and we are engaging with them—but I remind the Leader of the Opposition that the electric vehicle mandates that are an issue in this particular case were introduced by the last Government. I also remind her that she was the Business Secretary who introduced them. We are getting on with supporting those communities while she is shouting from the sidelines.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister clearly did not read his briefing about the EV mandate. The fact is that we changed the date and made it easier for people. Everything he has done has attacked people. The Budget was an attack on farmers, an attack on workers, an attack on pensioners, an attack on the young, and an attack on thousands of charities and businesses across the country. The whole system is broken, and the Prime Minister is making things worse. Everyone is unhappy. Is it not a good thing that the Chancellor is an expert on customer complaints?
The Prime Minister
I think the right hon. Lady has just read out the charge sheet against the last Government. Everything is broken, but the Opposition come here every week with absolutely nothing to offer except complaints—nothing constructive; no new ideas. They do not know what they are doing from one day to the next. They are living in a fantasy world in which everything was fine, apparently, for 14 years. Well, the country is fed up with those fantasies. It has got rid of those fantasies. We are going to take the hard decisions. The Opposition are jumping on every passing bandwagon, while we are taking the country forward.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to raise Islamophobia. There has been a concerning rise in Islamophobia and antisemitism over recent months, and we are committed to tackling all forms of hatred. We will work with others on an ongoing basis to make sure that we do.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the terrible impact of Storm Bert and all the flooding? Our thoughts are with all those affected, with thanks to our amazing emergency services.
Christine’s father was told that he needed end of life care, but after a few days it was removed due to funding cuts. He was told that he would not get it, and he died a few weeks later in excruciating pain. Christine says that it was terrible to watch him suffer. Does the Prime Minister agree that, whatever the House decides on Friday, it is urgent that we improve access to high-quality end of life care? Will he make that a key focus of the 10-year NHS plan, and will he now commit to protect hospices from the national insurance rise?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that case, and I am sure the thoughts of the whole House are with the family involved. Obviously there is a very important vote on Friday, but whichever way that vote goes, we must invest properly in care across our health service. That is why, in addition to putting the NHS back on its feet, we are putting forward a 10-year plan to make sure that the NHS can give the care that everybody would expect across the spectrum, including end of life care.
Ed Davey
I thank the Prime Minister for his reply. I hope that we will hear more from Ministers, particularly on hospices and national insurance, in the days to come.
I turn to the cost of living crisis. On Friday, Ofgem said that energy bills will go up again in January, after last month’s 10% rise. Millions of people are really worried about how they will make ends meet this winter, not least hundreds of thousands of pensioners who are in poverty but above the pension credit limit, who will now lose winter fuel payments. With energy bills going up again, will the Prime Minister reconsider and restore winter fuel payments?
The Prime Minister
Obviously the whole House is concerned about energy bills, which are actually lower this year than they were last year. The long-term way to deal with this issue is to have clean power by 2030, to make sure that we drive energy bills down on a permanent basis, and that is what we will do. On the winter fuel allowance, the right hon. Gentleman knows very well what the Government’s position is; indeed, I have rehearsed it with him many times.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, because antisocial behaviour affects so many people. Sometimes it is described to me as “low level”, but its impact is not, particularly when it comes to off-road bikes. That is why we are implementing tough new respect orders, which will give powers to the police, including powers to seize off-road bikes and, crucially, a power of arrest for breach of orders—something that has been missing in recent years. We will tackle this problem, because it blights communities across the country.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
As everyone in the House will be aware, we are currently in the middle of the BBC’s scam awareness week. The advice in that context is always simple: if you see a scam, you should report it. With that in mind, can the Prime Minister advise the House whether he is aware of anyone who has promised to reduce energy bills only for them to increase? Is he aware of anyone who promised to back business, only to tax business? And is he aware of anyone who promised to protect pensioners, only to pick their pockets for their winter fuel allowance?
Mr Speaker
Order. Those in the Gallery will not clap or interrupt the proceedings.
The Prime Minister
I am very glad to see the right hon. Gentleman in his seat in the House, and I am sure that many of his colleagues in Scotland share that sentiment. What I can point to is a Government in Scotland that promised to take Scotland forward and took it backwards, so I can identify the first one and it is right there.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I agree that desecration is awful and should be condemned across the House. We are, as I said before, committed to tackling all forms of hatred and division, including Islamophobia in all its forms.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that case and the awful bereavement. If she would kindly send me the details, I will certainly have a look at the case. In relation to farming more broadly, as she knows, £5 billion was set aside in the Budget over the next two years as an investment in farming. That is the biggest amount that has ever been set aside—[Interruption.] I hear the chuntering, but the Conservatives actually failed to spend the last farming budget by £300 million. On the question of inheritance of family farms, it is important to bear in mind that in a typical case, which is parents passing to a child, the threshold is £3 million, and that is why, as she knows, the vast majority of farms will be totally unaffected.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this, because public confidence in the police has been badly eroded under the last Government. We will drive that up with a major programme of reform. That includes recruiting 13,000 more police into neighbourhood policing and the tough new respect orders, coupled with the power to arrest for breach of the order.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this. I know there has been an exchange on it, and as soon as I have an update, I will provide him with it.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Within weeks of the general election, this Labour Government delivered for the mineworkers and the mineworkers’ pension scheme. It was well received, and it was justice done. However, is it not time to seek the truth on policing during the miners’ strike? Will the Prime Minister commit to an early and full inquiry, something which that lot denied for generations?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this. The decision on the mineworkers’ pension scheme reversed a historic injustice, and I am so pleased that we were able to do it in the Budget. As I think he knows, I met some of the Orgreave campaigners and listened very carefully to what they had to say. They are entitled to the truth, and we are carefully considering the next steps to deliver it for them.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising that tragic case, and I pay tribute to Tracey for her campaigning. I have met a number of families on the issue of bleed kits, so I know at first hand how important this is. We are taking measures in relation to knife crime, including banning the online sale of knives to make them less available, steering young people away from offending and implementing real penalties. I am happy to look at bleed kits, and I will make sure that Tracey gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to hear more about what we are doing and to make her case.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The proposed closure of Luton’s Vauxhall van plant by Stellantis is devastating news for our town, with over 1,000 jobs at risk and the town’s future prosperity threatened. Can the Prime Minister assure me that there will be a cross-departmental response to support the automotive sector and, importantly, good, skilled jobs in Luton?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I will. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this, at a difficult and uncertain time for workers and constituents in Luton, and their families. That is why we are working with the industry. There will be a statement later today, and it is important that we do whatever we can to support these communities.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this awful situation for her constituents. We all know how devastating flooding is, both the initial damage and the ongoing challenges, including problems with insurance for many years. We are committed to tackling this, which is why we set aside money in the Budget. I will happily arrange for her to have a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss the particular details of this case. I thank her for raising it, as it is such an important issue for her constituents.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Last weekend in Cwmtillery, torrential rain caused a landslip. Slurry, even boulders, poured down streets—people were afraid. The Chancellor just agreed a welcome £25 million for coal tip maintenance in Wales. Given the impact of extreme weather events, will the Prime Minister continue to prioritise coal tips, in order to keep our communities safe?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I will. I know how much of a concern it is to my hon. Friend’s constituents. Indeed, he and I went together to meet some of those constituents last time there was terrible flooding. The £25 million commitment to coal tip maintenance is very important. We have now had two questions about flooding. If other hon. Members have individual issues that they are unable to raise on the Floor of the House, they should get in touch with me or my office and I will ensure that they get whatever they need in support of their constituents.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
We have set out our position under the current law, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. I have set out my position very clearly in relation to the sale of capability to Israel to defend itself against attacks, such as those from Iran, and I am very clear that we will continue to do so.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Derby city centre is turning the page on 14 years of Conservative decline, with a new performance venue, a new business school and a restored market hall, but across the country we see too many empty shops and quiet high streets. [Interruption.] This Budget is putting more money into the pockets of working people to spend supporting local businesses. Will the Prime Minister commit, contrary to Conservative scaremongering, to support and protect the small businesses that are the beating heart of our high streets?
The Prime Minister
Conservative Members can chunter all they like, but my hon. Friend is describing their legacy. We are turning that around. We are supporting small businesses, we are supporting the high street and we are rebuilding our country, as the Conservatives go backwards.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, which is of real importance to his constituents. We have committed £30 million to mitigate the impact of the construction at Old Oak Common. Local services will be unaffected and current plans will see services run between Exeter and London Euston. I am very happy to arrange a meeting with the relevant Minister, if the hon. Gentleman wants that, to follow up on the particular concern of his constituents.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
After 14 years of the Tories, our criminal justice system is on its knees, with just 4.4% of domestic assault cases recorded by the police resulting in a conviction. Last Monday was the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, so will the Prime Minister tell us what he will do to ensure that the criminal justice system works for women and girls in North West Leicestershire and beyond?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to say that the criminal justice system was broken by the last Government, like everything else they touched in the past 14 years. We take the issue extremely seriously. We have made a commitment to halving violence against women and girls. We are taking a number of measures in relation to that, for example piloting domestic abuse protection orders and making it clear that we will introduce a stand-alone offence of spiking. Those are some of the measures that, frankly, we ought to be able to work on across the House, because the issue is of such importance.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Ukraine faces a hell of a battle on its eastern front with Russia, but on the home front the challenge is just as great. As it faces a harsh winter, it was reported just last week that 80% of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure is either damaged or destroyed. They desperately need power generators and associated equipment. Will the Prime Minister agree to meet me to discuss the provision of energy aid to this important ally, Ukraine?
The Prime Minister
This is a very serious issue. We have provided £370 million of support to the energy sector in Ukraine, which is being targeted by the Russian strikes. I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting with the relevant Minister. I am pleased that on this issue there is unity across the House in our defence of Ukraine in the face of Russia’s aggression.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the NHS was broken by the last Administration, and the Darzi report makes that absolutely—[Interruption.] They should hang their heads in shame, frankly. We are providing in the Budget £22 billion of additional funding this year for our NHS. That is a huge investment that is much welcomed and much needed across the NHS. We will work with GPs and consult the sector on the services they provide and the money they are entitled to in return. All that funding will be confirmed in the usual way.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I certainly agree that the deal we got under the last Government is not the best deal that we can get. That is why we are determined to reset the relationship and we have already begun that. Obviously, there will be no return to freedom of movement, the customs union or the single market, but beyond that we can increase and improve the situation, whether on trading, security or other co-operation, and we are actively working on that.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
Following a major fire at the Tradebe depot in my constituency in 2021, Scotland’s clinical waste was forced to be transported to England due to a complete lack of forward planning. Tradebe was only appointed after the previous contract had collapsed, leaving human remains languishing in a warehouse. It has now been revealed that the Spanish company was bailed out with £5.4 million of taxpayers’ money. Does the Prime Minister agree that the SNP Government have consistently failed to get a grip of clinical waste disposal and must act appropriately to protect the public purse and ensure public safety?
The Prime Minister
I do agree with that, and it is the rule rather than the exception when it comes to the SNP Government. The challenge for them now is that they have the powers to act and they have now been given the money to act. They have run out of excuses.
Stellantis Luton
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the announcement by Stellantis yesterday on the future of its manufacturing sites in the United Kingdom.
I know that yesterday was a dark day for Luton. This is an iconic plant powered by a talented workforce. There are very few people in the town who do not know someone who works at the site. I wish to outline the steps that the Government have taken to try to prevent this outcome, and how we are going to support the industry and the area going forward.
The Transport Secretary and I found out about the challenges of this site just 10 days after the election. The global chief executive officer told us that he felt extremely frustrated by the lack of action from the previous Government, which meant that his desire was to close the Luton plant. Since then, we have been involved in intense negotiations with the company to try to find a way to keep the site open. Following these initial meetings, in July of this year the company announced its intention to conduct a review of its operations in response to the significant pressures that it was facing in key markets. Following the review, the company set out plans on Tuesday, which will see manufacturing at the two current Stellantis plants consolidated into a single location.
We were, and are, aware that Stellantis has significant excess capacity across Europe. The company’s talk of efficiency and investment elsewhere will of course be positive for its bottom line, but that will come as no comfort to the workers affected.
For more than a century, Vauxhall as a brand has been synonymous with Luton, and we are bitterly disappointed to hear that this relationship looks likely to end. Our No. 1 priority is the people of Luton, who will of course be devastated by this decision. News such as this rips through the heart of communities, sending shock waves beyond those immediately impacted—through their families, their communities and the businesses that they support. I grew up in a car community and know what it is like when half the street work at the same site.
We have asked the company to urgently share its full plans with us and to work with the Government, so that every single worker who is impacted receives the support they deserve. The Department for Work and Pensions stands ready to help anyone affected with a rapid response service designed exactly for these kinds of scenarios. It provides vital support and advice to both employers and their employees facing redundancy.
I want the House to be aware that we have done everything we possibly can to prevent this closure. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I met Stellantis many times over the summer and again on Tuesday morning to discuss the situation and the acute pressures that the company is facing. We have worked hard to find a solution that would support the business and ensure that people kept their jobs, and we confirmed in writing that we were willing to consider any solution put forward.
However, despite our best efforts, we have been forced to accept that this is ultimately a commercial decision by Stellantis as it responds to wider challenges within the sector. And I will be frank with hon. Members: these challenges are not confined to any one company. Car manufacturers around the world are battling with increased costs, supply chain issues and changing consumer demand in a highly competitive, fast-evolving market. Hon. Members will know that last week Ford also announced 800 job losses in the UK over the next three years as part of a major restructuring programme across the whole of Europe. Many of the challenges faced by our car manufacturers are global in nature and they cannot be resolved by UK Government intervention alone.
Although this announcement is not what we wanted or what we worked towards, we must not mischaracterise this. It categorically does not signal a retreat by Stellantis from the UK. The plans announced by the company will also see it investing £50 million as it consolidates manufacturing at its Ellesmere Port plant in Cheshire. Hon. Members will know that Ellesmere Port is the UK’s first all-battery electric vehicle plant, and Stellantis’s decision to bring production of the Vivaro electric van to there is welcome. We will of course continue to work closely with the company on next steps of the consolidation process, including the proposal to offer affected workers a relocation package to take up roles at Ellesmere Port. The investments being made at Ellesmere Port and elsewhere demonstrate that there are real opportunities for UK manufacturing as part of the move to zero emission vehicles, but the transition has to be properly managed. That requires a Government who are on the pitch—something that the car industry finally has in this Government.
The Government are determined to support automotive companies as they revamp their production lines, adjust their business plans, and develop the technology needed for the next generation of zero emission vehicles. These cars and vans are greener, cleaner and essential to our net zero ambitions. Roughly 30% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions come from cars, vans and lorries. To tackle that, and wean our country off imported fossil fuels, we need zero emission vehicles, but the Government are resolute that the transition must be done in partnership between Government, industry and of course consumers. That is why the Secretary of State for Transport and I are listening closely to the concerns of the automotive industry and the wider sector about the transition to electric vehicles, and about the Conservative party’s zero emission vehicle mandate.
We held a roundtable earlier this month to hear directly from major automotive companies, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the charging sector, and in response we will shortly fast-track a consultation on our manifesto commitment to ending the sales of new pure petrol and diesel cars by 2030. We will use that consultation to engage with industry on the previous Government’s ZEV transition mandate, and the flexibilities in it, and we will welcome the industry’s feedback as we move forwards. We want to do everything that we can, together with industry, to secure further investment in the British automotive sector, now and over the long term. That is why in the Budget the Chancellor committed £2 billion to research and development and capital funding to support the zero emission vehicle manufacturing sector and supply chain.
Also, our industrial strategy will give the automotive sector the certainty that it deserves, and will send a clear signal to global boardrooms that the Government are in this for the long term. We want to invest alongside them, create a policy environment that allows them to prosper, and help them to do what they do best: bringing good jobs to every part of this country. Through the national wealth fund, we are unlocking billions in private investment in new green infrastructure, including gigafactories, and supporting growth and job creation—not just in the automotive sector, but in the wider economy. We are working with investors to build a globally competitive electric vehicle supply chain in the UK, and so are laying the foundations for growth over the long term.
The closure of the Luton plant by Stellantis is a bitter blow to our car industry, to Luton, and to the workers who made Vauxhall a world-class brand, producing world-class cars and vans, but we must not lose sight of the fact that those vehicles will continue to be designed and built here in the UK, at Ellesmere Port. That matters to me, and it matters to the Government. When I say that decarbonisation must not mean deindustrialisation, I mean it. Winning the race to net zero and having a world-leading automotive sector must go hand in hand. We must never undermine the transition, as the previous Government did, but we will be pragmatic in ensuring that regulation and incentives are working as they should. Contrived cultures wars are not what the industry needs; instead, it needs a partner in Government ready to look at the practical solutions that are necessary. We stand ready to do that, and I commend this statement to the House.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. This is a sad day for the 1,100 workers at the Luton Vauxhall factory, and our thoughts are first and foremost with them and their families. They are the most recent custodians in a long history that goes back to 1905, when their factory opened its doors for the first time. Luton-built white vans are icons of British business, representing to many the hard graft and skill of millions of traders, the self-employed and small businesses across this country.
The Opposition stand by those hard-working people. We are on the side of the plant workers, because we know the value of skilled work and the transformative power of British business. The closure of the Luton plant, I fear, is just a down payment on the jobs that will be lost through this Government’s relentless attacks on industry, their neglect of the realities of business, and their failure to meet their promise not to raise taxes. The Government owe it to the plant’s workers to at least be honest. This decision is the direct result of a Government policy that is simply unworkable for industry. Stellantis told us as much when it said that the decision was
“made within the context of the… ZEV mandate”.
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said,
“the UK situation is particularly acute with arguably the toughest targets and most accelerated timeline in the world,”
and that
“unsustainable business costs undermine UK industry”.
The Government’s policy on zero emission vehicles is a jobs killer. They say they have been talking since July, so why this panicked U-turn today, when it is already too late? The last Government acknowledged that the previous vehicle mandate was too stringent. We took the decision to push it back, recognising the impact that it would have on industry. We listened to Unite the union on this. The Secretary of State’s party unilaterally reversed those changes and brought the deadline forward to 2030. Instead of listening to Unite, he listened to the Member for climate central, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband).
Even today, the Secretary of State speaks of ending the sale of new purely petrol and diesel cars by 2030. He tried to slip a subtle change in there, the consequences of which are significant. I welcome the fact that, for once, this Government have listened to business, but he appears to be misleading business at the same time. Can he explain exactly what his policy is? As we see today, there are real costs to these targets. Instead of having the courage to recognise that he was wrong, his solution appears to be yet another consultation, which is yet to take place. How many automotive businesses has the Secretary of State spoken to about the targets? In any of his conversations with Stellantis, did it ask him at any point to remove the fines? Has he met the right hon. Member for Doncaster North to entreat him to row back from his ideological pursuit of domestic targets, which ignores the fact British jobs are being exported to more carbon-intensive economies?
Most of all, we must not ignore the elephant in the room: the timing of the decision. It follows a Budget that declared war on business, with a triple whammy of tax rises that remove incentives for growth and investment; a £25 billion jobs tax, which has left boardrooms across the country putting recruitment and pay rises on hold; and an Employment Rights Bill that the Secretary of State wrote while hand in hand with his union paymasters, which is already deterring businesses from hiring in Britain.
Businesses are ringing the alarm bells. The CBI, the British Retail Consortium, UKHospitality and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders have all said that the pressures on business are too much to swallow. In open letter after open letter, statement after statement, they say that Labour is not on their side. It lied about its plans. It is attacking working people, and now it is attacking the vans that they go to work in. The businessmen and women who gave Labour the benefit of the doubt are regretting it. When will the Secretary of State listen? When will his Government abandon their attack on British business? Will he lead the charge to change course? Why will he not suspend the fines and targets that have led to today’s tragedy?
Jonathan Reynolds
That is the single most dishonest statement I have ever heard in my time in this House.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw that comment.
Jonathan Reynolds
Mr Speaker, I would like to clarify some of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. The ZEV mandate policy is—[Interruption.]
Jonathan Reynolds
The ZEV mandate policy that the shadow Minister mentioned is a policy of the previous Government, as he is aware. The changes that the previous Government made were not to the ZEV mandate. They were not pragmatic about it. They changed the destination and kept the fines, the ramp-up and the threshold exactly the same. They allowed no flexibility or pragmatism in how the policy operated, but still undermined the transition, leading to a massive reduction in consumer confidence. He asks whether I have talked to industry. I was the guest speaker at the SMMT dinner last night; 1,000 people were there, from every bit of the automotive sector. They are absolutely clear: they support the destination; it is how the previous Conservative Government’s policy operates that is causing them the problems. As I said in the statement, as he would know if he was listening, or had read it in advance, 10 days into this Government, we were told that the plant was likely to close.
Labour has acted with pragmatism; we have been willing to look at any part of the policy to prevent this outcome. The simple truth was that it was too late, after 14 years of failure, to put this right. I say to the hon. Gentleman with all politeness that he is out of touch with industry, with workers, and even with what the previous Conservative Government did, and that speaks for itself.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
This is indeed a hard day for Luton. I welcome what the Secretary of State shared with the House, and the review of the zero emission mandate that he announced. In that review, I hope that he looks again at the perversities of the regime that he inherited, which could involve petrol engine makers in this country transferring credits to companies like Elon Musk’s Tesla, and to Chinese EV makers. If we really want to ensure a level playing field, why do we not reverse the decision of the last Secretary of State, follow the EU Commission and launch anti-subsidy investigations into Chinese EV makers? The Trade Remedies Authority is ready to go—it just needs the Secretary of State to give the green light.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee, including for the exchanges that we had in the Committee evidence session yesterday. He is right that because of the position we inherited—the issues with the flexibilities in the policy and the fact that no domestic producer is on track—the transfer he described is effectively the problem. That is why I say that decarbonisation cannot mean deindustrialisation. It is precisely what we inherited that we are critiquing. We do not want to undermine the transition in the way the previous Prime Minister did—anyone in industry in the sector could tell Conservative Members how disastrous that was—but we need to give a breathing space, and ensure that the policy has none of the perverse incentives that he described.
On subsidies, the Trade Remedies Authority and the potential response from the UK, we have to bear in mind two things. First, under the system that we inherited, industry makes the application. I have powers to do that, as Secretary of State, but they have never been used, to my knowledge. Secondly, we must remember that the UK automotive sector is a world-class, export-led sector. If we were to go down any kind of protectionist route on principle, we would have to bear in mind what it would mean for the markets we sell vehicles into. If we sell 80% of our product abroad, we have to consider the international export position, alongside the domestic market position. If industry makes that request, of course that request will be followed up, in accordance with the way the system operates.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance copy of his statement. Yesterday, like the Secretary of State, I attended the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders annual dinner, and I greatly appreciated the opportunity to hear directly from such an important sector for the British economy. UK car manufacturing brings billions of pounds into our economy. It employs hundreds of thousands of people directly, and many more thousands across its supply chain. It is at the forefront of the green transition, and of making transport sustainable for the future via electric vehicles. Most importantly, the industry is always willing to be frank with me and with other politicians; it reaffirmed to me that it sees major hurdles on the horizon, and the closure of Vauxhall’s 100-year-old factory in Luton is a sign of great troubles ahead.
Inevitably, the Conservatives will play politics with the announcement, but there is still no apology from them for trashing the economy. There is not one moment of reflection that the previous Government’s policy on electric vehicles was a disaster. The policy simply did not do enough on infrastructure and incentives. The Government therefore need to fix the Tories’ mess. As a starting point, the Government urgently need to work with Vauxhall to mitigate this major shock for the area. The Government have said that they will fast-track a consultation, but it needs to be fast-tracked today. Urgency is the key, so when will that consultation start, and when does the Secretary of State expect it to report? The previous Government did not do enough to incentivise people to buy electric vehicles, nor did they provide the right infrastructure. What are the Government doing to increase sales of electric vehicles and increase the number of charging points in places such as my constituency?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions and observations, and apologise that he has had to hear me speak twice on this topic in the short period of time between last night and today. He has asked the Conservative party to apologise for its economic record. That case stands for itself, but I would also like to know, given how urgently this issue was presented to us as a new Government, what the last Government were doing at the end of their time in office. What did they know? What conversations were they aware of? Certainly, we inherited a position of extreme frustration from the company, and I cannot imagine that that frustration had not been conveyed in some way to our predecessors.
Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions, there were policies in the Budget relating to charging infrastructure—which I recognise is a key part of this issue—as well as £2 billion for research and development through the automotive transformation fund and the partnership with business that we use that fund for. Obviously, the consultation he asked about will come from the Department for Transport. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), asked why that consultation is happening, but the previous Government set these policies out in primary legislation, so he knows that there are processes to follow. Any conversation about the thresholds in the existing policy would be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to have, but I refer back to my points about how the system works and the flexibilities and allowances in, and how we can make sure that we are giving automotive manufacturers in the UK a system that lets them get to the transition they and the consumer want, but in a way that works with industry to enable that transition to happen for the benefit of the United Kingdom.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a trade union member, as well as someone with friends who have heard that they have lost their jobs.
Closing the Luton site will damage our local economy, with 600 more jobs at risk in the supply chain and workers and families receiving this devastating news just before Christmas. I welcome the comments of the Secretary of State that decarbonisation must not mean deindustrialisation and the decimation of good, skilled jobs. Will his announcement today move the dial in discussions with Stellantis to help protect the Luton site? I also welcome his tone—he is taking this seriously, compared with Opposition Members—so will he join me in visiting workers and their trade union representatives at the Luton site to listen to their concerns?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. I believe everyone in the House who cares about the automotive sector and working people in this country will share the sentiments she has expressed about the scale of what this decision will mean for Luton. I can absolutely promise her that I will take up her invitation to come with her to the site. I can also promise her the full deployment of my Department and, indeed, all of my colleagues across Government to provide whatever help is required. We are in conversations with Stellantis—as is the union, I believe—about the details of the package that will be presented to the workforce, but of course, I will engage closely with my hon. Friend and with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) to make sure that package is to the maximum benefit of her constituents and the wider area.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
As a Bedfordshire MP, I know how significant the Vauxhall plant is to our local economy and as a local employer. The Secretary of State has explained how devastating this decision will be for families locally, not just in Luton but in my constituency. Unfortunately, though, he has said very little about how he is going to support the people who are losing their jobs. Is the Secretary of State concerned that this Government’s tax on jobs will make it much more difficult to replace these 1,000 manufacturing jobs in Bedfordshire?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his sentiments, but the straightforward answer to that question is no. This is a skilled and talented workforce. These workers have not lost their jobs because of any deficiencies on their part; rather, they have been put in this position by a combination of factors, including the overcapacity in Europe. To be frank, from the minute we came into office, I think the company already intended this closure—it has nothing whatsoever to do with Government policy. I recognise the pressures arising from the existing policy we have inherited, hence the pragmatism on our part as a Government to make sure the policy is working for the transition, but I have no doubt that whether these workers choose to take advantage of the relocation offer or of demand elsewhere, they are brilliant, talented people who will be in demand.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Before I start, I want to put on record that the 1,100 people who will be losing their jobs in Luton today deserved much better than the response from the Conservative Front-Bench representative. It was very far from factual, and very far from serious.
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and welcome any support for Vauxhall workers and their families, who are understandably devastated by Stellantis’s decision, especially this close to Christmas. It follows the closure of the SKF plant in Luton North earlier this year after a century of manufacturing. Like SKF, Vauxhall is, or was, synonymous with Luton. Stellantis’s callous decision will impact our whole town—our whole region, even—so what support will be offered, not just to the skilled and dedicated Vauxhall workers who are losing their jobs but to our town as a whole, to cope with the loss of this manufacturing giant that Luton helped build?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question as well, and echo the sentiments I expressed to her constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins). This whole decision is regrettable, but its timing is particularly regrettable. As I said in my statement, since the new Government came into power on 5 July, we have done everything we can to try to avoid this decision. I reiterated the offers I have made throughout the negotiating process, both in policy flexibility and potential new Government investment in the site, but regrettably it was not possible to change the decision.
I have made clear the support that is available, and I reiterate that promise. I do not want to minimise the impact of this decision in any way, but I believe my hon. Friend’s area is a place of considerable economic strength, with firms in the engineering, aerospace and air travel sectors and in the creative industries. There is a lot to be optimistic about for the future, but I recognise that that does not take away the bitterness of this particular blow for Luton at this time.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I make it clear that Conservative Members regard this as a very grave matter. We are taking it seriously, and we are also dealing in facts. Turning to veracity, then, can we hear whether or not Stellantis raised the question of the eye-watering ZEV mandate fines and asked for them to be lifted?
Jonathan Reynolds
Yes. In the conversations we had with representatives of Stellantis, they raised every aspect of the previous Government’s policy, including the flexibilities, the ability to cap and trade and some of the allowances, and what they would mean for the bottom line. I take those concerns seriously, which is why I am willing—in a way that does not undermine the destination —to consult on how this policy works alongside my colleague the Secretary of State for Transport. Although I understand the previous Government’s aspiration and why they introduced this policy, I do not think that when that decision was made, they considered the kind of falling demand that we have seen in Europe. We have to work pragmatically across all bits of Government to make sure this policy does not lead to the kinds of outcomes that many of us who are aware of how exactly this sector works are concerned about.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and am greatly saddened by Stellantis’s decision. May I suggest that plant and platform rationalisation would have been a major factor? Let us be honest: the industry wanted certainty, but automotive manufacturers faced the challenge of meeting the ZEV mandate introduced by the last Government, which was more stringent than that in Europe and most other markets. Put simply, consumer uncertainty was introduced by the last Government, so I find the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State disingenuous.
Mr Speaker
Order. “Disingenuous” was aimed at a particular person. We do not do that. You have been here long enough to know that, and I am sure you want to withdraw that comment immediately.
Matt Western
I withdraw it, Mr Speaker. Thank you.
I urge the Government to introduce more flexibility in the annual targets from 2024 to 2029, introduce consumer incentives, and consider redirecting any penalties towards EV charging infrastructure, not to Chinese Government car companies.
Jonathan Reynolds
My hon. Friend makes some very good points about the fact that while nearly every major market has policies of this kind, ours operates in a different way from how the French, for example, proceeded with theirs. I agree that the major failing of the former Prime Minister’s speech was to keep this policy in place, but change the destination—that makes no coherent sense whatsoever. Logically, he should have done one or the other; doing both undermines confidence while still not providing the pragmatic flexibilities we are talking about today. The specific points that my hon. Friend has mentioned will all be part of the consultation that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will lead on.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I assure the Secretary of State that I would have put the question I am about to ask to a Conservative Minister equally. If all British car manufacturers came together and told the Government that they could not possibly meet this 2030 goal, would the Government nevertheless persevere in maintaining it as an immovable target?
Jonathan Reynolds
I would recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s fairness and equity whichever side of the House he was sitting on, and I have no doubts about that.
We do listen to those in industry and we have a very close relationship with them, which is why we understand that the destination they want is 2030. The pressures on the system in the next few years are because of this situation, but—I say this in good faith to Conservative Members—I do not believe that the Ministers at the time considered the full set of European and global economic factors when making these decisions. That is why we have to get the balance right. Given that we are an export-led automotive producer, we should also recognise that if we were not ambitious about the transition, we would lose our export markets—we would not have anything to sell, because other countries have such policies and that is where the consumer is going. This is about how we support the transition, and we are working closely with they industry on that.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of Unite the union.
I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House on such a difficult day for the car industry, and all our thoughts are with the workers in Luton today. I thank him for the work he is doing in engaging with the industry and with unions on a better way forward on electric vehicle targets. This news is really disappointing, but does he agree that we can and should be positive about the future of the automotive industry in this country? It matters to me locally as the MP for many businesses in the automotive supply chain, as I know it also matters to many Members across the House.
Jonathan Reynolds
I thoroughly agree with the content and sentiment of my hon. Friend’s question. The support this Government are committed to is about that transition, but we should be excited by what British manufacturers such as Jaguar Land Rover, Nissan and Toyota are doing, and at the luxury end of the market, about McLaren and Rolls-Royce supercars. I could mention all of our iconic brands, and there are a lot of exciting things going on. If hon. Members are not aware of that, all those manufacturers are more than happy to host Members of Parliament coming to visit, so I encourage people to do so. However, they will explain the pressures they are under in the short term, and they will endorse the change of policy this Government are putting forward.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Electric Vehicle Association says that 14 non-governmental organisations, think-tanks and campaign groups are advocating for upholding the ZEV mandate. We have just seen the most devastating storms, which have been dangerously accelerated by climate change. I know that the Government know that net zero is not negotiable. The previous Government persistently undermined the motor manufacturing industry. Will this Government listen to the Electric Vehicle Association, which, after all, is supporting this Government in their ambition to get to net zero?
Jonathan Reynolds
I genuinely appreciate the question coming from that perspective, but this is not just about NGOs. We have been in close contact with big business about charging infrastructure, and I understand the importance of that. I want to make it clear that that is why we are not undermining transition, but are ambitious with the industry about where we will get to. Nothing we propose as a Government will itself reduce or limit the deployment of electric vehicles. What I am talking about, and what we are talking about as a Government, is looking at how, for instance, the flexibilities in the system operate. We are doing everything we can, alongside industry, to get to that destination.
I want nothing to do with the approach of the previous Government, which had a really detrimental effect on the industry, as it will tell any hon. Member very clearly. I am listening to what it means to have this change in economic circumstances in relation to private demand for electric vehicles, and I want to work with industry to get to the place or the destination that I think we both strongly support.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The previous Government were warned before the election, including multiple times in this Chamber, about the damage they were doing to the car industry. The constant changes of policy on net zero, missing targets on the roll-out of charge points and the failure to even allocate the rapid charging fund have all undermined consumer confidence. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that, as soon as possible after his review, he balances the needs of manufacturers of cars and vans with the needs of consumers?
Jonathan Reynolds
I believe my hon. Friend’s analysis is absolutely right, and he and I were in the Chamber on several occasions when that case was made to the previous Government. The intervention from the former Prime Minister was not based on any kind of business or economic logic, but was an attempt to create some sort of wedge issue before the election. Frankly, that did them absolutely no good, because people saw straight through it. I say again that to change the deadline, but keep the existing thresholds in place up until 2030 was the worst of all worlds—it really did have a negative impact on consumer confidence—and we will never repeat those mistakes.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Secretary of State said in his statement that, at the time of the election, Stellantis was minded to close the plant. However, since the election we have had the Budget, which has imposed £25 billion of increased taxes on business, and the Employment Rights Bill, which will also increase costs on business enormously. Both have led directly to a collapse in business confidence. Does the Secretary of State think that those decisions helped Stellantis to stay or go?
Jonathan Reynolds
I can tell the hon. Member categorically that those decisions had no impact whatsoever. This is the crucial point. I hear Conservative Members say this, but do they have any idea about employment conditions in the automotive sector? Those conditions are well above the floor that the Employment Rights Bill will raise them to in the United Kingdom. They should get out and talk to industry and have such conversations—please.
To be clear, on the wider point the hon. Member makes about business confidence, I recognise that the outrageous inheritance this Government walked in on, with Conservative Ministers not even planning to say how they would pay for the promises they had made, created speculation about where the revenue would come from. I regret the fact that we had to make difficult decisions. Ideally, we would not have wanted to make those decisions, but we are the people fixing the foundations and clearing up the mess the Conservative party left behind. There can be no long-term prosperity unless we have a serious Government willing to do that.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I am sure the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), who is a fierce champion for her constituents. Does the Secretary of State agree that the news yesterday only highlights further the urgent need for a UK industrial strategy, and demonstrates the challenges that UK industry faced under the last Government without such a strategy in place?
Jonathan Reynolds
I absolutely echo my hon. Friend’s sentiments about my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire, and I very much agree with her statement about a UK industrial strategy. There have been and are policies relevant to the automotive sector, but what we have lacked for a long time, across a range of key sectors in the UK, are confidence and certainty that those plans will remain. People have talked during this statement about the actions of the previous Prime Minister in that intervention, but that is exactly the opposite of what is required for long-term policy. The advanced manufacturing sector is one of the eight sectors in our industrial strategy. It is a sector of tremendous strengths in the United Kingdom, and our intention is to build on that and grow it to deliver even more success in future, which is why it is such a fundamental part of our plans.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I commiserate with the workers in Luton who will lose their jobs. If Vauxhall is synonymous with Luton, Ford is synonymous with Essex. The Secretary of State referred to 800 Ford job losses, including at its research centre at Dunton, where many of my Rayleigh and Wickford constituents work.
On electric vehicles specifically, I am a free trader by instinct, but what China is doing in that area is way beyond normal competitive practice. It is dumping electric vehicles very cheaply on world markets, a point highlighted by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne). What specifically do the Government intend to do about that to maintain fair competition and give British companies, including Ford and Vauxhall, a fair chance to compete?
Jonathan Reynolds
First, let me reiterate my words about the right hon. Member’s constituents and the situation at Ford. I have faced this accusation before, but if anyone thinks the Government are somehow only listening to one part of industry or are responding to special pleading, the announcement by Ford followed by what we have had from Stellantis this week is proof that we do need to move, to listen and to look at some of the policies we inherited and make sure they are working as they should.
I reiterate my earlier comments to the Chair of the Select Committee. We have not changed the Trade Remedies Authority and the system we inherited. If Ford or any other company wants to make a referral against unfair competitive practices, it can do that, but such a request has not come from any part of the industry to date. I would not for a second describe the Chinese economy as one that operates on the market principles with which we are familiar, but we have to be aware that the fundamental threat from China comes from its commitment to research and development, innovation, high-tech solutions and being able to manufacture at scale. We are kidding ourselves if we think the threat is just unfair competition. That economy has an incredible level of ambition for the future, which is why we have to raise our game as well.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Many of my constituents will be impacted by this deeply worrying announcement, so can the Secretary of State confirm what discussions he is having with trade unions on this specific subject and what plans he has to mitigate the job losses for residents of North East Hertfordshire?
Jonathan Reynolds
Again, I recognise the situation facing my hon. Friend’s constituents, and there will be support on offer from the Government. He asks specifically about conversations with trade unions. I can confirm that I had several conversations just yesterday—for instance, with Sharon Graham, the general secretary of Unite—to ensure that what the Government are doing and what is being negotiated by the recognised union on behalf of the workforce are consistent. I recognise that for many people in the local area, the offer of relocation as part of the deal will not be attractive, as people have links, families and other situations. However, as the details emerge, I promise that I will keep the House and Members of Parliament updated, and work closely with them to ensure that it is everything it can be.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Let us be honest: these job losses are a direct result of net zero and the previous Government’s electric vehicle targets. Is the Secretary of State aware that car manufacturers across Europe are losing fortunes on EV production? They are trying to delay targets, and what we are witnessing is just the beginning of the slow, agonising, painful and tragic destruction of hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs in the UK automotive industry.
Jonathan Reynolds
I certainly agree that we should be honest, and the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the UK automotive sector is simply not correct. All I ask him to do is this: do not listen to the Government or even the Opposition, but go and speak to the industry and the firms involved. He should ask them about their investment plans, and find out why he is so out of touch with industry sentiment. Many of the problems in some other European countries have come from a lack of ambition on transition. Fundamentally, if we are selling 80% of what we make in the UK to other markets, there is no long-term market for internal combustion engines and we must recognise that. Again, the hon. Gentleman should not take it from the Government; he should take it from industry. I am afraid that on this one, as with our exchange on steel a few months ago, he is just out of touch with what consumers and business want.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that unlike the Conservative party, this Labour Government do not regard the words “industrial strategy” as anathema? Does he agree that UK industry in general, and the automotive sector specifically, suffered under the previous Government due to their laissez-faire stand-aside approach?
Jonathan Reynolds
I very much believe that industrial strategy is essential to the future of the United Kingdom. I hoped that this would be supported on a cross-party basis, and I see no reason why Conservative Members, or anyone else, would not support an industrial strategy. Indeed, some Conservative Members, or their predecessors, held positions similar to the one I hold. They got this and believed in it, and did quite a good job in some difficult circumstances within the Conservative party. Yes, an industrial strategy is essential to this Government, and I hope the whole House will get behind our plans for Invest 2035. The response from industry has been superb. It is what we need as a country, and we should all get behind that.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is clearly a sad day for Luton and workers there, but the Secretary of State must remember that this is not just about Luton but about the whole car manufacturing industry, and workers up and down the country in that industry will be saying, “Am I going to be next?” Will the Secretary of State set out his position on conversations that he is having with other car manufacturers to ensure that the same thing does not happen to them?
Jonathan Reynolds
I reiterate the points I made in my statement: this is about the whole sector, and while we walked in to find a certain position with this plant when we formed the Government on 5 July, we recognise that there are also sector-wide issues. That is why we have been having these conversations, and why we are willing to show pragmatism and change some of the policies we have inherited to ensure that they are working for British industry.
The hon. Gentleman asked about specific conversations. As I said in my statement, just last week we had a meeting with all the major UK-based original equipment manufacturers and wider representatives of the sector to talk about the flexibilities that might be required to make this policy work in a way that does not undermine British industry, but gets us to a common destination for industry, Government and consumers together. That is exactly what we are doing, and whatever Conservative Members feel about the previous Government’s policy, I ask them to get behind that ambition.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Success in the transition to electrical vehicles is vital for the west country and Somerset in particular, with the new Agratas battery plant that is coming to Somerset and the port of Bristol, through which go 500,000 vehicles a year. Will the Secretary of State please act to support consumers and consumer confidence by restoring the plug-in grant?
Jonathan Reynolds
I assure the hon. Member that I will do everything I can to bolster consumer confidence. I say all the time that products made in the United Kingdom are great. If people are unaware of just how great they are, they should book themselves a test drive, or visit the production lines and see how brilliant they are. The Agratas factory is an incredible investment and will be significant. I have always said that for the long-term future of this sector we must make batteries in the United Kingdom. Over the long term, vehicles will be made where the batteries are made, and that is a key part of the industrial strategy for the sector.
I cannot make an announcement on the plug-in grant as that is not covered by the Department for Business and Trade, but I confirm to the hon. Member that across the Government, whether in the Treasury, the Department for Transport or the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, we are all united in wanting to make the transition a success, and we are willing to listen to hon. Members like herself and to industry about the policies that are necessary to do that.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
In his statement, the Secretary of State mentioned the job losses at Ford in Dunton in my constituency, and I thank the Minister for Industry for speaking to me on the phone earlier this week about that. I welcome the fast track of the review that the Secretary of State is putting forward. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, and I have spoken to manufacturers about potential Chinese electric car dumping in the UK. Will the Secretary of State comment on that? Concerns have also been raised with me by local car manufacturers about the increase in vehicle excise duty on some models in the Budget. Is there any possibility that some of those measures could be looked at again, as they are having an impact on the demand for such vehicles in the UK?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful that we have been able to get the right hon. Gentleman some time with Ministers regarding the serious situation affecting his constituents. Members of this Government will always take that seriously, as I believe Ministers did under the previous Administration. Vehicle excise duty is a question for the Treasury and the Chancellor, but the differential that exists from changes in the Budget between internal combustion engines and electric vehicles is one of the demand incentives that now exist within the system. Everyone would recognise that the Government should do everything they can to support industry during the transition, and such measures are part of the answer. If the right hon. Gentleman has specific concerns, we will always be willing to listen to those.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
The Secretary of State was robust in his criticism of the previous Government and their approach to the zero emission vehicle mandate, but was he one of the 141 Labour MPs who voted for the ZEV mandate?
Jonathan Reynolds
Let me be clear: we worked constructively on the ZEV mandate that the previous Conservative Government put forward. I believe in incentives towards the transition. I am not arguing against that—I reacted to the sheer brass neck of those on the Opposition Front Bench, who somehow did not even recognise that it was their policy that we were willing to change, and presented the argument as if it was the other way round. I will be robust in saying that the facts are as they are when those on the Opposition Front Bench are not willing to accept them.
We want this transition to work. This is not about the destination or even the thresholds; this is about the flexibilities, how the policy operates, and what that means for market conditions in the United Kingdom. That is an entirely reasonable and proper response to what we found walking through the door as a new Government, and I see no reason why people cannot pragmatically get on board and support that.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
One thing stopping some of my constituents from transitioning to electric vehicles is a lack of access to charging points. As a constituency neighbour, the Secretary of State will know that some of the housing stock in my patch lends itself more easily to personalised charging points than other parts. What more can the Government do to ensure that everyone can access charging points to make the transition to EVs?
Jonathan Reynolds
I agree that that is one concern that consumers have. The principal concern for consumers on EV take-up is the cost of the vehicle. The hon. Member will know from our constituencies that in some places, it is difficult to envisage the kind of infrastructure that people take for granted in areas that have more capacity to have it built into properties and driveways. There are about 70,000 public EV chargers in the United Kingdom, and there is not always equity across different parts of the country. A lot of people are surprised to learn that we have more public chargers than Norway, for instance, which is very much the leader in electric vehicle roll-out. There was money in the Budget to expand the roll-out of charge points and build on the 70,000 already in place, but the hon. Member is right to say that that is a key concern. We must consider not just the overall number of charging points, but the equity of those around the country, and I promise that the Department for Transport is interested in that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and in particular for his honesty. It is important to have that when we look at the bleak things we have before us.
The Secretary of State will understand that with the cost of living crisis that our constituents are struggling through, the last thing on their minds is to afford—forgive me—an all-singing, all-dancing electric car; they are clearly struggling to pay their electric bills. The closure of the plant, which highlights the lack of passion for electric cars, can come as no surprise. What can the Government do to make electric cars affordable for everyone, which would enhance the need for car manufacturers once again?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question and the way in which he put it. He is right that cost of living concerns are paramount. We have also got to recognise that the cost of petrol and diesel is often a key consideration in overall household finances.
The hon. Member asked specifically about what we can do to bring down the cost. It is about co-investing with industry in the most efficient forms of production. He mentioned an all-singing, all-dancing EV, but there is a whole range of vehicles available. Many of our producers have led on family cars. The Nissan Leaf is a great example of that, made by some of my former school friends in Sunderland. We should get behind that and talk about how great those products are. But, fundamentally, we need now to bring down not just the cost of the charging infrastructure but the unit cost. That can be done only by investment in efficient production and scale production. That is why the destination is so important. Working with industry on that destination is key to delivering the outcomes that I think he and I want.
Respect Orders and Antisocial Behaviour
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the Government’s action to tackle antisocial behaviour.
From residential neighbourhoods to busy high streets, from rolling countryside to city centres and from idyllic villages to bustling towns, the places of Britain should be a source of local pride. As well as being safe, they should feel safe for those who live and work in them, yet the dismal reality is that in too many areas the opposite is true. In the last year of the previous Government, shop theft soared by 29% to a 20-year high, street theft surged by 40% and antisocial behaviour reached new heights in our towns and cities. That is the Conservative party’s legacy on law and order.
Up and down the country, people feel uneasy or even unsafe. Unruly gangs roam the streets, creating intimidation and fear, noisy off-road vehicles speed around, disturbing the peace, illegal drugs are abused with brazenness, public spaces are awash with litter and graffiti, and an epidemic of shop theft is plaguing retailers big and small while their staff are subjected to intolerable levels of abuse and violence.
At its core, this is about respect: respect between citizens, respect for our society and the expectations underpinning it, and respect for the rule of law. All those are woven into the fabric of our democracy, but, after years of neglect, that fabric has become worn. We saw a disgraceful illustration of that in the summer when serious disorder erupted in some towns and cities. We see it on a smaller scale every day as decent, law-abiding people suffer due to the selfishness of others.
More than a third of people—36%—in England and Wales report experiencing or witnessing some type of antisocial behaviour in their local area, while about a million incidents of antisocial behaviour were recorded by police in the year to June 2024. We must never make the mistake of dismissing this menace as low-level or trivial; to do so would be an insult to the victims. It may manifest itself in different ways in different areas, but wherever and however it occurs there is an adverse impact on neighbourhoods and communities.
Antisocial behaviour chips away at people’s sense of pride and confidence in their local area. It ruins their enjoyment of public spaces. For those affected by the most serious and persistent cases, their quality of life is damaged. One victim quoted in a report on antisocial behaviour published recently by the Victims Commissioner said this:
“Every day I’m crying…It makes me anxious…and it actually makes me physically sick.”
Another said:
“It’s totally isolating and nobody can understand the pressure it puts on you.”
I am sure that all hon. Members across the House will be familiar with accounts like those from the all-too-frequent interactions we have with our constituents on these issues.
Earlier this month, I visited Leyton in east London, where I heard from local councillors about the importance of partners working together to tackle antisocial behaviour. More recently, the Home Secretary and I met victims of antisocial behaviour and shop theft, Annie Valentine and Brian Roberts from Blackpool and Tim Nye from Sheffield, to hear about their concerns at first hand.
This cannot go on, and the Government will not stand for it. That is why the Prime Minister has made safer streets a central pillar of our agenda for change. A key part of that mission is the work that the Home Secretary is leading alongside police to put visible neighbourhood policing back at the heart of our communities. By restoring that crucial link between police forces and the people they serve, we will ensure that residents and businesses have the reassurance they want and need as well as deterring would-be offenders. As we implement our neighbourhood policing guarantee, we are determined to tackle antisocial behaviour head on. Today, I can update the House on that work.
To turn things around and effectively combat the problem, it is clear that fresh impetus is needed, which is why we committed in our manifesto to introducing respect orders, which will enable tough restrictions to be placed on the worst adult perpetrators of antisocial behaviour. Those subject to a respect order could be banned from a town centre as well as being compelled to address the root cause of their behaviour—for example, through mandated alcohol and drug treatment. The orders will be applied for by the police, by councils or by social housing providers and issued by the courts.
Importantly, there will be a power of arrest available for all suspected breaches, protecting communities and town centres from further harm. We are going even further: anyone who breaches a respect order will have committed a criminal offence and may face up to two years’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine or a community order. These new powers will be piloted first to ensure that they are as effective as possible.
We will also crack down on the scourge of off-road bikes in public parks, dangerous e-scooters on pavements and street racing, all of which inflict misery on local communities. Under strengthened police powers, officers will no longer be required to issue a warning before seizing vehicles involved in antisocial behaviour.
Retail crime harms lives and livelihoods and be must dealt with as the serious threat that it is. We will introduce a new, specific offence of assaulting a retail worker and we will end the effective immunity for shop theft of goods under £200.
The task of making our country safer will not be completed overnight, but this is a Government of action. The work of change is under way and, as we step up this vital effort, we are guided by the simple and unshakeable belief that our streets belong to the decent, law-abiding majority. For far too long, gangs, yobs and thieves have been running amok, and that is not going to happen any more. Under this Government, the safety and security of the public will always come first. We will be unrelenting in our mission to restore respect and take back our streets.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her statement and for advance sight of it. It is not right that anyone should live in fear of intimidation in the place that they call home. Antisocial behaviour has real consequences—it can ruin communities and prevent people from making the most of their local area. Antisocial behaviour can make women and girls feel unsafe walking home at night, and it can have a huge impact on shops and businesses if customers are left feeling unsafe visiting their high streets and town centres.
We welcome any focus on antisocial behaviour and efforts to tackle it, but tackling it requires more than a press release or a rebrand. Those in the sector have described the proposed respect orders as wholly unnecessary and near-identical to existing powers already held by the police. We will engage with the Government as proposals are brought forward, but we are keen to see meaningful action rather than just the renaming of public space protection orders and criminal behaviour orders. Changing names will not change outcomes.
The last Government launched the antisocial behaviour action plan, backed by £160 million worth of funding and over 100,000 hours of police and other uniformed patrols, undertaken to target antisocial behaviour hotspots. As of February 2024, our plan led to nearly 600 additional arrests, close to 1,500 stop and searches and around 700 uses of antisocial behaviour powers such as community protection orders and public protection orders.
My own Labour police and crime commissioner in Cleveland has commended the huge contribution made by the last Government’s hotspot policing initiative. Uniform patrols delivered by local authority wardens in Cleveland clocked up a total of 7,685 hours on the streets of Stockton, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough and Redcar. As a result, between 23 September and 24 August, the police reported that incidents of antisocial behaviour were down by 21% in hotspot areas. We also banned nitrous oxide and increased fines for fly-tipping, littering and graffiti, all of which are a blight on our communities. The Conservative Government made sure that the police had the tools to discourage antisocial behaviour, and dedicated funding to support police and crime commissioners to target enforcement in the areas where antisocial behaviour is most prevalent.
The police play a vital role in tackling antisocial behaviour and keeping our communities safe. The Conservative Government invested over £3 billion, including additional funding each year. That rolled into Government grants to enable the recruitment of 20,000 additional police officers—a Government priority and a manifesto commitment. By March this year, the police headcount hit 149,769—a record number of police, and 3,000 higher than previous records. Last year, the Conservative Government arranged a £922 million increase in funding for frontline policing for this financial year—something I hope will be matched next year. Does the Minister agree that in order to tackle antisocial behaviour, we must ensure that police have the necessary resources and support?
The right hon. Lady spoke about Labour’s manifesto commitment to provide 13,000 additional police officers, police community support officers and specials, but has failed to set out any of the detail of when those officers will be recruited and which forces will receive those additional officers. Can she explain how these respect orders are different from the failed antisocial behaviour orders, or the existing public space protection orders or criminal behaviour orders? Our action plan puts safety, security and a basic respect for others at its heart. Will she commit to continuing the hotspot policing initiative, especially as we can already see the results across the country? I know I have asked before, but I never quite managed to get an answer: the last Government increased funding for frontline policing by £922 million for this year—will the Government match that increase next year?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for acknowledging in his opening comments the effect that antisocial behaviour can have on communities and on individuals. But during the rest of his response, he seemed to have lapsed back into that condition that affects a number of right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches: amnesia about what happened over the course of their 14 years in power, including the vicious cuts to policing, with over 20,000 police officers and thousands of police staff cut. Trying to ignore the legacy that we have inherited and are having to deal with today is not satisfactory from the Dispatch Box.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am going to answer the questions, if the hon. Lady will give me an opportunity to do so. [Interruption.] I think a little courtesy in the House is helpful. We are talking about antisocial behaviour, and a number of my comments were about respect, which is very important in this House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Can we have less noise and heckling from the Back Benches?
Dame Diana Johnson
I have always tried to be respectful to all Members of this House, and I will now try to deal with some of the points made by the shadow Minister.
The most important point for the shadow Minister to understand is that respect orders are different from criminal behaviour orders—I do not think he quite understood that. Criminal behaviour orders are attached where there is a conviction, and the Crown Prosecution Service applies in court for that criminal behaviour order. Respect orders will not require a conviction. They will be made on application to court by councils, social housing providers and the police. A power of arrest will be attached if they are breached, and that individual will be brought before the magistrates court if that breach happens. They are different from a criminal behaviour order. They are also different in the sense that they are not community protection notices, which I think the shadow Minister referred to, which are for lower-level environmental antisocial behaviour issues.
In the conversations I have had with individuals in the sector and organisations that work in this field, respect orders got a lot of support. We want to pilot them. We want to make sure that they will work fully when we bring them in across the country. I am confident that they will provide the flexibility of a civil injunction, which is what deals with antisocial behaviour at the moment. But if a civil injunction is breached, the police officer has to take the individual to court to prove the breach. There is no automatic power of arrest. That is the difference from the respect order. It combines the flexibility of the civil injunction with the teeth of the criminal behaviour order. I hope that explains to the shadow Minister why respect orders are a very positive development to deal with antisocial behaviour.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I welcome the measures that the Minister has set out today and the Government’s commitment to tackling antisocial behaviour, which is an urgent issue in my constituency, particularly in town centres. But the most urgent issue that we face in tackling these issues is the number of police officers. My hon. Friend will be aware that the previous Government allocated funding to recruit police officers, and then withdrew it when the Met was unable to meet its target due to a set of unique challenges in London. Can my right hon. Friend give her firm assurance that the unique challenges facing the Met are fully understood, and that the Government will provide it with the resources that it needs to tackle this very serious issue in our communities?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. The Met makes up almost a quarter of overall policing. It plays a very important part in policing London, but it also has other responsibilities at national level—counter-terrorism and so on. Decisions on funding are being taken at the moment. The House will be informed in the normal way next month about the provisional settlements for policing, but I hear my hon. Friend concerns very clearly.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Liberal Democrats spokesperson, who knows that she has a maximum of two minutes.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Across my constituency, whether in Heaviley, Woodley, Marple or High Lane, illegal off-road bikers are a persistent blight on the community. They intimidate people, endanger public safety and are generally noisy, antisocial and really annoying. I was interested to read the Home Secretary’s comments on respect orders over the weekend and the Minister’s statement today; I thank the Minister for advanced sight of it.
My local Greater Manchester police officers tell me the challenge in tackling these off-road bikes, often ridden by young people, is not a lack of powers, but the difficulty of gathering evidence and a lack of tools to identify and actually catch offenders, who often evade them on these bikes. How will the Government ensure that local police have the time, resources and practical support needed to enforce these new measures effectively?
We already know what is most effective at stopping crime. It is proper community policing, where officers are visible, trusted and out and about in their local neighbourhoods—bobbies on the beat who know their community and prevent crime every day. The previous Conservative Government decimated frontline police numbers, leaving local forces overstretched and making our communities less safe. I would welcome details from the Minister on how the Government plan to address this situation, and in particular the cuts to numbers of police community support officers, who play a crucial role in tackling antisocial behaviour.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments and questions. First, the specific issue we want to address is giving the police the powers they need to deal with the antisocial behaviour that is being caused by off-road bikes and e-bikes. The hon. Lady also spoke about what else the police need to be able to implement those changes effectively, and I will contact her with more details on that. I will certainly talk to the police about what more we can do to support them.
As to the neighbourhood policing guarantee and our commitment to put 13,000 police officers, PCSOs and specials into our neighbourhoods, I am sure the hon. Lady will recognise that we are five months into this Government. We are working as hard as we can to get plans in place. We are doing this work with policing. We want to ensure that the police are with us on this and that we have everything set up to allow that to happen smoothly, and those announcements will be made in due course. I want to reassure the House that making that happen is probably my No. 1 priority.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s plans to introduce respect orders to tackle the scourge of antisocial behaviour. I hear from my constituents in Battersea all the time on their concerns and worries about antisocial behaviour in parts of our community. Can the Minister confirm that the new orders will also include public drinking and drug use to ensure that our communities are safe and free from harm and nuisance?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we want to address issues such as street drinking and taking drugs. The whole idea of a respect order will be restrictive in the sense that an individual may be told that they can no longer be in a certain area, such as on the high street, in a town centre or in a park. However, positive conditions will also be attached: if there were issues around someone street drinking, they could attend courses for alcohol addiction; they could attend courses or treatment for drug addiction; if it was appropriate, they could attend courses on anger. In that way, we will be dealing with the problem in the area, but also trying to treat the underlying issue with the individual who has caused the antisocial behaviour.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I certainly support the Minister’s intent in bringing this forward, but I am still struggling to understand what the material difference is between these respect orders and antisocial behaviour orders. If it is the case that they are materially different, will the Minister say in what respects they are, and will she say to what extent that will be based on perception by a complainant? We have recently had considerable controversy around perception of an allegation and its effects in non-crime hate incidents, which has caused all manner of problems and bogged the police down in a whole load of controversy. I am sure the Minister would want to avoid that with this particular measure.
Dame Diana Johnson
I say first to the right hon. Gentleman that changes were made to the antisocial behaviour legislation in 2014; in fact, it was weakened. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in coalition decided to weaken the antisocial behaviour powers that the previous Labour Government had brought in. That is the first thing to mention.
What we have ended up with are the civil injunctions. As I tried to explain earlier on—perhaps I need to do it again, and be a little clearer—civil injunctions can be issued for antisocial behaviour, but if they are breached by someone behaving antisocially in a town centre or on a high street, the police have to go to court to prove the breach. That is the issue. They cannot be arrested, and the antisocial behaviour cannot be stopped at that point. There is a process that has to be gone through. With the respect orders, there will be an automatic arrest for breach, which means action can be taken far more quickly. That is the key point.
The criminal behaviour orders, which we discussed earlier as well, can be attached only to someone who has been convicted. Those orders are about trying to nip the antisocial behaviour that is causing “harassment, alarm or distress”—that is the definition that is used. That is the level necessary to be able to apply for a respect order.
I hope that explains to the right hon. Gentleman the difference and why we think the way to go forward is to deal with things through arrest and get people in front of a court if they breach respect orders.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I say to the Minister that detailed answers are very well enjoyed here, but we have a lot of people to get in with this statement. I call a member of the Home Affairs Committee.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
In a recent survey of residents of Telford, it was overwhelmingly clear that they had had enough of the inaction of the past 14 years. I welcome the respect orders coming into the police officer toolkit. Can the Minister confirm that they will give the authorities the power to seize and crush off-road bikes, to seize booze off drunken yobs and to deal with those who consume drugs in our town centres? We also need a return to neighbourhood policing, so that we have coppers back on the streets, patrolling their communities.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am mindful of your instruction, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I can absolutely say that this is about rebuilding that neighbourhood presence to put those police officers, PCSOs and specials back in our communities and deal with exactly the issues that my hon. Friend has raised, with people drinking, taking drugs, riding vehicles and causing harassment, alarm, and distress.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I thank the Minister for her statement and warmly welcome it. She is right to mention neighbourhood policing. Does she agree with the Met commissioner, Mark Rowley, that local police stations are critical to neighbourhood policing, and whether she will pledge to stop the closure of local police stations that occurred under the Conservatives and under previous Labour Administrations? That includes Wimbledon police station, which remains under threat six years after I won my judicial review, stopping its closure.
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Gentleman will know that where police stations are located and how many there are is a matter for police and crime commissioners, or, in the case of the Metropolitan police, for the Mayor of London and the deputy Mayor. Those are not decisions that I or any Minister would be involved in; they are operational decisions for PCCs and the Mayor.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today. Every week, I meet residents who very sadly have their lives disturbed, and sometimes even ruined, by appalling crime and antisocial behaviour, so I am delighted that the Minister is bringing forward these clearly well thought through and well explained measures. Would she perhaps consider Reading for one of the pilot schemes in this very important set of measures?
Dame Diana Johnson
There are many right hon. and hon. Members who are pitching for their constituencies to be one of the pilots, and I will certainly add Reading to the list.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Antisocial behaviour affects all our constituencies, including my constituency of Broxbourne. Some antisocial behaviour can be very localised—down a specific street, in a block of flats or between neighbours—and some of the levers to solve that antisocial behaviour lie with housing associations. Will the Minister outline how we can bring housing associations to the table? They will play a key role in solving and tackling antisocial behaviour.
Dame Diana Johnson
As I said in my remarks, housing associations and social housing providers will be able to apply for respect orders. I ought to say, as well, that the existing civil injunctions will be renamed as housing injunctions, which will deal with that more low-level antisocial behaviour between neighbours. Housing associations might want to use those as well, but they will be able to use both respect orders and housing injunctions.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Does she agree that the biggest boost to antisocial behaviour we have seen in recent times was the cut of 21,000 police officers by the previous Tory Government, which resulted in the decimation of our local safer neighbourhood police teams? I really welcome her commitment to bringing them back. In addition, the London-hating Conservatives cut the London police budget, so much so that we have a black hole in the budget now that is forcing the commissioner to cut officers. Can she assure me that she is aware of that and will address it, so that we can start to put safer neighbourhood teams back where my constituents in Eltham and Chislehurst want to see them?
Dame Diana Johnson
It is always helpful to have experienced and long-standing Members of Parliament to remind us of what has actually happened, because, as I pointed out earlier, there seems to be some amnesia on the Opposition Benches.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
An estimated 60,000 hours of police time was spent on non-crime hate incidents in the past 12 months, and we already hear about burglaries not being investigated for lack of police time. So, while welcoming the description of the problem, how is it to be solved unless chief constables are to be directed to reorder their priorities?
Dame Diana Johnson
The Government have made very clear our priorities for policing: protecting the public, as I talked about today; rebuilding neighbourhood policing; tackling town centre crime; tackling antisocial behaviour; tackling the scourge of knife crime; and halving violence against women and girls in the next decade. The Home Secretary has also been very clear about the common-sense approach that needs to be adopted when dealing with non-crime hate incidents. We are working with His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, and the College of Policing, on how best that can be done. It is vital though—I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree—that police forces are able to track and monitor information and intelligence that might be helpful if there is going to be further criminal activity or serious social harm, and community cohesion will be affected. Capturing that is something police forces need to do.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
In Doncaster, along with many other areas across the country, antisocial behaviour, fly-tipping, shoplifting and off-road bikes are blighting our communities and our high streets. As a former prison officer, I know that in dealing with these issues it is critical that we tackle the causes and pathways to crime in the first place. What are the Government doing to make it a priority to tackle the causes as well as the crimes themselves?
Dame Diana Johnson
I welcome my hon. Friend; her experience as a former prison officer will be invaluable in this place, bringing that knowledge to share in our debates. She is absolutely right; prevention, which has been ignored for too long, is really important, particularly in relation to young people. That is why we will set up the Young Futures programme—the youth hubs—to, as the Home Secretary said, wrap our arms around those teenagers who might be getting into trouble, making the wrong decisions, and getting involved in things that they should not be involved in, and we will have that preventive pathway to ensure that they start to take the right steps forward.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
My constituent Linda, along with other members of my community, is extremely concerned about antisocial behaviour in Burgess Hill. Car racing, e-scooters and bike thefts are causing fear and distress to residents across the town. As the Minister noted in her statement, the impact of that behaviour should not be minimised. I have raised these issues with both Sussex police and the police and crime commissioner. What can the Minister do to ensure that Sussex police have sufficient resources to stop a small number of perpetrators having a disproportionate effect on law-abiding constituents across Mid Sussex?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Sussex Members of Parliament are listening very closely to the Minister.
Dame Diana Johnson
Announcements on the provisional police settlement will be made in the usual way next month. The Home Secretary has already indicated that an additional half a billion pounds will be made available for policing. That has already been announced. With regard to the direct figures for Sussex, I am afraid that the hon. Lady and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will have to wait a few more days.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I never thought that I would see the day when we had Conservative Members arguing against more powers to increase the safety of our communities up and down the country—it is absolutely gobsmacking. I, for one, absolutely support what the Minister is bringing in today in relation to respect orders. My constituents feel the impact of antisocial behaviour very keenly, but they will want some assurance from the Minister that there will be sufficient police officers and PCSOs available to issue respect orders in a timely manner. Can she do that, please?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. It is rather odd that the picture painted by the Opposition is that all the powers are there so everything is fine and why do we need to change things, when it is quite clear to the vast majority of people, I think, that things are not fine and the powers and the legislation are not working as we need them to. That is why we are bringing forward these additional respect orders and the neighbourhood policing guarantee—the 13,000 police officers, specials and PCSOs who we want to have back in our community to actually use the legislation and get antisocial behaviour under control.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Antisocial behaviour is a blight on our communities and I agree that the police should be given the resources to tackle it. In my constituency, Cambridgeshire Constabulary is overstretched. In the past week, the Policing Minister has twice dismissed my question as to whether she would review the police allocation formula so that it receives its fair share of funding, and my constituents have noticed. Will she review the formula? If not, how will the Government meet their guarantee for neighbourhood policing?
Dame Diana Johnson
Can I just say to the hon. Gentleman that I have not dismissed anything? I am very conscious of and take seriously my responsibilities in the allocation of resources for policing. We have been in power for five months and we have to announce next month the provisional police settlement for 2025-26. Those figures will be announced in a few weeks’ time. As to whether we want to look longer term at resources, we of course keep that all under review. But for the moment, the thing I think most MPs are concerned about is the allocation for next year. That is what I am working on at the moment. That is the thing the Home Secretary is working on. We are trying to do our best and the Home Secretary has already announced an additional half a billion pounds for policing.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that an important component of ensuring that our streets belong to law-abiding citizens is the good work of councils such as mine, for example in providing highly professional community wardens with enforcement powers, working in partnership with business improvement district rangers and the police? Does she agree that that innovative approach to the antisocial behaviour ecosystem might lend itself to Rugby being high up the list to be a pilot?
Dame Diana Johnson
I will certainly add Rugby to the list. My hon. Friend makes an important point about how this cannot just be done with the police alone; it has to be done alongside councils. I commend the use of community wardens, who are a great resource for communities in dealing with antisocial behaviour. Social housing providers are also key. This has to be about partnership working.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I welcome the commitment to neighbourhood policing that will help Cheltenham fight its problems with graffiti and illegal e-bikes, but when I talk to my local police commissioner he warns me that he is expecting to have to work very hard to maintain the force’s current headcount because of budgetary pressures in the coming year. Can the Minister explain the apparent disconnect between the concerns of the commissioner locally and the Government’s statement today?
Dame Diana Johnson
I do not think anybody is pretending that we have inherited a positive, rosy economic settlement from the previous Government. We are having to make difficult decisions and tough choices. What is very clear is that the security and safety of the British people is the No. 1 issue for this Government, and that the Home Secretary—as I have now said, I think, three times—has already said there is additional funding for policing next year. Additional funding was put into police forces up and down the country this year to fund the pay increase to police officers, which had not been in the budget that the previous Government had set for this year. We have already put in additional money, and we will be doing so next year as well.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
Illegal bikes are an absolute menace for people in Tilehurst, and indeed for all my constituents. I welcome the tough and swift action that the Government are taking on illegal bikes and antisocial behaviour, issues about which the Conservatives were clearly far too relaxed when they were in government. As well as associating myself with the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), may I ask the Minister whether there will be new powers for the police to seize illegal bikes, get them off our streets and tackle this terrible problem?
Dame Diana Johnson
I hear very clearly that those bikes, along with off-road motorbikes, are a problem up and down the country, and we are looking at that. What we can announce today is that we will be getting rid of the requirement for a warning, but we are certainly considering what else we need to do to ensure that the problem is dealt with properly by the police.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s commitment to tackling antisocial behaviour. There is a particular problem in Fore Street, in my constituency, where those who abuse drugs and alcohol gather and make a nuisance of themselves. Will she please consider adding Bridgwater to her list of possible candidates for the pilot scheme?
Dame Diana Johnson
I must say that I am very pleased to hear a Conservative Member of Parliament asking to be added to our list of pilot areas for the respect orders. I will certainly do that.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I wish to associate myself with the comments that have been made about the scourge of illegal motorbikes. They are a particular scourge in communities across Tipton, Wednesbury and Coseley. One of my favourite pledges in the Labour party’s manifesto was the pledge to seize those bikes without notice and crush them within 48 hours. Can the Minister tell us how soon we will get on with crushing the bikes?
Dame Diana Johnson
Today I am able to say that we are going to do that. My hon. Friend will have to wait a little longer for the details and the timetable, but that is certainly my intention.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I welcomed much of the Minister’s statement. Shoplifting is a significant problem in my constituency, and shop workers in Littleport and Ely have recently told me how threatened they feel and how stressful it is. What will she do to ensure that our local police—who, as we have heard, are very stretched—have the resources and capacity needed to attend shoplifting incidents and deal with the criminals?
Dame Diana Johnson
What I often hear from shopkeepers and shop workers is that they do not report shop theft because they think no one will come and nothing will be done. That is one reason why the neighbourhood policing guarantee—bringing police officers back to our high streets and town and village centres—is so important. Those shop workers and shop owners will know that there is a visible police presence to deter but also to deal with those who try to shoplift; that action will be taken against them; and that there will be consequences for people who steal. We are getting rid of the £200 threshold and saying, “If you steal, that is a criminal offence and there are consequences.” During the riots in the summer, people in my own constituency in Hull were looting in shops, thinking that there were no consequences. There are consequences for theft.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
I recently held a public meeting about the concerning rise of antisocial behaviour in Haxby, and I want to thank the deputy mayor of York and North Yorkshire, Jo Coles, Haxby town council, the police and the local community for their efforts. Does my right hon. Friend agree that respect orders could play a key role in reducing antisocial behaviour in the town, and will she meet me to discuss this in more detail?
Dame Diana Johnson
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. I think that what he has described demonstrates the role of partnership working in dealing with antisocial behaviour.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Rural crime is defined as crime and antisocial behaviour occurring in rural areas, which is very logical, but in my region just 0.24% of staff in the local police force are dedicated to rural crime units, despite the significant impact on communities in places such as Brecon and Ystradgynlais. Does the Minister agree with the Liberal Democrat proposal that every police force should have a specialist co-ordinator in its rural crime team, in line with recommendations from the National Rural Crime Network?
Dame Diana Johnson
I take crime, urban or rural, very seriously. The neighbourhood policing guarantee, for example, is not just about urban areas; it has to cover rural areas as well. People living in rural areas should feel that when they need the police, the police will come, and that there is a police presence in their communities. I am happy to discuss rural crime further with the hon. Gentleman, if there are specific points that he wishes to raise with me.
Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)
Since I was elected, there has been a constant stream of antisocial behaviour incidents across the towns that I represent, at Hindley Town and Ashton Athletic football clubs and in Platt Bridge and Winstanley. It really dents people’s pride in the towns that they live in, as the Minister said. Does she agree that the capacity for councils and housing associations to apply for and issue respect orders is a vital part of the new powers that she has announced today?
Dame Diana Johnson
Yes, I absolutely agree. This is not just about the police; it has to involve councils, social housing providers and the other agencies that will tackle, together, the scourge of antisocial behaviour.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her statement. Does she agree that antisocial behaviour is a plague throughout the United Kingdom, and that the remedy lies across several Departments? Obviously an increase in community policing is vital, but so too is youth sector funding to create safe spaces for our young people. Does she agree that we need investment across multiple Departments, dealing with matters from policing to education to communities? What discussions has she had with her Cabinet colleagues to ascertain whether such a joined-up approach could be more effective?
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Gentleman has expressed very eloquently the role of mission-led government that this party is taking on. The mission on safer streets, which covers antisocial behaviour, is cross-governmental. It is not just about the Home Office, although we are the lead Government body in this context; it has to encompass all the other parts of Government, as well as local authorities and housing providers. This has to be a partnership, and it has to be cross-governmental.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Antisocial behaviour is sadly a blight on our town centre in St Austell, but also on many smaller clay country villages in my constituency. I therefore welcome the Minister’s announcement on respect orders, and invite the Government to pilot them in St Austell. What impact does the Minister expect these orders to have, when it comes to revitalising our once thriving town centres?
Dame Diana Johnson
I will add my hon. Friend’s constituency to the list. Our purpose in piloting respect orders is to see what works and what the effect is, but we are confident that the ability to arrest someone who breaches an order will speed things up. We hear the complaint that when people are subject to antisocial behaviour orders, there has to be a long process of going to court and proving the breach. This is about arresting and dealing with the person who breaches an order quickly.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s announcement, not just as a former Crown prosecutor but because the towns in my constituency are sadly not immune from antisocial behaviour. We often see a small group of people repeatedly committing this offence in our towns. Does the Minister agree that respect orders will be a useful intervention tool for dealing with repeat offenders, and for tackling the root causes of their behaviour?
Dame Diana Johnson
I welcome my hon. Friend to these exchanges. Her experience as a former Crown prosecutor is valuable and useful. She is right: it is usually a small group of people who engage in antisocial behaviour. We will deal with prolific offenders not just by using respect orders but by giving them something positive that they need, such as drug or alcohol addiction treatment or anger management courses, to try to solve the underlying problems.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
Residents in Kenrick Way, in West Brom, dread Friday and Saturday nights, because selfish people race their cars up and down the street, causing deafening noise and extremely dangerous crashes. This has been going on for years and years, despite the efforts of Sandwell council and the West Midlands police. What will today’s announcement do to stop the racers and give residents in West Brom some peace and quiet?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend raises an issue that we have talked about a lot this afternoon. Under the law at the moment, there has to be a warning given before any action can be taken to deal with people who are racing and causing harm and distress with the vehicles that they are using. This is about getting rid of the requirement for a warning, so that action can be taken in a far more speedy way.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
May I add St Helens to the list of places that are interested in being a pilot area? I warmly welcome today’s announcement. As the Minister and others have said, there is nothing low-level about antisocial behaviour. It can destroy lives and communities, and it is right that we take it seriously. I am particularly pleased to hear about the steps taken to protect shop workers, and to hear that shoplifting will be taken seriously. Can the Minister tell me a bit more about how that might help shop workers in St Helens North? Does she agree that although it is great that we are giving the police more powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, they need resources to make a real difference in our communities?
Dame Diana Johnson
I will certainly add my hon. Friend’s constituency to the list—it is growing, which is always positive. Proposals on retail crime and assaults on retail workers will be included in the crime and policing Bill next year. It is important to remember that people have campaigned for a stand-alone offence for many years, and there is now cross-party support for the offence, thanks to the campaigning of USDAW and the Co-op over many years.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I welcome today’s announcement on respect orders, which will be extremely welcome news for my constituents in Leeds South West and Morley. It is so good to finally have a Government who will deal with the scourge of antisocial behaviour. I have sat with constituents who have been in tears as they explained how their neighbour was making their life hell. Constituents have told me, at my surgery, that the police and the council’s antisocial behaviour teams had no power to act. Respect orders finally offer us the chance to change that. In the Minister’s statement, she said that respect orders would be reserved for the worst offenders. I can think of several people who would fit that criterion, so what reassurance will she give my constituents that it will be applied as liberally as possible?
Dame Diana Johnson
The definition that I gave earlier—causing harassment, alarm or distress—will be used when respect orders are applied for. I ought to say that civil injunctions will remain in place when it comes to housing, so those can be used. Respect orders will be only for adults; for young people, the youth injunction will still be available, and there are sanctions within that. There will be a range of ways that antisocial behaviour can be tackled, using either respect orders or the reformed civil injunctions.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
Hemel Hempstead has some of the worst antisocial behaviour in our part of the county. We have hotspots such as Livingstone Walk, Hosking Court, Waveney and Swallowfields, where there are issues such as drug use, boy racers with modified exhausts, abandoned vehicles, shoplifting and drunken noise; I have seen the evidence of that while out on the streets with local police. Fortunately, Hemel police are carrying out a great pilot project in Grovehill to try to clear the area, rebuild relations and deal with the thugs there. Could the Policing Minister kindly outline how the new respect orders will help Hemel police to do that great work, and will she join me in paying tribute to them for the work that they do to clean up our streets?
Dame Diana Johnson
I will absolutely join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the police and other partner agencies, such as councils and housing associations, for the work that they already do. There is a great deal of good work going on around the country, and we need to build on that and give the police and others the powers that they need to take the action that they want to take on antisocial behaviour, which has just grown and grown in recent times. I wonder whether my hon. Friend would like to add his constituency to the list of pilot areas.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
For too many communities, antisocial behaviour has become a nightmare, but my constituents in Bracknell are literally losing sleep over noisy and dangerous off-road bikes, which are being driven on footpaths, often late at night, so they will really welcome the tough new powers announced in the statement. Does the Minister believe that those powers will finally allow my constituents to get a good night’s sleep?
Dame Diana Johnson
We all know the importance of a good night’s sleep, so I hope very much that respect orders will go some way towards delivering that. There may be additional things that we need to do, but it is at least a start to remove the requirement for a warning before action can be taken to get these vehicles off our roads, parks and pavements, because they are causing such problems.
Madam Deputy Speaker
We have saved the best till last. I call Andrew Pakes.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
I think there is an unwritten rule in this House that whoever asks the last question gets to be top of the pilot list. Given its beautiful cathedral and wonderful diversity, Peterborough city centre is the jewel in Cambridgeshire’s crown, as I am sure that county colleagues present will agree, but we are being let down by the rise in antisocial behaviour. Shoplifting, street drinking, theft and intimidation are the big issues raised with me by residents, businesses and Peterborough Positive, our fantastic business improvement district. Does the Minister recognise the sheer anger that the British public feel about the fact that antisocial behaviour has not been dealt with, and about the way that they have been ghosted by the Conservative party, which, when it comes to dealing with antisocial behaviour, told them that they never had it so good? Will she explain to the House how the measures announced today will help restore trust and faith in the ability of the Government to address antisocial behaviour?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend is the last to ask a question, but it was a very important one. He is absolutely right: there is a huge amount of anger about how things were allowed to get to this point. There is complacency around the fact that there have been huge cuts to policing over the years, and there has not been the investment in neighbourhood policing that we need. Where we are is testament to that, and it is why we have to tackle antisocial behaviour.
My hon. Friend also makes an important point about businesses, which are part of how we tackle the scourge of antisocial behaviour in town centres. We are working with businesses, and are encouraging small businesses to team up with BIDs and other groups in their city centres, so that they work together and get information to help them deal with shoplifting.
Point of Order
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At Northern Ireland Office questions this morning, there was not a single MP from Northern Ireland on the Order Paper. This has happened before. I have no criticism whatsoever of Mr Speaker, who usually succeeds in getting in Northern Ireland MPs on supplementary questions. I understand that the numbers game works against us, but can the arrangements be reviewed? I notice that almost every person listed on the Order Paper for Scotland Office questions next week is a Scottish MP, which is as it should be. It would be nice if occasionally we got a Northern Ireland MP on the Order Paper for Northern Ireland Office questions.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. As he knows, the selection of substantive questions on the Order Paper is the outcome of a random shuffle of the names of Members who table a question, which is conducted by the Table Office. Mr Speaker made sure that a number of Northern Ireland Members were called to ask supplementaries this morning. May I suggest to the hon. Member that he might like to raise this matter with the Modernisation Committee?
E-scooters (Review and Awareness )
Wednesday 27th November 2024
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate E-scooters (Review and Awareness) Bill 2024-26 View all E-scooters (Review and Awareness) Bill 2024-26 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
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I beg to move that leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to commission and publish a review of the legislation and guidance relating to e-scooters; to place a duty on the Secretary of State to promote public awareness of legislation relating to the use of e-scooters; and for connected purposes.
Almost two years to the day since I brought the first debate to this House on the antisocial use of e-bikes and e-scooters—it is quite pertinent to be following the statement on respect orders, and I too would be interested in having a trial area; just getting that in there—I am introducing this Bill today to highlight an issue of much concern to the many constituents in Newport East who frequently raise with me the antisocial and sometimes dangerous use of e-scooters and e-bikes. I would like to thank those residents and Newport councillors, particularly in hotspot areas in my constituency, for talking to me about this.
As we have all seen, the landscape on our roads has changed dramatically over recent years. The use of e-scooters has exploded—it was estimated last year that e-scooter ownership is now close to 1 million in England alone—but legislation has just not kept up with this trend. Our legislation is years behind that of other countries. The Bill is about asking the Government to address that quickly—I know that there have been positive moves in that direction—and, particularly as we approach Christmas, when many people may be tempted to buy them as presents, to remind potential buyers of the law.
It is fair to say at the outset that there is clearly a place for e-scooters in the transport mix. They can play a positive role in increasing transport choice while reducing pollution and congestion. They are particularly important for young people with lower spending power and car ownership. As one of my constituents put it:
“I use one as a disabled person as I find it easier than a mobility scooter. I am reluctant to go out and about more for fear of losing it. It’s a cheap form of transport for the low paid and safety will only improve with legislation”.
However, for many, e-scooters are a source of great anxiety. As I said earlier, many people have raised this with me, including local scout groups and others. Recently, I asked constituents more widely for their thoughts, and here are some of their quotes. One said:
“Some of the people riding these scooters and e-bikes have no regard for other people or the elderly”.
Another said:
“The majority ruin it for the few that use them correctly. They are frequently used for blatant drug running and by people who have zero concern for pedestrian or driver safety.”
An older resident of nearly 75 told me of her experience of nearly getting knocked over while walking her dog. She said that it really frightened her, while another said:
“My boy is a full-time wheelchair user. I have lost count of the amount of times we have nearly collided with e-bikes and scooters travelling at speed”
on pavements. Another resident said that
“unfortunately...they are often used for drugs runs. Riders have masks over their faces and cut over the roundabout at the bottom of Somerton Bridge with no due care and attention to other drivers and pedestrians.”
Of course, we should also consider the impact on the visually impaired, which is often highlighted by the Royal National Institute of Blind People. I have mentioned this in a previous debate that I held on the matter.
Those complaints are from constituents who live in Newport, where e-scooter use is illegal, because e-scooter usage is only legal on our roads and cycleways as part of a public hire scheme where a trial is taking place. Trials have been running in locations across England since 2020, but there are none that I know of in Wales and Scotland, where I believe there was a lack of consultation by the last Government with the devolved Governments. There are currently 19 locations where trials are active. If someone hires a scooter as part of a trial, there are restrictions on weight and on speed, with a maximum of 15.5 mph, and the scooter has to have lights. The person has to have a valid driving licence and the hire scheme operator must have a motor vehicle insurance policy. They must meet those legal requirements.
Beyond these hire schemes, however, while the sale of e-scooters is legal, the use of a privately owned e-scooter on public land, including roads, pavements and cycle routes, is illegal and can lead to prosecution. Despite this legal position, sales have rapidly increased. The problem is that because they are unregulated there are no limits on speed, with some for sale online capable of being tampered with and reaching up to 60 mph; there is no requirement for them to have lights, sound or any audible alert system; there is no requirement for people to wear helmets; there is no available insurance or requirements around their maintenance; and there are no restrictions on their weight, with some e-scooters reported to weigh up to 70 kg.
These are clearly not toys, and when collisions occur, victims can face serious injuries. It is the Motor Insurers Bureau that picks up the bill for any compensation, thereby pushing up motor insurance premiums for all. In 2023, the year for which the most recent figures are available, there were almost 1,300 collisions involving e-scooters, and six deaths. I know that this issue has been raised with many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali), who had a particular issue involving an accident recently.
There is also the issue of toxic lithium battery fires, with an e-bike or e-scooter fire occurring once every two days in London in 2023. As the Minister said in a Westminster Hall debate before the election, they are often the result of unregulated e-scooters, bought from retailers abroad, that fail to meet UK safety standards. On that point, I strongly welcome the Government’s commitment to introduce the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill to address this fire risk.
I also welcome confirmation this week from the Home Secretary and Ministers regarding the implementation of Labour’s manifesto pledge to strengthen the law around vehicles used for antisocial behaviour so that they can be seized when such behaviour occurs without the police having to go through a lengthy process of issuing multiple warnings that delay action.
I very much want to thank Gwent police, which is doing what it can in tough circumstances to crack down on this. It has had success in seizing a number of e-scooters and e-bikes engaged in antisocial behaviour and criminality, particularly drug dealing. The penalties can include confiscation, £300 fines, six points on a driving licence and a criminal record. Gwent police has also taken the lead with social media campaigns around Christmas, but I would welcome more back-up from the Department for Transport and the Home Office on enforcement and public awareness campaigns, particularly in the run-up to Christmas. This very much forms part of today’s Bill.
Buying e-scooters online is easy. Just a cursory search brings up well-known high street retailers that display reasonably prominent disclaimers but then go on to describe the e-scooter as
“the perfect fit for daily commuting”,
and state that you can
“get wherever you need without hassle”.
Lesser-known retailers often hide the disclaimers, or do not have one at all, and sell e-scooters capable of reaching 40, 50 and even 60 mph.
As well as raising awareness about the current law, I am asking the Government to review where we are now, after nearly five years of trials, with a view to legislating. Trials are just that: they are tests. In 2022, the last Government promised to introduce a transport Bill, but it never came, and e-scooter trials were extended earlier this year, before the election, for a fourth time to May 2026. This leaves us as one of the last few European countries not to have legislated on this.
I therefore welcome the Secretary of State committing just a fortnight ago to look ahead for opportunities to introduce this much-needed and long-overdue legislation. In considering their options, I know that Ministers will hear and consider the experiences and recommendations of key stakeholders, including the police, who are currently looking at stricter penalties and restrictions on sales and imports, and Sustrans, which is asking for tighter regulation of e-scooter construction and specifications such as speed, weight and safety requirements, as well as co-operation to solve pavement parking issues.
It is on the basis of those experiences, suggestions and of course the trial data that my Bill asks that the existing legislation and guidance be reviewed, and public awareness be raised to provide a clear, settled and long-term legislative solution to the challenges as well as the opportunities that e-scooters present, so that we can make our roads safer for riders, pedestrians and other road users. I urge colleagues to support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Jessica Morden, Gill German, Mr Alex Barros-Curtis, Catherine Fookes, Tonia Antoniazzi, Ruth Jones and Steve Witherden present the Bill.
Jessica Morden accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 March 2025, and to be printed (Bill 140).
Finance Bill
Wednesday 27th November 2024
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Bill 2024-26 View all Finance Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:50 - The House divided: - Ayes: 112 / Noes: 333 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:06 - The House divided: - Ayes: 332 / Noes: 176 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Four weeks ago today, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor delivered the first Budget of this new Government. It was a historic, once-in-a-generation Budget—a Budget to deliver economic stability, to fix the public finances and to secure a step change in investment. It was a Budget to lay the essential foundations for growth, which is this Government’s No. 1 mission.
And let’s face it, after 14 years under the Conservatives, the foundations needed some fixing. That is why our Budget is built on tough new fiscal rules that will put a stop to borrowing for day-to-day spending and get debt falling as a share of GDP. Our Budget delivers fiscal responsibility while getting the NHS and other public services back on their feet and protecting working people. That is the difference a Labour Budget makes. That is not to say that the decisions have been easy. The very opposite is true. We have taken difficult decisions on spending, welfare and tax, and this Finance Bill begins to implement some of those decisions.
Before I turn to the measures in this Bill, I will speak about what the Bill does not include. When I was a shadow Minister, shadowing the tax brief, I covered a total of six Finance Bills and probably as many Ministers. Through those Finance Bills, we saw the Conservatives repeatedly extend the freeze in the personal allowance and the higher rate threshold for income tax. The Finance Act 2021 froze income tax thresholds from 2022 until 2026, and then the Finance Act 2023 extended those freezes by another two years until 2028. The Conservatives were responsible for six consecutive years of rising taxes on working people’s payslips.
Our Government will not follow that path. In this Finance Bill, there are no tax rises on working people’s payslips, nor on many pensioners’ incomes, like those the Conservatives put into law. We have made no changes to the basic, higher and additional rates of income tax. We have made no change to the rate of VAT. And in next week’s National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill, we will make no increase to working people’s contributions. We said that we would fix the public finances while protecting working people, and that is exactly what we are doing.
We also said that we would provide stability for businesses making investment decisions, and that we would cap the rate of corporation tax. This Bill delivers on those commitments, too.
In the last Parliament, we repeatedly saw Finance Bills being used to put temporary measures in place, leading to an unstable and ever-changing investment allowances regime. At the start of the last Parliament, the annual investment allowance had been temporarily raised to £1 million. That level was extended twice on a temporary basis before finally being made permanent. Meanwhile, full expensing for expenditure on plant and machinery was also introduced on a temporary basis. And, over the last Parliament, the super-deduction came and went entirely.
We are doing things differently. Our corporate tax road map, which was published at the Budget, and the Finance Bill before us today both make it clear that we are prioritising the stability that we know businesses need to invest.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Does the Minister agree with Gary Smith? This was supposed to be a Budget for growth and jobs. The increased energy profits levy is driving investment out of the North sea and will not make the slightest difference to how much oil and gas we consume, yet it is estimated that it will lose £13 billion of much-needed revenue for the taxpayer. This means we will lose environmentally, fiscally and in terms of jobs. Surely even the Minister can recognise how wrong that is.
James Murray
I will come to the energy profits levy in a moment, but we have engaged with the oil and gas industry to ensure that we raise the money we need for the clean energy transition while supporting investment and jobs in that industry. We recognise that oil and gas will play a part in the energy mix for years to come, but we also recognise that the industry must contribute to this essential transition.
This Bill maintains the 25% cap on corporation tax that we set out in our manifesto. It also makes no changes to the permanent full expensing regime or the annual investment allowance.
Before turning to other measures in the Bill, I note that the Leader of the Opposition has already committed to reversing several of them. If Conservative Members disagree with the difficult but necessary choices that this Government have had to make to repair the public finances and protect working people, they have every right to oppose our plans, but they must explain what choices they would make instead. So far, their new leadership has fallen at the very first hurdle of being a credible Opposition by trying to have it both ways. [Interruption.] They make plenty of noise, but I do not hear any alternatives.
The Leader of the Opposition has said that she opposes the measures in this Bill, but she also claims to support the investment that those measures fund. She says that reintroducing the VAT tax break for private school fees would be the very first thing she does if she became Prime Minister, yet she also appears to support the extra £2.3 billion that our Budget puts into state education. In fact, we have calculated that she has made unfunded pledges worth £12 million for every hour since she was appointed. By my reckoning, that is £1 million-worth of pledges since I began speaking five minutes ago.
By behaving this way, the Conservatives simply remind people how very far away they are from being a credible Opposition, and they are getting further away by the day.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The then Leader of the Opposition, and now Prime Minister, rightly said that his Administration would go for growth. He made it his No. 1 priority, and he inherited the fastest-growing economy in the G7. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, but this is a fact. Can he say what has happened to growth since 4 July?
James Murray
Every business knows that we can make investment decisions only on the basis of secure public finances and economic stability, which is why this Government’s first priority has been to wipe the slate clean of the mess we inherited from the Conservative party, to deliver economic stability and to provide the environment for businesses to make the investments on which we will grow the economy. That remains our No. 1 mission.
James Murray
I will make some progress.
As the Chancellor set out in the Budget, we believe that before making any changes to the tax rates that people pay, it is vital that we do everything we can to close the tax gap. That is why, in the Budget, the Chancellor announced a step change in our ambition to do so, with a package raising £6.5 billion of additional tax revenue by 2029-30. This package will ensure that more of the tax that is owed is paid, and that taxpayers are supported to pay the right tax first time. Our plan involves boosting the capacity of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to ensure compliance and reduce debt, alongside changes to legislation, some of which this Finance Bill delivers, to remove loopholes used to reduce tax liabilities.
That is why this Bill includes measures such as introducing capital gains on the liquidation of a limited liability partnership, closing a route increasingly used to avoid paying tax. The Bill reforms rules for overseas pension transfers, closing a gap that allows individuals to transfer significant pension savings overseas tax-free. And the Bill implements the cryptoasset reporting framework, tackling complex compliance cases where a significant proportion of offshore risk sits.
In our manifesto, we said that we would take on the tax gap, and that is what we are doing in government.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Minister recognises the importance of reducing the tax gap, so will he commend the previous Conservative Government for halving the tax gap they inherited from Labour in 2010?
James Murray
As we all know, efforts to close the tax gap thoroughly stalled under the previous Government, and we have brought renewed focus to this effort. It is one of our top priorities. Before increasing any tax rates, we must ensure that people pay the tax that is owed. Frankly, if the previous Government had been doing such a great job, how is it that our Government have been able to find an extra £6.5 billion to close the tax gap in our first Budget alone? That was in our manifesto, and that is what we are delivering.
In our manifesto, we made other specific commitments on tax, and I will set out now how the Bill seeks to implement them. First, let me turn to non-doms in the tax system. As right hon. and hon. Members will know, this Government believe that everyone who is a long-term resident in the UK should pay their taxes here. That is why this Government are removing the outdated concept of domicile status from the tax system, and why we are implementing a new residence-based regime from 6 April 2025. We have long argued for such a change to be made. Although the previous Government ended up being forced towards our position, they never implemented any changes. Under this Government, we will finally make the reforms necessary to make the system fit for the 21st century.
Our new regime will be internationally competitive and focused on attracting the best talent and investment to the UK. Our reforms will scrap the planned 50% reduction in foreign income subject to tax in the first year of the new regime; introduce a new residence-based regime for inheritance tax; retain and reform overseas workday relief, encouraging employees to spend more of their earnings in the UK; and extend the previously announced temporary repatriation facility to three years, from April 2025.
The new rules mean that, from April 2025, anyone who has been tax resident in the UK for more than four years will pay UK tax on their foreign income and gains, as is the case for other UK residents. That is a much simpler and clearer test than exists under the current regime. The Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed that these reforms will raise £12.7 billion in revenue over the five year forecast period. That funding is crucial for meeting our commitments to fixing the public finances.
Secondly, in government we have decided to go further than our manifesto commitment to increase the non-resident stamp duty surcharge, and we will instead increase the higher rate of stamp duty on additional dwellings, from three percentage points to five percentage points above the standard residential rate. That increase to the higher rate of stamp duty will raise more money than set out in the manifesto—a total of £310 million by 2029-30—and will go further to rebalance the housing market.
The OBR’s certified costing assumes that an increase in the higher rate of stamp duty by two percentage points is expected to result in 130,000 additional transactions over the next five years by first-time buyers and other people buying a primary residence. We estimate that approximately half those who paid a non-resident stamp duty surcharge also pay the higher rates of stamp duty, so the change will improve the comparative advantage of UK resident home movers, while ensuring that no additional barriers are faced by those coming to the UK and buying their main home.
Thirdly, the Bill delivers our manifesto commitment to introduce the 20% standard rate of VAT on private school fees. That will apply to any charges charged on or after 29 July for terms starting after 1 January 2025, and it sits alongside our changes to private schools business rates relief in the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill. Ending tax breaks for private schools is a tough but necessary decision that will secure additional funding to help the Government deliver their commitments to improve education in state schools across the country, and achieve the aspiration that every parent has for a high-quality education for their children.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Is it not the case that state school parents work just as hard as private school parents, although they will never be in a financial position to be able to send their kids to private schools, and therefore it falls on this Government to fund state schools properly?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is right that every parent aspires to a high-quality education for their children, and that is exactly what this Government will achieve through the already announced £2.3 billion increase to the core schools budget for the financial year 2025-26, increasing per pupil funding in real terms. That includes £1 billion of additional funding for the special educational needs and disabilities system.
Paul Holmes
The Minister is dedicated to extolling the virtues of his manifesto. When he sat down to write the Budget with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, did he recall whether the manifesto put to the country at the general election stated that growth forecasts under this Government would be lower than they were under the previous Government? Was the taxing of small family farms for a total revenue of £590 million in his manifesto? He is very keen on the manifesto, but did it outline that growth would be lower under this Government?
James Murray
I am keen on our manifesto, which delivered this Labour majority and this Labour Government. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the manifesto that we went into the election with, he will see the three words that open our pledges: “deliver economic stability”. After the mess that the previous Government made of the public finances, and the damage they did to our public services and our economy, that is crucial. Delivering economic stability, fixing the public finances and putting our public services back on a firm footing are essential to getting the investment and growth that our country badly needs.
Let me be clear about the VAT policy on private school fees: charging the standard rate of 20% does not mean that schools must increase their fees by 20%, because schools can reclaim VAT paid on inputs and reduce the cost to minimise the extent to which they need to increase fees. Many schools have already publicly committed to cap increases at 5%, or to absorb the full VAT costs themselves.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Parents from two private schools in my area have written to me that they will have to move their children into the state system, but the problem is that there are not places in the state system to accomplish that. Will there be a dedicated fund to help those schools when pupils move? Will funds be put aside for the welfare of the kids who are being taken out of school mid-term? Figures that have been released suggest that there could be about 3,000 such pupils. Such a move will have a significant impact on their mental health and their family’s welfare, and I know this Government are committed to ensuring that children have good welfare. Will the Minister consider a ringfenced fund to help support the mental health of those kids?
James Murray
As the hon. Gentleman knows, mental health, more broadly, is a priority for this Government. On the policy around VAT on private school fees, the impact on pupils in private schools having to change to a state school is expected to be very limited. The Government estimate that 35,000 pupils—less than 0.5% of all state school pupils—will leave, or never enter, the private sector as a result of this policy. Those movements will take place over a number of years, and only 3,000 pupils are estimated to move within the current academic year. To put that number in context for the hon. Gentleman, every year many pupils move between schools, including between private schools and the state sector. A Department for Education report published in 2022 looking at moves between state schools and out of state schools, found that almost 60,000 moves take place every year. As he will know, pupil numbers in schools fluctuate regularly for a number of reasons, and the school funding system in England is already set up to manage that.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend not think it ironic that Conservative Members are talking about the mental health of students? They did not consider that when they made changes to the state system. As a former teacher, I know the massive impact on young people’s mental health of the Conservative party’s decision to move from lettered grades to numbered grades at short notice, to completely change the syllabus and not to provide the resources or textbooks that teachers needed to teach those courses.
James Murray
My hon. Friend is right to point out that the lack of funding that the previous Government put into the state sector has implications. It takes a toll on children if schools are not properly funded. If the capital budgets for schools are not properly funded, as well as their revenue budgets, that has an impact on children’s lives. That is why the funding that we are putting into schools is something for which I will make no apology. The fact that we are having to take difficult decisions to fund it is the nature of government. I note that Conservative Members are happy to support our investment in state schools, but they refuse to support the difficult decisions necessary to generate that funding. Frankly, that underscores how far away they are from even being a credible Opposition.
James Murray
I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman, so I will make some progress.
Within the policy, provision for pupils with special educational needs is an important matter that a several right hon. and hon. Members have raised with me. The Government recognise the importance of that too, and I am glad to confirm that where pupils have special educational needs that can only be met in private schools, as determined by an education, health and care plan in England or its equivalent in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, local authorities and devolved Governments that fund those places will be compensated for the VAT they are charged on those pupils’ fees.
Fourthly, this Government are delivering on the manifesto commitments to increase the energy profits levy by three percentage points, from 35% to 38%, and to extend the period over which the levy applies by one year. The Government are also ending unjustifiably generous allowances by removing the levy’s core investment allowance, which was unique to oil and gas taxation and not available to any other sector of the economy. We are, however, providing stability within other features of the system, by maintaining the level of tax relief available for decarbonisation investment, by setting the rate of the allowance at 66% and by maintaining the availability of 100% first-year allowances.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The Minister is defending the changes that he is making to the fiscal regime as it relates to the North sea and the production of oil and gas. Can he identify another oil and gas-producing nation that taxes its industry higher than the United Kingdom does?
James Murray
We know that other countries tax in different ways. Norway has a high headline rate, although it has a different set of structures of allowances and so on. It is important for us that we calibrate the headline rate and the allowances in the right way. That is why we have taken the measured decision to increase the rate as I described, to remove the investment allowance but at the same time to retain the 100% first-year allowances and the level of relief available for decarbonisation investment.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Does the Minister think that that is the right balance, given that Offshore Energies UK suggests that the changes will cost £12 billion in tax revenues?
James Murray
I am absolutely confident, through all my engagement with OEUK and many firms that work in the oil and gas sector, that our approach strikes the right balance, as needed in our economy. It recognises that oil and gas producers will have a role in the energy mix for years to come, while also being clear that it is crucial we raise money for the energy transition. The energy profits levy seeks to achieve that by providing the money for that transition while also supporting jobs and investment in the sector, as exists at the moment.
Fifthly, the Bill delivers on our manifesto commitment around carried interest by increasing to 32% the capital gains tax rates that apply as an interim measure from 6 April next year, ahead of reforming carried interest more fully in a future Finance Bill. The reforms, which will have effect from April 2026, will ensure that the reward is taxed in line with economic characteristics. They put the tax treatment of carried interest on a fairer and more stable footing for the long term, while preserving the UK’s competitive position as a global asset management hub.
As the Chancellor set out both in July and again at the Budget, the fiscal situation we inherited was far worse than we had expected. We know that the previous Government left us with a £22 billion black hole and so we have had to take tough decisions to fix the public finances and get public services back on their feet. Some of those decisions are outside the scope of this Finance Bill and will be debated during the passage of other Bills. However, this Bill includes a number of those decisions, which we have sought to take in as fair a way as possible.
The Bill makes changes to the main rates of capital gains tax by increasing them to 18% and 24% from 30 October 2024. That decision will raise revenue while ensuring that the UK tax system remains internationally competitive. We are supporting businesses through that transition by maintaining business asset disposal relief, with its million-pound lifetime limit, and by phasing in the increase to that relief’s CGT rate, in line with the changes to investors’ relief, to 14% in April 2025 and then to 18% in April 2026.
The Bill maintains inheritance tax thresholds at their current levels for a further two years to 5 April 2030. It also legislates for air passenger duty rates for 2025-26 and for those announced in the Budget for 2026-27. From 2026-27, all rates of air passenger duty will be adjusted to partially account for previous high inflation, and that change will help maintain the value of air passenger duty rates in real terms.
James Murray
Let me put these decisions into context for the hon. Gentleman. The increase equates to £1 more for people taking domestic flights in economy class and £2 more for those flying to short-haul destinations in economy class. None of the decisions are easy, but we have to take them to fix the public finances and to get our economy back on a stable footing.
James Murray
I will make some progress. That is the impact the changes have on domestic flights and short-haul destinations in economy class. However, in addition to the broad changes in air passenger duty rates, the higher rates for larger private jets will also increase by a further 50% to ensure they contribute fairly to the public finances.
The Bill also renews the tobacco duty escalator and enables His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to prepare for the introduction of a new duty on vaping products. The Bill increases the soft drink industry levy over the next five years to reflect the 27% increase in consumer prices index inflation between 2018 and 2024, as well as increasing the rate in line with CPI each year from 1 April 2025. Finally, while the Bill increases alcohol duty for non-draught products, in line with retail prices index inflation, duty on qualifying draught products will be cut by 1.7% in cash terms to support pubs, and we will increase the duty discount on products that qualify for small producer relief from 1 February 2025.
The Chancellor has been clear that the Budget was a once-in-a-generation event, at which the Government took difficult but necessary decisions. By taking those tough decisions, the Budget delivers economic stability, sound public finances and stronger public services. On those foundations, we will work day in, day out across the rest of this Parliament to boost investment and growth.
Many of the measures to boost investment are being delivered outside of the Finance Bill, from the planning reform that we got under way within days of taking office to the creation of mega-funds for pension investments, which the Chancellor announced at Mansion House. The Bill introduces additional reliefs for our creative industries, for visual effects within film and high-end TV, which will play a key role in strengthening the UK as a global hub for film and TV. Likewise, the Bill introduces measures to support the transition to electric vehicles, through higher vehicle excise duty first-year rates for hybrid and internal combustion engine vehicles, which boosts the incentive for EVs, and by an extension of first-year allowances for electric cars and charge points until 2025-26.
Above and beyond any individual measures, the impact of the Bill and the Budget that it follows is to lay the foundation for greater investment and growth, through fiscal responsibility, stronger public services and economic stability. We have laid the foundations for creating wealth, jobs and opportunity in every part of this country, enabling people to meet their aspirations for themselves and their families, and making people across Britain better off.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
One of the measures that has a bearing on the provision of public services is the increase to the employer national insurance contributions. I understand the Treasury is in discussion with the devolved Governments and local Government across England to ascertain precisely how much extra funding support is required to offset the increased cost upon their services. Will the Minister give us an update on those discussions and when he believes local authorities and, indeed, the devolved Governments will know how much money in additional support they will receive?
James Murray
I am afraid I will not give the hon. Gentleman inside information on any ongoing discussions between the Treasury and devolved Governments. The policy for reimbursing increases in employer national insurance contributions is well established. The last Government followed a similar process in relation to the health and social care levy, whereby Departments, employees and other direct public sector employees are typically refunded the entire increase and third parties, contractors and so on are not. As for the devolved Governments’ settlements, they have their own process to go through with the Treasury. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand why I cannot give a running commentary on that, but I am sure that his colleagues will pick that up.
James Murray
I will make some progress. I have been generous in giving way to the right hon. Gentleman in particular. [Interruption.] All right, go on, then.
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to the Minister, who has shown his customary good humour and good will to the Chamber. He is unable to discuss the precise numbers for the devolved Governments, but can he confirm what the overall cost is to the Exchequer of compensating the public sector for the impact of NICs? I believe it is around £5.9 billion, but I want to check with the Minister that that is correct.
James Murray
I regret giving way to the right hon. Gentleman. I invite him to return to the Chamber next Tuesday for the Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill, when I will also be speaking. We can have a full debate on national insurance then, which I am sure he and his colleagues are looking forward to. I hope they will support it in the Lobby because, no doubt, they support the extra investment in the NHS which that decision funds. I thank him in advance for signalling his good grace and support for our measures.
After we were elected, we said that we would take the difficult decisions necessary to fix the public finances. We said that we would close the tax gap, implement our manifesto pledges and protect working people. We said that we would deliver economic stability, fiscal responsibility and the certainty that businesses need to invest and grow. This Bill plays a central role in achieving those goals and I commend it to the House.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House declines to give the Finance Bill a Second Reading because it derives from the 2024 Autumn Budget which will lead to jobs being lost, curtailed investment and prices being raised; because the Finance Bill constitutes an assault on business by increasing taxes on investment; because it will reduce the competitiveness of the United Kingdom’s tax regime; because it levies the first ever tax on educational choice and will increase pressure on state schools; because it will drive up rents by increasing tax on homeownership; because it will substantially increase the size of the state without a sustainable plan to fund it; and because it will reduce living standards, increase borrowing and debt, drive up inflation and interest rates, with the result that the OBR growth forecast for the Autumn Budget is lower than that accompanying the Spring Budget of the last Government.”
This Finance Bill, this Budget, are a disgrace. They are a disgrace because they are built on a deceit—a deceit that was propagated by the Labour party during the last general election. It told the British people that they need not worry about taxes being raised left, right and centre, yet what have we discovered? The figures of the Office for Budget Responsibility clearly show that this country is now heading to its highest tax burden in the history of our nation.
During the general election, we were also told by the Labour party that it had no intention of increasing national insurance. In fact, it stated exactly that in the manifesto on which the now Government stood. It broke that commitment. Do not take my word for it; Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies says exactly that.
Dr Evans
Is it not the case that the manifesto said that there would be no rise in national insurance, but when Ministers went to defend this policy, they said, “not on working people”, but then could not define working people? Now the language has slipped to “payslips”. Is the shadow Minister aware of this translation? I am pretty sure that the “payslip” was not mentioned in the manifesto.
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend makes an important and valid point. As he says, Labour is now claiming that there will be no incidence of this tax increase on working people, although it seems to have a problem defining exactly what a working person is. None the less, try telling that to those people who will see their wages depressed as a consequence of this measure. Try telling that to the 50,000 full-time equivalents who the OBR says will lose their jobs as a consequence of this measure. Try telling that to the young people up and down our country who, because it is not just an increase in the rate but also an approximate halving of the threshold, will be disproportionately affected.
Labour also reassured farmers. The then shadow Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—the now Secretary of State—reassured farmers. He went to the National Farmers Union and said that nothing would be done on inheritance tax and the annual percentage rate. And on that basis, the NFU told its members that, at least on that measure, there was nothing to fear from a future Labour Government. How wrong it was. Only last week, we saw, tens of thousands of farmers, in their dignified way, coming up to the very gates of our democracy to ask a simple question of the Labour Government: “Why did you lie to us?” That is the nub of it. The measure will see the break-up of our farms and it will do nothing for food security.
Dave Doogan
Does the shadow Minister agree that the Government could not conceivably have been so ignorant about British agriculture that they did not know that inheriting the family farm is no form of enrichment whatsoever? So introducing this change to APR is just pure bad government.
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It demonstrates that this Government do not understand farming and do not understand the countryside. There are 100 Labour Members who represent rural constituencies. I will not guess how many there will be after the next general election, but some number fewer than 100, I suspect.
Perhaps the cruellest deception of all was of our pensioners, who were reassured that there would not be any means-testing of the winter fuel payment, yet what happened? 10 million pensioners are to face a cut. Before somebody on the Government Benches stands up and tells us that some of those pensioners can afford it, I say that many of them simply cannot. Of those under the poverty line, two thirds will actually lose these benefits.
Dr Evans
While the Prime Minister was out of the country on the 19th, something else was snuck out: a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions, explaining that, at the point of reaching its decision on this, it knew from its own internal analysis that it would impoverish 100,000 pensioners into relative poverty and 50,000 pensioners into absolute poverty. This information was asked for time and again in readiness for a debate in this House. Is it not right that information relevant to these measures should have been available in time for a debate?
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is disgraceful that Labour waited until the farmers were at the gates of Westminster to sneak out that impact assessment, which showed that, by 2027, 100,000 more pensioners would be in relative poverty, after housing costs, than is the case today. Indeed, the analysis by the Labour party back in 2017, when it was against this proposal, was that up to 4,000 pensioners would prematurely die in the cold as a consequence of this measure. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, when you deal in deceit, you need a pretext for so doing. And a further deceit has been brought forward, and it was raised again at the Dispatch Box this afternoon, which is the £22 billion black hole. Where is it?
Torsten Bell (Swansea West) (Lab)
I wish to reflect on the tone of the shadow Minister’s remarks. Looking at chart 4.5 in the OBR’s document, I can see a big rise in the tax to GDP ratio, but from the right hon. Gentleman’s indignant tone, one would think that there had never been a tax rise under the previous Government. What the chart shows is a significantly larger rise in the tax to GDP ratio, because of the decisions taken by the previous Government, so is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman’s tone does not reflect the facts of the decisions he took?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the shadow Minister responds, may I caution him against using the word “deceit” in the Chamber? No doubt he will now want to respond to the intervention.
Mel Stride
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will of course be guided by you on that matter. On the hon. Gentleman’s point, there is no doubt that, as we went into the last general election, the analysis of the manifestos of the three major parties showed that Labour’s manifesto would have by far the greatest increase on the tax burden. What Labour has done is to break its manifesto and go still further to take us, as the OBR has said, to what will be the highest tax burden in the history of our country. It is as simple as that.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. I did want to indulge him, but as he has now mentioned the OBR three times during the course of his speech, I wonder whether he would share with the House what conversations he had with former Prime Minister Liz Truss about respecting the OBR before she crashed the economy and sent inflation to 11%?
Mel Stride
As Chair of the Treasury Committee at the time, I had quite a lot to say about it, and I would point the hon. Gentleman to the public record in that regard.
Let me return to Labour’s claims of a vast £22 billion black hole, which one senses can even be seen from the moon. When the OBR looked at this matter, it concluded that the fiscal pressure was less than half that figure. It also made the point that, had it been known at that time, there would have been discussions between Treasury officials and the OBR, and that number might well have been smaller still. And it is equally the case that Governments manage down in-year fiscal pressures as a matter of course. To use another astronomer’s analogy, this is not so much a black hole as a red dwarf. [Interruption.] Or a red herring—even better. This is about not just misleading the British people, but economic incompetence.
The Government have set great store by growth. They say that they will generate the fastest consistently, sustainably growing economy in the G7—I see Labour Members nodding their heads. How is that going? Our friends at the OBR clearly forecast a lower level of growth following the Budget than they had forecast based on our Budget the preceding spring. That is a direct consequence of the kind of growth-destroying policies in which the Government are engaged. What happened when the Office for National Statistics came out with its figures recently for the third quarter of this year? [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell) has twice used the word “you” when heckling. I will not let him off in the future.
Mel Stride
I take it as a familiar mark of respect from the hon. Gentleman.
The fact of the matter is that the ONS’s figures for the third quarter of this year show growth of 0.1%. That is one seventh of what has been achieved in the United States. In September, the third month of the quarter, there was negative growth. The reason for that is very clear. When this Government came to office, the first thing that they did was talk down the economy, and talk about black holes and what a terrible mess everything was in, as cover for what they intended to do all along. That had an impact on purchasing managers’ index surveys. We can see the slump in business confidence in the data, and the Government are now reaping the whirlwind. We have now had a Budget that will do even more damage to growth.
What will happen to inflation? Let us go back to our friends at the OBR. In every single year of its forecast, inflation is higher than in every single year of the forecast based on our last Budget back in the spring—a fiscal splurge up front that will translate into higher prices and higher interest rates for longer, meaning higher mortgage rates. Before Labour Members start jumping up and down at the M-word, the Government now own mortgage interest rates, and they are being affected in the wrong direction as a result of their policies. What about living standards? They are down and flatlining. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that by October 2029 the average family will be £770 worse off in real terms than they are today.
Mel Stride
On the Government’s watch. A number of measures in the Bill will further weigh on growth. Capital gains tax will go up, destroying wealth creation. The energy profits levy will destroy jobs, making us less secure when it comes to energy. Stamp duty will go up, and that is one of the worst taxes. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell) will accept that, as he shares that view—I think he makes the point in his recent book. The level of activity in the housing market will be dampened, people will be discouraged from downsizing, which will put pressure on the housing supply, and labour mobility—an important component of growth—will be impacted.
Graham Stuart
My right hon. Friend is painting an accurate but bleak picture, as reflected by the IFS, the OBR and all the independent analysts of what the impact of the Budget will be. However, I put it to him that he is understating the weakness that the Budget will create for this country. Look back at the last 14 years. We were recovering from the financial crash. We had the pandemic, Brexit and the energy crisis. We are unlikely to make it to the end of this decade without some form of further shock. Is it not central to the weakness of the Budget that it makes this country so much more vulnerable to what we do not yet know is coming?
Mel Stride
My right hon. Friend makes a perceptive point, to which I will come momentarily, but first let me deal with VAT on private schools. We have already heard about the displacement effect—the behavioural effect—and the thousands of pupils who will have their education disrupted and the impact on their families, but does not this measure tell us all we need to know about socialism? Those who stretch to try to make ends meet to send their children to those schools are to be denied. Their aspiration is to be sacrificed on the altar of envy. Is it not as simple as that?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) is right: the Budget will not create strong foundations for the future; it will create a vulnerable and brittle economy. The Chancellor has very little headroom against her fiscal targets. Against the stability target, because the Government have talked down the economy and gilt rates have responded in turn, it is conceivable that almost all that headroom has already disappeared. I will prophesy that, without doubt, perhaps if the forecasts turn in the wrong direction, or the pressure on departmental spending over the next two years becomes difficult for a profligate Labour Government, or because of some external factor, as my right hon. Friend suggested—maybe tariffs from Donald Trump’s America, or if his deficit-funded tax cuts lead to higher bond yields and higher interest rates here—I almost guarantee the House that, however it occurs, this Government will come back for more in due course.
Sir Desmond Swayne
To be fair to the Prime Minister, he made it absolutely clear that things would have to get worse. The difficulty is—this is my prophecy, if you like—that there is no prospect of them getting better thereafter.
Mel Stride
That is an extremely astute observation. The prophecy is that things will get tougher further down the line. It will then be the case that this Government took decisions that left us in a weak and vulnerable position to withstand them. Why has this happened? The Labour party has very little business experience. Very few Members on the Government Front Bench have started up a business or grown a company in any significant manner.
Mel Stride
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he is an example of somebody who has done just that.
Jim Dickson
If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are against all the revenue-raising measures in the Budget, perhaps he could explain which of the many investments in the health service, roads, the justice system and schools he and his colleagues would cut?
Mel Stride
It is not a binary decision like that. The hon. Gentleman is clever enough—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but I will not disrespect him by claiming that he truly believes that. Had the Government brought forward a Budget that would have grown the economy, as the Conservatives would have done, the Government would have more money. Had Labour grasped the nettle of welfare reform, as we did when we were in office, and we had very clear plans in our manifesto for a saving of £12 billion a year, the Government would not have to go around caning companies, beating up on pensioners and so on as an alternative. There are better ways of doing things, and we had a much better way.
Dr Murrison
Earlier this week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in her conversation with the Confederation of British Industry, which did not go terribly well, that her tax-raising days are over. Yet significantly, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury failed to reiterate that assertion. Does he believe her?
Mel Stride
My right hon. Friend raises an interesting point because the Chancellor did say at the CBI conference, when asked, that she would not raise taxes in the future, but this very afternoon, at the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister appeared to resile from that. We now do not even have clarity on that vital point.
Surely the point is that the Chancellor is no economist, no matter how much puff one applies to try to disguise the fact. I thought I would take a leaf out of her book, even though that page was apparently written by somebody else. I can inform the House that I am an economist. Speaking as a former Governor of the Bank of England and president of the International Monetary Fund, and having run the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation at the same time—yes, for 10 years—I have as much experience as our Chancellor. That flight of fancy is, of course, all mine, but the inspiration came from the Government Benches.
This is a Finance Bill of broken promises and breathtaking incompetence—a Finance Bill that represents a present danger to the future of our economy. Was there ever a Bill more injurious to what we Conservatives love—to our pensioners, our farmers, our businesses, the poor, the vulnerable and, yes, working men and women right up and down our country? They say that astrologers are there to make economists look good. Well, they cannot make this lot look good. It is written in the stars—it is a story foretold—that unchecked, this Budget and this Finance Bill would take Britain down. That is why we will never tire of the trials of opposition, and why we will be the party that stands up for working men and women across our country, and fights this Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
To make her maiden speech, I call Samantha Niblett.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
That caught me off guard; I did not expect to be called quite so soon. Thank you so much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is with great humility and immense pride that I stand here today delivering my first speech in this Chamber as the Member of Parliament for South Derbyshire. I would like to begin by expressing my gratitude to the people of South Derbyshire for placing their trust in me. I was visible, accessible and active right across the constituency before the election was called, and I took great pride in proving that by directing people to my “Samantha spotting” interactive online map. I am committed to continuing in the same vein, working incredibly hard for the people I represent.
I want to thank my predecessor Heather Wheeler, who has dedicated so much of her life to local and national politics. She spent 14 years as an MP and, if an internet search result is not tricking me, began her career in local politics in 1982 when she was just 23 years old. She became an elected councillor in South Derbyshire in 1995, and went on to be leader of the council. Her commitment to public service was rewarded in the 2023 birthday honours list. I also hear on repeat, and on good authority, that she was jolly good fun in this place.
As the most recent MP for South Derbyshire, I join this House from the private sector, having built a career in data and technology, and I am still a relative newbie to politics. I joined the Labour party in my late thirties, swiftly finding my home and sense of purpose in trying to make things better for people through political activism, at a time when data and technology are key to driving economic growth to help make people better off. When I discovered that the two things that I am most proud of this country for were Labour Government creations—the welfare state and our precious national health service, which both look after people when they are at their most vulnerable and in most need of support—I knew that I had found the party that I belonged to. The NHS has saved both my parents’ lives more than once, and I am delighted that now that Labour is in government, we will save the NHS’s life.
Deciding to throw your hat in the ring for the longest ongoing job interview, for a job without a job description, when some people will instantly loathe you for simply being an MP—they are particularly harsh online—is not for everyone. Were it not for my wonderful 17-year-old daughter Lillian, I probably would not be standing here. She is the reason for my being. I could not tell her that she can be anything she wants to be if I did not show her. I want her to feel brave and able to change her career later in life, just as I have, if she so wishes. I will not stand by and let her be horrified, as she is, at the gender pay gap without trying my best to help close it. Thank goodness we have the first ever female Chancellor of the Exchequer in my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), who, having smashed a glass ceiling herself, wants to level the playing field for other women.
The desire for fairness and to look after people is what drives me, and it is one of the defining features of South Derbyshire, too. It has a strong sense of community and people who look out for one another. The many local Facebook groups, including “I love Swad”, “This is Overseal” and “Spotted: Repton”, have some interesting posts and colourful comments, and people there frequently, shall we say, hold me to account; but more often than not, when people ask for help, others rally round to support them. That community extends to local businesses, who support and work with local charities, such as South Derbyshire CVS. It not only runs a food bank—something I hope to see an end of as we make people better off again—but provides services and support to individuals and voluntary groups, of which there are very many. Then we have the Maple Tree community café in Repton village hall, whose volunteers make people so welcome. It has the best coffee, not to mention the beloved doughnuts on the first Saturday of every month. There is also the small business group Been Networking, which meets at Been Coffee, which does the most amazing bagels. There is a bit of a food theme here. People are there for one another.
South Derbyshire has something for everyone. I encourage everyone to go online to visitsouthderbyshire.co.uk to see for themselves, and then to come and see us. We have events ranging from the Melbourne festival of art and architecture, which celebrates its 20th anniversary next September, to the festival of leisure at Maurice Lea memorial park in Church Gresley, a short walk from the home of Gresley Rovers. The last time a Labour MP, Mark Todd, who people still speak so fondly of today, delivered his first speech in this Chamber in 1997, he was hoping to help Gresley Rovers move their football ground. This Labour MP hopes to help them finally make that dream a reality.
Turning from the beautiful game to the beautiful places, we have Calke Abbey in Ticknall, part of our wonderful National Trust. There, people do great work to preserve and restore woodlands and ensure visitor areas are inclusive, so that as many people as possible can enjoy them. Mercia Marina, just outside Willington, is the largest inland port in Europe and is a fantastic spot for tourism, leisure and local business. Speaking of local business, Acres Engineering is a wonderful family-run company that opens its doors to school visits. It trains and develops apprentices, and has an armed forces covenant gold award for its work to support the armed forces community and defence. As I am partaking in this year’s armed forces parliamentary scheme in the RAF, I am ever more grateful to Acres Engineering for being committed to that work. It really does go above and beyond for people.
It is not just home-grown businesses in South Derbyshire; we are home to sites for Toyota, Rolls-Royce and JCB. Those global companies provide high-quality jobs, apprenticeships and vital skills training to local people, making South Derbyshire a hub of innovation and industrial excellence. Their expertise in hydrogen-powered vehicles can help deliver a reduction in carbon emissions, and will ideally place us at the forefront of the green revolution, helping us to fight the climate crisis.
I also want to highlight the critical role of Burton and South Derbyshire college. While its main site is not technically in my constituency, it has sites and programmes that are. It provides vital education and training to the next generation of workers and entrepreneurs. It is the gold standard of technical colleges, and this Labour Government want to see more like it right across the country. Our college is helping to equip our young people, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, with the skills needed to thrive in the jobs of the future, in today’s fast-changing world. I hope many of those jobs will be in the tech sector, and I will strive to encourage tech businesses to base themselves in South Derbyshire, so that no one has to leave where they live to build a secure, successful, rewarding and well-paid career.
Our motto, “The Earth Our Wealth”, speaks of a time when our industry was about coalmining and pottery. Now, it makes me think of our stunning rural landscapes, and of the hard-working farmers who are increasingly diversifying to adapt to changing economic landscapes. Whether they are producing their own biogas from food waste, converting agricultural buildings into business units to let or running farm shops, our farmers continue to show resilience and creativity.
In closing, whether in Etwall, Egginton or Stenson Fields in the north, or in Lullington, Coton in the Elms or Walton in the south, I want people to know that I promise to represent them with integrity, dedication, and a deep sense of responsibility. Thank you for giving me that opportunity.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrats spokesperson.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), and I congratulate her on her very heartfelt maiden speech. I commend her for her commitment to the NHS, and for her desire to be a role model for the next generation of women, who will follow up the ladder behind us. Her skills in data and tech will be incredibly helpful in this House as we grapple with the challenge of online harms, and the threats and opportunities of AI, and I wish her well in her career in this House.
There is no doubt but that the Government have received a terrible inheritance. Under the former Conservative Government, our economy flatlined, people’s living standards plummeted and our public services were left on their knees, so inevitably the incoming Government have had to make some difficult decisions. [Interruption.] Conservative Members might like side B. [Interruption.] Steady on. Some of those decisions we Liberal Democrats agree with. To start with, the Government have decided to borrow for productive investment, and in principle we agree with that. They have raised the levy on the oil and gas giants and closed the loophole, and we agree with that. They have decided to invest in the NHS, and we also agree with that. However, we cannot support the Bill, for many of the reasons set out in our reasoned amendment.
The first question is who should pay for fixing our NHS and social care. We Liberal Democrats have always said that it should be those with the broadest shoulders. Unfortunately, the Government’s Finance Bill does not reverse the tax cuts given to the big banks by the Conservatives; it does not raise the digital services tax on the big tech companies; and it does not increase the remote gaming duty. Those three measures, outlined in our reasoned amendment, would have raised billions of pounds to help fix our NHS and social care, and that money could also have been used to reverse the cut to the winter fuel payment.
The inheritance tax measures are not included in the Finance Bill, but it does pave the way for them. I must say that it is a bit rich of the Conservatives to pretend suddenly to be the friends of the farmers when they ushered in the very trade deals that have undermined so many farmers. However, I urge the Government in the strongest terms to think again about the family farm tax. That measure is badly thought through and leads to the worst of both worlds. It does not close the loophole that results in big equity companies and investors buying up land—it is still more tax-efficient for them to do that than to place their money elsewhere—yet family farms are being caught up as collateral damage. There are rumours that the Government may be thinking again, and I urge them to do so. It is possible for them to look at introducing a genuine family farm test, as exists in France and Ireland. If the Government look at this issue, the Liberal Democrats will, in the spirit of constructive opposition, work with them to get this right and to protect family farmers.
Our reasoned amendment also outlines our opposition to the increase in alcohol duty, because it will hit not only consumers, but small businesses—and not just any businesses. The businesses in this sector are bastions of new craftsmanship and innovation in our small-batch distilleries.
In summary, we know that the Government had an awful inheritance and had to make difficult decisions, but we Liberal Democrats would have made different choices.
Kanishka Narayan (Vale of Glamorgan) (Lab)
Has the hon. Member reflected on the fact that the Liberal Democrats, instead of being just the party of no, were the party who enabled the coalition Government, which she is criticising?
Daisy Cooper
I think we can all say that a lot of water has passed under the bridge since those times. Since 2015, we have seen what the Conservatives did when they were left in government on their own. I hope that people will have seen at the most recent general election that we Liberal Democrats put health and social care front and centre; that led us to become the largest third party in the last 100 years.
To conclude, we Liberal Democrats would have made different decisions from the Government, and for that reason, we will not support the Bill.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on the first Labour Finance Bill in 14 years, and an even greater pleasure to respond to the very first Budget delivered by a female Chancellor. It is also an honour to speak on Lancashire Day, and I would like to put on record my congratulations to all my constituents in Bolton West and further afield who are celebrating this important day.
As others have done, I congratulate the Chancellor and thank her for blazing a trail for girls in my constituency to follow. In response to the remarks from the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), I would say that having spent 14 years working in FTSE 100 companies, I believe that the measures in the Bill will be a turning point for our country. They are the first step in fixing the foundations of a broken economy after 14 long years of economic vandalism by the Conservative party.
Let me be clear: the Labour Government inherited a difficult financial situation, with debt above 90% of GDP, millions of pounds of public money wasted during the pandemic, including via contracts awarded through the VIP fast line, inflation at 11%, and a cost of living crisis that bore down not just on the most vulnerable in my constituency, but on working families, young people and many businesses. That is the economic inheritance bequeathed by Conservative Members, and we should take no lessons from them on how to manage the public finances. To that end, I very much welcome the measures in the Bill.
Graham Stuart
To take the hon. Gentleman back just a few months, he may remember that inflation was at 2% and down at target, and the level of employment was up by 4 million people on where it was in 2010. It would be fair for the hon. Gentleman, who is new to the House, to want to give a balanced picture, and he may want to reflect on those 4 million additional jobs, the fact that inflation was down, and the fact that the UK was the fastest growing economy in the first quarter in the entire G7.
Phil Brickell
I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution, but I will return to the point I mentioned earlier about inflation at 11%. Frankly, the work was not done by the previous Government to mitigate that.
I very much welcome measures in the Bill that will increase stamp duty on those who own a second home. The blight of second home ownership in certain parts of our country has destroyed the housing market for local people, massively inflating prices and denying those otherwise invested in the local area the ability to put down roots. I am pleased to see the Chancellor delivering on our election promise to scrap the non-dom loophole, which has been abused for far too long by those who wish to enjoy all the privileges of life in this country without paying into the system. I applaud the Chancellor’s commitment to delivering fairness into the tax system through the Budget and the Bill.
In the light of the debate we have been having in the country at large over the past few weeks, I wish briefly to focus my comments on three key topics, which I hope the Government will soon revisit at some juncture during this Parliament. The first topic, tax justice, has been overlooked for far too long. According to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the tax gap—the difference between what it should collect annually and what it actually collects—is almost £40 billion. Let me repeat that figure—forty thousand million pounds. Closing that gap by just 20% could pay for 60,000 nurses, 40,000 teachers, and 40,000 police officers. Imagine the transformative impact that could have on our public services, on education, on health, and on tackling crime. Simply put, working people in Bolton West are expected to pay the taxes they owe, so why should big multinationals and the super-rich be able to avoid contributing their fair share?
The renewed focus on tax avoidance and evasion in the Budget is much needed, but we sometimes have to spend money to make money. We all know that tough decisions about public finances have to be made, but that does not have to come at the expense of boosting enforcement through our public bodies, including HMRC, which should be self-funding, with a greater proportion of cash raised from fines, asset seizure and the like returned to the relevant agencies. Our enforcement agencies work incredibly hard to claw back billions of pounds that are lost every year to economic crime in the UK, but they do not have the resources to protect us from all manner of crimes from fraud to money laundering and tax evasion. It should be criminals who are made to pay, not the hard-working taxpayer, and for me, that would be a sensible way to both combat economic crime and bolster our public finances.
We already know that every pound invested in the Serious Fraud Office returns three pounds to the Treasury—a 317% return on its budget—while every pound spent on the National Crime Agency’s international corruption unit results in £21 of illicit wealth frozen. As it happens, research published this month by Spotlight on Corruption—I hope the Minister will take note of this—found that just 17.6% of the £4 billion generated for the Government by law enforcement agencies and anti-money laundering supervisors between 2017 and 2024 was reinvested in those agencies or in crime reduction and community projects. If just 50% of those enforcement receipts had been reinvested, economic crime regulation and enforcement would have received an extra £233 million a year—nearly double the annual investment underpinning the 2023 to 2026 economic crime plan—at no cost to the taxpayer but with potentially substantial rewards.
The second area of focus that I would like the Government to attend to during this Parliament is council tax. For almost three decades, successive Governments have sat on their hands when it comes to reforming the levy, which is regressive and disproportionately targets the wealth of lower-income families and the young, as well as affecting local authorities. Bolton council finds that it does not provide an adequate funding base to provide critical services for my constituents. Last year, a modest property in Hartlepool worth £150,000 would have been taxed at over 1% of its value, while the owner of an £8 million mansion in Westminster would have seen a bill equivalent to just 0.02%.
The Fairer Share campaign has called for a proportional property tax, which would see homeowners pay a flat rate based on current and annually updated valuations, not the absurdly outdated 1991 numbers. It calculates that that would put an average of £600 into the pockets of households in Bolton West and leave 96% of people in my constituency better off. Indeed, in total, Fairer Share reckons that that reform could save households outside central London and the south-east £6.5 billion a year, helping to level up communities and genuinely boost local economies.
Finally, I would very much like to see the spending commitment to 2.5% of GDP on defence reached as soon as fiscally possible. I welcome the Government’s commitment to that effect. The increase of £2.9 billion for defence already announced by the Government is indeed welcome. We must continue to invest in defence to ensure that the UK will have the capacity to keep us safe in what is becoming an increasingly dangerous world.
This Finance Bill demonstrates that after 14 years of dither and delay, the Labour Government are taking the difficult decisions head on. With the measures announced last month by the Chancellor, I am confident that my constituents across Bolton West will be able to realise their full potential and that together we can build the healthier, more prosperous society that I want to see, with tax justice at its heart and those with the broadest shoulders paying their fair share to fix the crises in our schools, our hospitals and our prisons.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
I commend the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for her maiden speech. She and I share many interests, not least in technology, promoting women in technology and accessibility. I wish her well.
Turning to the matter in hand, the measures in the Bill are in addition to others announced as part of a Budget that has caused serious concern for businesses in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. Re-energising our high streets has been one of my key priorities, but the Budget pushes us further from that goal.
The Government plan to increase employers’ national insurance contributions from 13.8% to 15% and to lower the threshold from £9,100 to £5,000. That will force businesses to pay more sooner. Meanwhile, business rates relief for retail and hospitality will drop from 75% to 40%. Research shows that that will cause a 140% increase in rates, with the average UK restaurant seeing costs rise from £5,051 to £12,122l, a £7,000 hike that could force closures. Those changes come on top of existing pressures caused by covid, the war in Ukraine and energy price inflation. A local business has shared the impact of that on its profit and loss: its freight costs are up 126% since 2019, raw materials are rising by 6%, warehouse rents were up 24% last year, with another 6% rise in 2024, and utility costs were up 58% in 2023. Businesses already stretched thin cannot absorb the additional costs that the Budget imposes. Piling on national insurance contributions and higher business rates alongside steep minimum wage hikes, without supporting productivity and growth, is a recipe for disaster.
Graham Stuart
In painting this stark picture, my hon. Friend has not mentioned the Employment Rights Bill, which is expected to impose particular burdens on hospitality businesses, including those on her high streets—a total of £5 billion in addition to the measures in this Budget.
Alison Griffiths
My right hon. Friend makes a valid and important point. I have restricted my comments to the Finance Bill and the Budget, but the Employment Rights Bill places significant additional pressures on businesses, and I thank him for that point.
For towns such as Bognor Regis and Littlehampton where businesses already operate on razor-thin margins, these measures could be existential. Highly regarded local employers, including family-run small and medium-sized enterprises such as Temple Spa and Meridian Medical, are gravely concerned. Entrepreneurs like those take immense personal and financial risks to create jobs and support our economy, yet this Government treat them as an endless revenue source instead of engines for growth. The Chancellor’s projections may work on paper, but they are disconnected from reality. Our high streets, SMEs and family businesses need support, not policies that make survival—let alone growth—harder. I urge the Government to rethink their approach or take steps to mitigate the impact on our communities.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this very important debate as we move to put the measures announced at the Budget on the statute book but, first, I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on a superb maiden speech, demonstrating the commitment and expertise that we are lucky to have on the Government Benches, and the House is lucky to have as a whole.
I suspect that this was not the Budget that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) envisaged as her first as Chancellor, but it was the one that was needed once the economic inheritance received by this Government became fully understood. I want to touch on the very difficult financial situation that this Government have inherited, and what difference the measures announced in the Budget will make to residents living in my constituency.
We should be clear about what the inheritance from the Conservative party was: an economy that, over the past 14 years, has seen productivity and wages flatlining, leaving British families significantly poorer than those in France and Germany; and a country exposed to fossil fuel markets, which led directly to the worst cost of living and energy bills crises in generations. Whatever the Conservatives may like to say to wriggle out of that inestimable fact, they left a £22 billion black hole in the public finances, with no plan to fix it and—this is the worst part—unfeasible departmental spending targets stretching into future years.
Our response of capital gains tax rises, air passenger duty and agricultural property relief undoubtedly falls on those with the broadest shoulders who are most able to bear those increases.
Harriet Cross
May I clarify whether the hon. Member believes that the farmers making on average less than £45,000 year, and the 25% making less than £20,000 a year, are those with the broadest shoulders?
Jim Dickson
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. We are very clear: the numbers from HMRC show that very few of the sorts of farms that she is referring to will be affected. Actually, it said everything to me that the person leading the march last week had boasted that he had spent £4.25 million on a farm in order to avoid inheritance tax.
This was a Budget to reset our finances after years of chaos, with difficult but necessary decisions—decisions we have not dodged, unlike the previous Government. This Labour Government were elected to fix the foundations of our economy and to begin to rebuild the public services that people across our country—including my residents in Dartford, whom I am privileged to represent in this place—really need. The measures in the Bill will rebalance the tax system, protecting working people and raising the crucial revenue so desperately needed for our public services at a time when their performance is unfortunately at a historic low.
What does this Budget mean for people living in my constituency, in Dartford, Swanscombe, Greenhithe and Ebbsfleet? People living across my constituency rely on their excellent district general hospital at Darent Valley, which is full of brilliant, hard-working staff who do their absolute best; however, after 14 years of a Conservative Government, capacity in the hospital has just not kept up with need. Dartford borough was the second fastest growing local authority area in the period covered by the last census, thanks largely to the development of Ebbsfleet Garden City, but investment in services has not kept up with the needs of a growing population. The more than £25 billion announced in the Budget over two years for our health service will cut waiting times, thanks to 40,000 extra elective appointments each week and the capacity for more than 30,000 additional procedures.
Thanks to the new homes in Ebbsfleet and across Dartford, we are also becoming a much younger constituency, as younger couples settle in our community and start families. We warmly welcome these new residents, and I am confident they will welcome the Chancellor’s decision to increase the core schools budget by more than £2 billion a year, meaning the recruitment of 6,500 teachers, and the additional £1 billion investment to address the broken special educational needs system in Dartford and across our country. If Conservative Members disapprove of the revenue-raising measures in the Budget, it really is incumbent on them to say which bit of that extra investment they would cut. I am afraid we are back to magic money tree economics—we heard that very clearly from the shadow Chancellor. All these measures form part of our manifesto commitment to break down the barriers to opportunity, of which sadly far too many remain.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly for the long-term prospects of our country, I hope the whole House will support the Government’s strong focus on boosting public investment by more than £100 billion over the next five years. This is an area where we have been sadly lacking when compared with our international competitors. The announcement has been further enhanced by the Chancellor’s Mansion House speech, which included proposals to unlock the power of our pension funds to invest in our country.
Against that background, it would be remiss of me not to mention a project that hon. Members across the Chamber might remember me describing in previous contributions as shovel-ready. The proposed new lower Thames crossing is crucial to unlocking the growth that the new Government are seeking, both in the south-east and beyond, and could be started very quickly, with much of the preparatory work already having been undertaken. It would create jobs and unlock investment across the Thames estuary, addressing the largest traffic bottleneck in the UK, and allow freight to move much more easily from ports in the south-east to destinations across the country.
I will end as I began. I recognise that these are difficult decisions and that they will not be welcomed by all; however, we must not duck the tough choices needed to restore the foundations of economic stability in our country and our public services.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. Let us travel back in time to those halcyon days for the Labour party: so confidently predicting victory in the election, so far ahead in the opinion polls and so clear on the prospectus they laid before the British people. It had a fully funded, fully costed programme. When the now Chancellor was challenged about whether she had a full insight into the public finances, she assured the interviewer, if I recall correctly, that absolutely she did. Therefore, people could rely on the cast-iron promise, which all Labour Members stood on, that Labour would not raise national insurance, would not raise income tax, would protect farmers and would not cut pensioners’ benefits. That was the promise.
But it is better than that. It is not just that Labour was not going to bring in all those taxes, but that it was going to make growth their No. 1 mission for a mission-led Government. Those who feared a return to a sort of socialist job-destroying and enterprise-wrecking past could be reassured that this was a moderate party that had put the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) well behind it, no matter how many Labour Members had said he was a great friend and would make a great Prime Minister. They had changed their mind. There was a moderate promise.
It was not only members of the public who were led to believe in the Labour mission and what it could bring for the country. Imagine Labour Members, the people who were selected as candidates for the Labour party, who came in not to Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party but to this Labour party of enterprise, protecting workers and encouraging a low-tax system, but doing so in a way that none the less would prioritise the healthcare system, special educational needs children and the like. That was the promise and it did not just beguile many people in the country—although not that many, as only 34% of people actually did vote Labour, but none the less enough. Imagine what it was like—I say this to Opposition Members—to come to this place and be a part of that fantastic crew of hundreds and hundreds of Labour MPs to deliver that manifesto. And where are we now at the historic Second Reading of the Finance Bill of the central policy measures of this new Government. Where are they?
Graham Stuart
They have been humiliated in the Budget debate, as one after another repeated their rote words. It was the most intellectually empty Budget debate I have ever taken part in. I listened to Labour Member after Labour Member trot out their “14 years of chaos” and their “£22 billion black hole”.
Graham Stuart
It would be entirely wrong of me, given how few Labour Members there are in the Chamber prepared to defend the Budget, if I did not now give way to one of them.
Nesil Caliskan
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for finally giving way. I wonder if he might use the opportunity to reflect on the economic record of the previous Government, which saw the highest interest rates and inflation through the roof that affected people’s pockets and their ability to get on in life. Will he also reflect on the fact that his party lost the election and perhaps show some humility?
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I am happy to do so, although it is worth pointing out that we are supposed to reflect today on the actual proposals put forward by the Government of which she is now a member.
But the hon. Lady is right to highlight the Conservative’s economic record. I have a criticism of those of us on the Conservative Benches: I do not think we do enough to talk about it. From 2010 to 2024, which economy in Europe grew the most? Was it Germany or the UK? Oh, it was the UK! Was it France or the UK? Oh, it was the UK! Which country in Europe created 4 million more jobs? For which Government did the horrible scar of youth unemployment, which was a permanent feature even in the good years prior to the crash—for those interested in the history of employment—stay horribly high, with its long-term scarring impact on young people? It was the Labour Government.
All that was turned around. People were paying tax at £6,500 when Labour left power. That was lifted to £12,500. They may be decrying and disowning their part in the coalition Government, but the Liberal Democrats should have some pride in what we were able to do together. We inherited an economic basket case. We brought discipline back. But while we were fixing the foundations, we did not lose sight of the fact that we knew where the wealth comes from. It comes from the private sector, not the public sector—from those small shops, those restaurants, all those other businesses on which the country relies for its wealth. This Budget has gone down and damaged each and every one of them, one by one. It has looked around for targets—the “broad shoulders” for the socialist envy to vent itself on—and who better than landowners?
So the Budget focuses on people. I am not an expert on every area of the economic life of this country, but let us suppose that I looked across the entire economy and tried to find people in private enterprise using their own assets. Where would people have millions of pounds in assets and be prepared to receive a 1% return on them? Who would keep that up, year after year, simply in order to feed the nation as part of a pact—a compact—between them and the Government, indeed the whole country? Who would be prepared to do that, and to feed us, while asking so little in return? Attacking farmers, of all groups in society, is one of the most retrograde and regrettable of attacks.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend knows, I worked for a charity for six years—or a decade, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer likes to call it. Would he care to reflect on the damage done to charities by this Government’s Budget? They are already in a squeeze, and the Government have squeezed them further through their decisions on employment rights and also through taxation in the Budget.
Graham Stuart
We are seeing a kind of socialist envy and attack on misguided targets. For instance, children with special educational needs in private schools will be pulled out of those schools mid-year because their families can no longer afford to send them there. That was not the intent; not only did Labour Members want to stand on an honest prospectus, but that is not, I am sure, what they wanted. Nevertheless, that is what is happening. [Interruption.] It is exactly what is happening.
My hon. Friend is right, however, to point out that this is not just about a class-based assault on people who do not deserve to be assaulted. It is also about sheer ineptitude. Let us consider the £22 billion for the NHS. Why so little for social care? Surely Labour Members, however green and new to the House, must be aware that the NHS depends on the social care system, but because of the increases in national insurance contributions and the minimum wage, its costs are rising by about £2.5 billion and it is getting £600 million. Hospices will be affected, and so will small charities.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman, and indeed all other Members, that this is, specifically, a Finance Bill Second Reading debate. We are not having a general debate on the Budget.
Graham Stuart
I am extremely grateful to you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try not to refer too much to the impact of national insurance contributions, because we will have that opportunity next Tuesday. None the less, my hon. Friend was right to talk about the impact of this Budget overall, and the effect on hospices and charities in particular.
Yesterday I met the chief executive of HICA, a large not-for-profit provider of social care homes and in-home care. HICA is a brilliant organisation, which has made real progress over the last few years. It finally managed to make a surplus last year, so it can pay its staff more than the minimum wage and invest in its stock. Now it is facing a £3.5 million impact on its £40 million turnover as a result of this Budget and this Finance Bill.
As well as farmers, oil and gas have been touched on today. When I was the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, it always struck me as absurd to look at the production of oil and gas rather than the consumption. It is the consumption that is the problem. We must change our factories, our vehicles, our buildings, so that they no longer need oil and gas if we are to move away from them. Attacking production when it is driven by demand is attacking the wrong end. In this measure, the Labour Government are raising the energy profits levy, on top of refusing to issue new licences. The net effect of that, notwithstanding the Liberal Democrats’ saying that they support the policy—I do not know why or how they can do so—
Graham Stuart
I will in a moment.
This does not make the slightest difference to how much we consume, but it means that we import more from abroad, and, in the case of liquefied natural gas, those imports have embedded emissions four times higher than the emissions of what we produce domestically. We are going to bring this in from places that are less careful than we are in its production. We are going to lose tens of thousands of jobs and £13 billion of tax revenue, and we are going to lose the engineering expertise and companies that we need for the transition. There is literally no way to make that make sense, and I hope the hon. Lady will now do a U-turn and see the logic of my argument.
Daisy Cooper
I will resist that invitation. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the nature of a windfall tax? It raises money on the windfall that a sector was not expecting. We know that the big oil and gas giants base their investment plans on the profits that they were expecting, but clearly they raised a lot more money because of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Windfall taxes have been placed on the big oil and gas giants for the profits over and above what they were expecting to receive.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady did not actually refer to the measure in front of us. I know it is the Liberal Democrats’ policy to have a windfall tax on anyone who does not sound popular—big banks, big tech, and oil and gas. That is their answer. If anyone says, “How would you do it?”, they trot that out and lose not a single vote, because the very definition of not taking a tough choice is suggesting that there is easy money.
The measure in front of us, which the hon. Lady specifically said she supported, is not a windfall tax. It is a further tax, in tandem with the removal of any new licences, which effectively destroys investment in the North sea. I point to Apache—which says it is looking to withdraw by 2029, risking 500 jobs—Harbour Energy, JAPEX and Chevron, to name just a few. They are pulling out, and there is no environmental benefit. We are losing all that tax, all those jobs and all that expertise, which is exactly what we need for carbon capture, and for hydrogen, for the green economy. It is utterly insane.
I note that there are very few Labour Members present. I watched them as they came in for the Budget, full of cherry-cheeked enthusiasm and reading out their Whip-prepared rote remarks about the disaster left behind, which, as we know, was the fastest-growing economy in the G7, with inflation at target, debt coming down and the economy coming up. They are not all mad, socialist loons, and day by day we can see them losing spirit in the Tea Room and in the corridors as they realise that the deceit that their Front Benchers practised not only on the people, but on them, is coming home to roost.
The Government will pour all of the £22 billion into the NHS in the next year—it is in the figures—and we are supposed to believe that public services will rise by 1.3% or 1.4% in the rest of the period up to the next general election. Is that credible? It is not. I think Labour Members know that, which is what they have signalled by their absence, because they realise, as we do, that this Finance Bill and the Budget are ruinous for this country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) was absolutely right to say that they make this country more vulnerable to the shocks that may and most likely will come, and it will be the Labour party that owns the mistakes that are being sown today.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), who gave a wonderful maiden speech. I am sure that her daughter Lillian will look on her as a lovely role model as she moves forward.
Earlier this month, we witnessed an historic moment as the first ever female Chancellor delivered the Government’s Budget—a comprehensive plan that is designed to support working people, rebuild our economy and bring fiscal responsibility back to the heart of Government. The Budget delivered a plan for recovery, a plan to undo the damage left by the previous Government and, most importantly, a plan that will benefit the people of Halesowen and the wider community.
However, let us be clear: this Government inherited a dire financial situation. [Interruption.] It is true. The Chancellor exposed a £22 billion black hole that was left by the previous Government, and a series of undeliverable promises that the Conservatives knew they would never have to keep. The last Government knew that they had no money to deliver their agenda, yet they concealed the truth from the British people, leaving the incoming Government to pick up the pieces. The Budget was about sorting this out, and we are committed to doing just that.
Our economy faces multiple challenges, including high debt, underfunded public services and rising youth unemployment, but the true cost of the past 14 years is felt most acutely by the people who have been left behind. In Halesowen I hear from residents every day: people who have been waiting weeks for a doctor’s appointment; people who are forced to travel miles to receive healthcare; and people who are completely unable to access their NHS dentist. Fourteen years of cuts have left our NHS in crisis, and no matter someone’s political affiliation, no one can deny the challenges our health service faces.
But it is not just in healthcare. Our schools, roads, railways—all of this infrastructure—has suffered from years of under-investment. Our public services are falling apart.
Graham Stuart
It is tempting for Members to read out the rote stuff that is given to them—as some of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues have been prepared to do, but are mostly not prepared to do today—but I just gently point out that there was never a reduction in NHS spending; in real terms it went up in every single year. If there is a belief that the NHS can be magically turned around by having above-inflation increases in spending alone, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not true, because we did it every year and we still had demand going beyond the resource.
Alex Ballinger
The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that we reached record NHS waiting lists under the last Government, more than 7 million people waiting and many of my constituents waiting over two years. If he thinks the investment in the NHS by the last Government was enough, he is completely wrong.
Our roads are literally crumbling, working families are struggling and the hope of upward mobility is slipping further out of reach. We cannot let this continue. The Government are faced with what the Institute for Fiscal Studies has described as a genuinely difficult inheritance. The truth is that the last 14 years can be described as, at best, a period of managed decline; or at worst, wilful neglect. The last Government will be characterised as an Administration that allowed services to erode and future generations to be abandoned.
We must take a different approach and offer real change. We are not pretending that the work ahead will be easy, but we are determined to rebuild and restore. A key part of this recovery is investing in our most vital public services, especially the NHS, which cannot survive on good will alone. The Budget commits to injecting much-needed funds into our healthcare system, securing a lifeline for the NHS that will allow it to begin this recovery.
The Budget is also about presenting an offer to working people who have been neglected for so many years, including a rise in the minimum wage to boost the living standards of 3 million low-paid workers; NHS funding to support 2 million more operations, scans and appointments every year; fuel duty frozen for another year, providing relief to drivers and families; a £500 million investment to fund the construction of 5,000 more social homes; a significant increase in the carer’s allowance earnings limit, because those who care for our loved ones deserve our support; and a crackdown on tax avoidance, fraud and waste, ensuring that the super-wealthy pay their fair share of tax.
The decisions in the Budget, though some are difficult in the short term, are the right ones for the long-term good of our country. This is a Finance Bill that prioritises public services and working people without raising taxes on the majority. It is about restoring fairness, rebuilding trust and setting the country on a new path towards growth. It is also important to remember that fiscal responsibility is central to this Government’s approach. The IFS has praised the soundness of our fiscal rules, ensuring that our efforts to drive growth are sustainable and the public finances remain on a stable footing. Changing the fiscal rule to allow more investment is both sensible and necessary, and this investment will boost long-term growth.
The Bill is not just about recovery; it is about securing a prosperous future. Businesses in Halesowen have been struggling, especially on our high streets, where many have been forced to close their doors in recent years. I have heard the concerns of small business owners and the concerns shared by the Black Country chamber of commerce, and I am pleased that the Chancellor’s plans include support for high street businesses, including business rates reform, which will give local shops the chance to compete against tax-avoiding multinationals.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech highlighting a whole series of important points. I just wondered whether he was going to come to the cut in beer duty. I know there are a number of famous brewers in his area and this is an important measure for many brewing towns—[Interruption.] This is an important point for many brewing towns and many small, related businesses in that sector. I have a number of SMEs in my own constituency that will benefit from this, as well as pubs. Does my hon. Friend welcome this measure, as well as the important measures he has mentioned for small businesses in town centres?
Alex Ballinger
I welcome the 1p reduction in tax on beer. I have spoken to many businesses in my constituency’s hospitality sector, including many pubs, that are happy with this measure, which they hope will increase the footfall in our town centres and in their businesses.
I am also delighted that the Budget confirmed £20 million of investment in the redevelopment of Haden Hill leisure centre in Cradley Heath in my constituency, and £20 million of investment in Halesowen town centre, to redevelop what is becoming a difficult area.
The Bill will ensure that local assets that serve the community are protected and enhanced. It marks a turning point for our country, laying the groundwork for a better future. It is a plan that protects our public services, supports working people and puts the economy on a sustainable path. I fully support this Bill for Halesowen and beyond. It delivers hope, invests in communities and fixes the foundations of the economy, so that we can deliver the change for which the country voted.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
This Finance Bill is bad news for my Woking constituency. In the Budget, the Government announced an extra £1.3 billion for local authorities. That might sound good, but the reality is stark. Inflation, rising wages and increased demand for services mean that councils are facing a £6.2 billion funding gap over the next two years. By failing to provide adequate funding in this Budget and Finance Bill, the Government are pushing some councils to the brink of bankruptcy.
The situation is even worse in Woking, as our local authority has already gone bankrupt. Woking borough council, a small authority in a two-tier structure, is carrying £2.1 billion-worth of debt. Members can guess which political party ran the council at the time: the Conservatives. It is an eye-watering figure, and taxpayers should never be put in the position of footing such a bill, but they will have to shoulder it. As part of the Government intervention in Woking, the borough council will have to sell a lot of its assets to try to pay off the debt. However, at current values, those assets are worth £1 billion, which is a huge gap that puts the council in massive negative equity.
The Government like to talk about a £22 billion black hole, but I fear the black hole is worse than they realise. To understand these issues, Ministers need to look at local government bad debt and off-balance-sheet debt. It is quite possible that my local authority alone will not repay £1 billion of debt that this Finance Bill assumes will be repaid. Woking is just one local authority in one constituency out of 650. This Finance Bill makes mistakes, but it could be even worse if it is built on flawed foundations.
One way for my constituency to get out of the mess we have inherited is to grow the town, so that our economy grows and improves. However, I worry that this Budget and Finance Bill undermine that goal. The measures go after small businesses, which are the lifeblood of my high street and community. I am particularly concerned that the increase in alcohol duty will hit small breweries, such as Thurstons in my constituency.
Like many of my constituents and neighbours, I use buses all the time. Buses are a lifeline for us. The £2 fare cap was helpful during the cost-of-living crisis and encouraged people back on to the buses after the covid pandemic. However, the Government are now scrapping it. A resident from Knaphill told me:
“The rise is concerning. With a £1 increase each way, it will put even more strain on pensioners like me.”
It amounts to an extra £500 a year for someone who commutes by bus every day. That is a huge burden at a time when households and families in my constituency and elsewhere are already struggling.
Buses are not just a convenience or a luxury; they are the backbone of local economies, connecting people to work, schools, colleges, shops and healthcare. If this Government are serious about economic growth, they should be investing in buses, not hitting passengers with what is effectively a bus tax on working people. In their election campaign, the Labour party promised not to increase taxes on workers, but this Budget and Finance Bill do just that. At a time when people are facing the worst cost of living crisis in decades, this Finance Bill increases the tax burden on everyone.
The Liberal Democrat manifesto and our reasoned amendment show that there is a fairer way. We have bold plans to properly fund the NHS, social care and other public services by asking big banks, oil and gas giants and big tech companies to pay their fair share. Our plan is ambitious, which is what this country needs; Labour’s Budget does not come close. The Finance Bill does not go far enough to protect people and the services that they rely on.
The Government need to get their priorities right. The Liberal Democrats are against the Bill because it does not effectively tackle the crisis in social care, or reverse cuts to winter fuel support. It does not support people with the cost of living crisis, and it introduces a shocking tax on education. Woking deserves better, and this country deserves better.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on her phenomenal maiden speech. She is already proving to be a powerful advocate for her constituents.
The Finance Bill is a necessary corollary to the Budget. It is the beginning of a process that the new Labour Government are undertaking to rebuild the foundations of our country, after an incredibly poor inheritance from the predecessor Government. I have been quite shocked to hear the joy with which Conservative Members have been speaking about the phenomenal economy that they left the country with. It is an economy in which wage growth has flatlined at the lowest level since the Napoleonic wars, leaving households £10,000 worse off per person. Trade has fallen 15% lower than our neighbours’, and national debt went from 64% in 2010 to 96% just before the pandemic. I know they love blaming the pandemic for everything, but things were pretty bad before the pandemic. The heart of the problem is that the Conservatives lack credibility.
In 2010, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) stood for election on a manifesto that said that the Conservatives would “eliminate” the deficit by the end of the Parliament. In 2015, he stood for election on a manifesto that said the same thing, as he did in 2017. In 2019, he and his colleagues decided to give up entirely on tackling the national debt, which is one of many things that we now have to tackle. Of course, that was the more rational end of the previous 14 years, and there were seven Chancellors in 14 years, by the way. We had the blip, which I know Conservative Members do not like talking about, when one of their Chancellors, with the backing of a Prime Minister, Liz Truss, promised £45 billion—2% of GDP—of unfunded tax cuts. I am incredulous that the Conservatives were talking about gilts earlier. Gilts moved more in one week under Liz Truss than in a whole year on average. There is no comparison—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I asked Members to return to debating the Finance Bill, rather than the rather context of the Budget.
Tim Roca
I was, Madam Deputy Speaker. I tried to intervene on the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness a number of times, but he would not give way, so I felt I had to squeeze in a couple of points before getting to the Finance Bill.
The Finance Bill includes many important measures that I support. The freeze on fuel duty is an important and welcome decision by the Chancellor. The Conservatives imposed a stealth tax on the country by freezing thresholds on income tax, and the Chancellor rightly committed to changing that in 2028. It was a revenue-raising Budget, but despite all the changes, we will have capital gains and corporation tax rates that are very competitive with those of our G7 colleagues.
My constituency needs this Budget because it needs stability. It needs the investment that this Budget will bring. That investment is crucial because the legacy that I talked about spanned a number of areas, including a lack of public investment. The Institute for Public Policy Research said that nearly £500 billion less was invested in the public sector than in comparable economies, as we can see in our public services, hospitals and schools. The Budget was about choices. It was a difficult Budget, and not a perfect Budget, because of the inheritance. We have to deal with the facts. There was disagreement on the Budget, but people who disagree with the revenue-raising measures and agree with the spending have to say what taxes they would have increased. I say gently to Liberal Democrat colleagues, who have found other sources of income, that the Institute for Fiscal Studies effectively said that their plans to raise income elsewhere had no real credibility.
This is a difficult Budget, but it is the beginning of plotting a course for stability, economic growth and investment in public services in our country. That is what my constituents very much hope will be the legacy.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is a very long-standing principle, observed all but universally around the world, that we do not tax education, because it is a public good. Some families find that independent education caters to needs that the state simply does not; that is the case with schools in the music and dance scheme or in certain faith communities. In some cases, a family chooses an independent school because of their child’s special needs—or because, for whatever reason, that is the place where their child can be happy. Whatever the circumstances and whatever the reason, we believe in the sanctity of the principle of parental choice. Many places around the world recognise the value of that choice through the tax system. This country is not one of them. There is no tax break for using independent education providers. Everybody contributes—[Interruption.] Does someone want to make an intervention? I would love to hear it.
Nesil Caliskan
I thank the right hon. Member for inviting me to intervene. I remind him that the IFS has confirmed that there is enough capacity in the state sector for the transfer of pupils. Also, on the point of special educational needs—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The right hon. Member will know full well that it is for me to decide if the hon. Lady’s intervention is too long.
Nesil Caliskan
The right hon. Member may also recognise that the Government have been clear that when special educational needs are being met in the private sector, VAT will not apply.
Damian Hinds
On three counts, I am afraid that is incorrect. First, it does not cover everybody with special needs at a private school. Secondly, the IFS has not said that there is ample space in state schools, nor could it possibly know that. Thirdly, and most importantly, the point on which I was heckled, and on which I invited somebody to intervene, was a completely different one. My point was that unlike in quite a large number of countries, here there is no tax break for those using independent education providers. Everybody contributes towards state education through general taxation; if we take up a private school place, that contribution does not reduce.
In the modelling that goes with the Finance Bill, the Government say that they expect a little over £1.5 billion to be raised from the measure in maturity. We do not know the detail of the modelling and how robust the analysis is. However, I agree, intuitively, with the Treasury that a small part of the effect will be felt immediately in January, but that the effect will really start from September 2025. It will be felt gradually, through some children leaving the independent sector; the bigger effect will probably be from those who do not start in the independent sector in the first place, or who do not start their next phase of education in the sector.
I am not totally clear from what the Treasury has published whether it factors in all the effects of the change. It obviously factors in families who are directly priced out of the independent sector, but what about those who are indirectly displaced, because they were at a school where a number of other families were priced out and the school had to close? Does it factor in the higher number of education, health and care plan applications that will be made, and the much higher than average per-place cost that the state will have to meet for those displaced?
I am also unclear whether the Treasury’s analysis looks at all the effects on independent education cumulatively. Yes, there is the VAT, which is in the Finance Bill, but there are also a number of other measures being taken this year that materially affect the cost base of independent schools, and that is likely to be reflected in fees. They include the increased contribution to the teacher pension scheme; business rates changes, which affect about half of independent schools; and the massive hike in employer national insurance contributions, which will affect so many sectors.
All those are transfers from the independent state sector to the Exchequer, so the real increase in the cost base for that sector will be considerably more than 20% over the course of the year. In the Minister’s summing up, I would love her to tell us what assumption was made about the total average price increase. Whatever it was, the Government calculate that, in the policy’s maturity, 37,000 children will be displaced from the independent sector, and of those, 35,000 will go to the state sector. Ministers say, “Don’t worry; there are loads of places available in the state sector.” In fact, the hon. Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan) suggested that a third party had said that as well, and the Exchequer Secretary said it again in his remarks. He said that we are talking about 0.5% of the total population in state schools. It is useless to have places available in primary schools in inner London if that is not the age group of people leaving the independent sector. The effect will be uneven across the country, and need is concentrated largely in secondary schools and sixth forms.
There are plenty of places where even a small number of children being displaced from one sector to the other could have a big effect on the state school system. What discussions have Ministers had with colleagues, and with councils in Salford, Stockport, Sale, Bury, Bedford, Bristol and so on? I could name considerably more. What contingency plans are in place?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I take it that means that he has not had those conversations. [Interruption.] I am happy to take an intervention from him. What contingency plans are in place for September if the displacement is greater than anticipated? We know that the money will follow the pupil if more pupils turn up in the state sector, but we have not heard whether that money is coming out of general Exchequer receipts—in other words, that the Department for Education will not be expected to find that money from elsewhere in its budget. Similarly, what are the contingency plans, and what capital has been set aside in case extra capital funding is needed? As well as the displacement of pupils, there is also potential displacement of teachers, as we have heard from the unions.
Chris Vince
As the right hon. Gentleman encouraged me to intervene, I will agree that there will be a movement of teachers from the private sector back to the state sector. As a former teacher, I know a number of former colleagues who left the state sector because of the failings of the last Conservative Government, and they are considering going back into state education only because of the hope that the new Labour Government have given them.
Damian Hinds
Well, we shall see. As a teacher, he will know that teachers move between the state and independent sectors all the time. They move in both directions, but that is not what the Association of School and College Leaders was talking about. It was talking about the fact that the change is being made mid-year, and said that it carried a risk of redundancies, and of the permanent loss of teachers to the profession.
Labour Members—the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) is one of them—frequently like to say to Opposition Members that we have to choose. They say: “Are you on the side of the many or the few? Are you with 94% or the 6%?”. Well, we refuse to choose. It is not a question of whether we care about the 94% or the 6%. We care about the 100%—all the children. It is definitely true and right that at the Department for Education—this was true when I was a Minister there—Ministers spend way more than 94% of their time and effort on the state sector. In our time in government, between 2010 and 2024, that paid off with huge results. When we supported our brilliant teachers in their great work, our results went up. We went from 27th in the world to 11th for maths, and from 25th in the world to 13th for reading. We had the best primary school readers in the western world. Free school meal eligible children were 50% more likely to go on to university, and the number of schools rated less than good was down from one in three to fewer than one in 10. That was through supporting teachers, academy trusts, a broad knowledge-rich curriculum and the propagation and spread—from school to school and teacher to teacher—of proven methods, such as maths mastery and synthetic phonics.
Yes, the system does also need money. Per-pupil funding under the last Government was higher than it was under previous Labour Governments. Among the G7 nations, it was middle of the range in cash per child, and the highest as a proportion of national income. Of course, we have to keep increasing the resourcing that we put into key services, none more so than education, but the Conservatives did that as a priority from general taxation, not by taking from another part of the wider education system. I repeat: the Government do not have to choose. These are all children.
Damian Hinds
No, they do not. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the OECD figures, they are for primary, secondary and college-based education in the state sector, but I am grateful to him for his intervention.
When Government Members talk about “the 6%” in the same tone in which they sometimes talk about “the 1%”, I think they believe that they are about to topple the toffs and achieve some sort of great victory in the class war. They are not. Eton college will not miss a heartbeat over this measure. The pupils who will be hit will be those in smaller town schools—the ones that are significant employers locally and a big part of the local community. They do not have big endowments; they do have pretty thin margins. Schools that cater to children with special educational needs will be hit. Denominational schools will be hit.
There have been some concessions from the Government. They are not the most massive concessions in the world, but they are not nothing either. We should acknowledge them, and I thank the Government for them. The first is on the music and dance scheme, with extra help for families with children at the schools in question, albeit that the concession will benefit only a little less than half the total number of families in what is a means-tested scheme anyway. There is also the confirmation that centres for advanced training will be exempt, and of what the Government plan to do on the continuity of education allowance. We need to ensure that those mitigations are more comprehensive than they are now, and that they become permanent.
Of course, the Opposition would prefer the Government to drop this measure altogether and not be the international outlier by taxing education, but if they are determined to bulldoze on, we must have key changes in Committee. We must have an exemption for all children with an EHCP—not only if it specifies the individual school—children who have SEN support, and those who are currently applying for an EHCP. We must have exemptions for schools whose fees are lower than the average charge in the state sector, and for religious denominations where there is no faith school provision in the state sector.
I do not accept the notion that, as Ministers have said at the Dispatch Box, members of religious faith communities are not discriminated against by this measure. It may well be that, as a whole, people of faith are not discriminated against more than others because the vast majority of people of religious faith are in the state sector anyway, where there are plenty of Catholic schools, Anglican schools and other denominational schools, but it is not credible in the slightest to claim that there is no discrimination, and that the effect will not be felt much more strongly by members of certain traditions within Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
We also need key postponements. Children who are already in public exam years, or the year before public exams, cannot have their education disrupted in this way. The school that they move to may not even offer the same GCSEs or A-levels, the same exam board or the same syllabus. Most significantly of all, the Government must for good reasons, including simple practical reasons, at least postpone the introduction of the measure in areas where state schools are already full, or almost full, at that stage of education, because the biggest effect of this divisive, destructive tax attack will be on state schools. It will be felt in class sizes, and ultimately in all parents’ ability to get the preferred choice of school for their child.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
I pay tribute to Conservative Members for embracing their role in opposition. They are throwing their whole heart into it, and it is wonderful to see them in their rightful place—long may it continue.
I am the Member for Darlington, where a quarter of the Treasury is based, and my wonderful home town is filled with people from all walks of life. We share the unifying belief that despite our rich railway heritage we do not like to be taken for a ride. The coalition of people who elected me came from every part of the town, from people working two jobs, worried about keeping their children fed, right across to people earning six figures who voted Labour for the first time because they were worried about the lack of opportunities for their children to succeed. The people in that coalition lead different lives but agree completely on their reasons for voting Labour. Their reason was the same as for those up and down the country who voted for Labour for the first time in droves: the Conservatives had crashed our economy and stifled growth, and all those people were worse off because of it.
As a member of the prestigious Treasury Committee, I am privileged to hear the views of the top economic leaders in our country. Their advice is clear: growth and investment require economic stability, and this Finance Bill will deliver economic stability. Our Labour Government were elected to offer industry and the markets the assurances they need that Britain is back in business. The Bill does just that. Our Labour Government were elected to ensure that people in every corner of the country can be better off. This Finance Bill will create the conditions to do just that. Our Labour Government were elected to get our children’s future back—a future that they can be excited about, with a life filled with opportunities, prosperity and public services that work when they need them. The Bill is essential to deliver just that.
I am proud to stand here to champion a Bill that will create the conditions for long-term investment in my area. The huge amount of investment from big business that this Government have already crowded in is testament to the fantastic reputation our country has on the global stage—a reputation that the last three Prime Ministers nearly destroyed. While the Conservatives chopped and changed their leaders, Chancellors and policies, the markets, business leaders and global investors stepped back. They watched and waited to see if the new Prime Minister knew what they were doing, or if the next new Prime Minister had the backing of their colleagues. They watched and waited to see the new Prime Minister’s long-term vision for the country, but scandal after disastrous scandal led them to lose confidence—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady should sit when I am on my feet. This needs to be a debate about the Finance Bill, not other matters, and certainly not a general debate on the Budget again.
Lola McEvoy
The Conservatives stopped answering the phone to Labour; the industry ghosted them; and then the country rejected them. But, on the Finance Bill, not 100 days into this new Labour Government, Britain is back open for business with billions of pounds of investment in green technology, new nuclear, solar and hydro projects being given the go-ahead, and a whopping £63 billion of private investment crowded in. Tough choices were taken to fix the foundations and to stabilise the economy—choices only necessary because of the incompetence, inertia and wilful ignorance of the last Government. To govern is to choose, and I am proud to have chosen to stabilise the economy, invest in net zero and energy independence, balance the books and begin to rebuild our public services, all in the service of working people. This House will pass the Bill; the economy will be stabilised; and every corner of our great country will be better off, and not a moment too soon.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to have an opportunity to speak to the Bill. I would have thought it would be a pleasure enjoyed by many more people on the Government Benches. Last time I checked—it has been a while since I was at university—it was quite important to have constituents’ views heard on the Finance Bill and the Budget. It is scandalous how quiet the Government Benches are. We will have in the order of eight Labour speeches today, which is just unbelievable. If one were a Unionist, and I am not—[Interruption.] Was that an intervention? No, it was not. If I were, this would be an opportunity. The Government had an opportunity, with the mandate they had, to create a Budget for change, but this Budget will leave millions worse off.
The Budget last month had some moments of cheer in it, and I will touch on them now because it will not take long. There is scope within the Finance Bill for increased investment, which the SNP has called for. There is scope within the Budget for increased funding for the NHS all across the United Kingdom; again, the SNP has called for that, and it is welcome to see. Tackling the most elite of all the elites, the non-doms, is also welcome, as is the ambition to tackle the scourge of vapes.
Thereafter, though, we get into serious difficulty. I will start with the Bill’s clauses 15 to 18, a further and final attack on North sea oil and gas, Scotland’s natural endowment. The UK has drawn hundreds of billions of pounds from the North sea over the course of my lifetime, the past 50 years. It is almost as though the UK is addicted to it—so much so that it is going to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. The Government are hiking taxes, eroding allowances and driving investment from the North sea, including precisely the businesses that we need to drive the just transition to net zero in the places where we need them. What other state would attack one of its own industries in this way? It beggars belief. It will come home to roost in spades, and it will not shift the dial one bit towards the net zero future that we are trying to get to. The oil and gas that is being displaced from the Scottish sector by this Government’s ineptitude will be replaced by oil and gas from other jurisdictions, where the tax will be paid and where, doubtless, human rights are very much worse.
Clause 61 contains the universally detested provisions on agricultural property relief. The way in which this Government have manipulated the figures to justify this mendacious attack on one of the most noble professions anywhere in the world, and certainly across these islands, is simply unbelievable, as is the idea that 70% of farms will not be affected by these provisions. The fact that the Government habitually quote a circumstance in which two parents bequeath a farm at the same time—which almost never happens—shows that they themselves know that they are on shaky ground. If the problem is non-farming enterprises investing in the purchase of agricultural land in tax-efficient ways, tax that. That is what the Government should have had the bravery to do. There is no material enrichment from inheriting the family farm—other Members have talked today about the return on capital employed in farming being miserably low. It is as much a vocation as it is an employment, and we should never forget that the product of what farmers do feeds us all. It is ridiculous, single-minded, myopic nonsense from another dysfunctional, fiscally incompetent Labour Government who would not know which way up was if somebody did not point it out to them.
Because farms are a business, we can add the imposition across the economy of the increase in employer’s national insurance charges. If that were not enough, the Government have stuck the boot in on four-door pick-ups, turning them into family cars for taxation purposes. Pick-ups are the backbone of the agricultural economy, but it seems that nothing is off limits for this Labour Government when it comes to sticking the boot into agriculture. What Government seriously take on the people who produce our food? I remind the Government—I am guessing, but I am pretty certain that they will not know—that malting barley is the prime ingredient in the Scotch whisky industry, which again produces billions for the UK Exchequer.
Harriet Cross
On the topic of the Scotch whisky industry, does the hon. Member agree that increasing the levy by 3.65%, so that a bottle of whisky now has £12 of tax added before it is even out of the door, is another attack on one of Scotland’s main industries?
Dave Doogan
I could not agree more with the hon. Member. That is absolutely right, and I am going to touch on that topic a little later.
We see in clause 75 that the rates of landfill tax are going up by 25%. I wonder what discussions Government Ministers have had with local authorities on the impact of this increase. It would be just like this Government to not have put two and two together and realised that it will be a significant upward pressure on costs for councils.
Clause 78 deals with high-sugar drinks. A public health emergency exists in this country—in this state—and the Government are proposing to increase the tax on high-sugar drinks from 24p per litre to £2.59 per 10 litres. That is scarcely an increase at all. A tax of 24p per litre is going up to 25.9p per litre, an increase of 1.9p per litre. We do not sell sugary drinks in litres, we sell them in 330 ml cans, so that is an increase of 0.6p per can. Are the Government kidding? It is a public health emergency—the clue is in the title. Have they got no ambition at all?
This Bill, and the Budget that led up to it, will impose billions of pounds of tax rises and cuts that will hit working Scots in the pocket. We see our old folk freezing in their houses as a result of this Bill and the Budget that underpins it. As a result of the Bill, young people will be chasing fewer and fewer jobs with lower and lower wages. The CBI said this week that the tax rises in the Budget had sent businesses into “crisis containment” and “damage control”, because this Chancellor’s £40 billion raid on businesses is the single biggest tax increase since Norman Lamont’s in 1993. The Chancellor’s decisions hinge on 2% departmental efficiencies that will never ever be realised—we know this because it has never ever been done—so further cuts are coming down on top of these taxes.
This is pure fiscal poison for communities and businesses across these islands. The Government are inflicting the same pain on the Northern hotel in Brechin, Perthshire Timber and Montrose port as they are inflicting on Nissan and Tesco. I am not implying that it is fine for big business and bad for small business; this is a “one size fits nobody” Finance Bill, and the Budget that goes along with it is the same. The clawback that they are applying to the devolved nations, which the Exchequer Secretary would not speak about earlier, does not come close to meeting the cost of the national insurance increase. There is £300 million of compensation for the Scottish Government, who are facing a £750 million exposure, and that is the nature of what this Government are doing. What of the reward for this fiscal pain? Lower growth in the economy, lower profits, increased debt, lower investment, lower wages, falling output, capital flight and the risk of default as the ultimate conclusion. It is almost as though the Chancellor has forgotten that her job is to run the economy, not ruin the economy.
This would be a matter for separate debate—I know that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not want to test your patience—but the raid on employer’s national insurance will devastate small businesses, charities and the care sector. It will cost Scottish public services—the public sector with direct employees in Scotland— £600 million, and when we include the partner agencies working with our NHS and our care services, that figure will be very much higher. Supermarkets and other retailers have also said that the inevitable result of the Chancellor’s changes will be higher prices for consumers. The Government make great play about not raising taxes, but it amounts to the same thing when wages are suppressed and prices are going up.
As the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) mentioned, the duty on Scotch whisky has been hiked in this Bill, which the industry has called an “indefensible tax grab”. This was despite Labour’s leader in Scotland—for Labour Members’ interest, he is a gentleman called Anas Sarwar—claiming that he spoke to the Chancellor about it. I would be very interested to know about that conversation, but perhaps it was: “Is it okay if I hike up duties, Anas?” with the reply, “Yes, no bother, Chancellor. You carry on.”
One of the glaring omissions in the Bill is any provision for the WASPI women. It is of course welcome that the Budget will address the great impositions put on people affected by the infected blood scandal and on postmasters. However, those were caused by the Post Office, or the NHS and others, whereas the WASPI women issue was caused by the UK Government. That great tragedy was caused by the Government, yet it is the one that is not addressed in this Bill or in the broader Budget.
It is therefore little wonder that polling in Scotland last week showed that 75% of Scots feel they are going to be worse off, or certainly no better off, as a result of the Budget. Since the Chancellor delivered her Budget, supermarkets, farms, pubs and telecom providers have all warned that these decisions will be inflationary.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member think it was fiscally responsible for the SNP Finance Secretary to have used all of the £460 million from offshore wind? He has spoken a lot about this Government, but does he think that that was appropriate?
Dave Doogan
To my great regret, I am not entirely sure what the hon. Member is talking about. If she would like, I am very happy to catch up with her afterwards. We can find out exactly what is concerning her, and I will make sure she has all the facts she needs.
Just when mortgage payers thought things were going to stabilise and that the worst of the last UK Government’s fiscal incompetence was over, the major banks have been talking since the Budget about an increase in the rates they are able to offer.
Many hon. Members have talked about what was said before the election, and what has come to pass after it, but during the election the Prime Minister promised that there would be a £300 reduction in energy prices. We have seen that that is not the case, and that energy prices are £149 higher and will go up by £21 in January. There is a £470 honesty tax on energy bills across the United Kingdom as a result of what people were told was going to happen before the election, and what has come to pass at the hands of this Labour Government.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman talks about honesty. It sounds like he has read our manifesto, so did we say that we would reduce energy prices by November 2024? Did we say that we would raise the minimum wage, and did we do it?
Dave Doogan
I am pleased with the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I can only assume he was a used car salesman in a previous life. We need to read the small print from Labour: “We will reduce your energy bill by £300. Terms and conditions apply.” Honestly, you couldn’t make it up—[Interruption.] I think they are probably speaking to the hon. Gentleman, rather than me, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Things do not end with the honesty tax I mentioned. This is a serious point, because 900,000 pensioners in Scotland will be stripped of their winter fuel payment in the coldest part of these islands, without so much as a by your leave to the Scottish Government—
Dave Doogan
No, I will not—we have touched on a number of issues there. In closing, earnings are set to grow by just 1.6% in real terms over this Parliament as a result of the Bill and the Budget that goes with it, and that will extend the UK’s long pay stagnation. The Resolution Foundation has found that
“By 2028, average weekly earnings are set to be just £13 higher than they were in 2008.”
Furthermore, the Institute for Fiscal Studies states:
“Labour’s spending plans after 2025-26 are unlikely to survive contact with reality”
Those are—[Interruption.] I will take an intervention from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) because he has goaded me.
Dr Arthur
The Government have taken the difficult decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance and protect the poorest pensioners, but my understanding is that that is a devolved power in Scotland. The Scottish Government could have made the decision to use the resources they have, perhaps from wind as was discussed, to extend the allowance to more pensioners in Scotland, but they did not. They decided to enforce that cut in Scotland when they could have taken a different path, particularly given the additional uplift of money that has come from this Budget.
Dave Doogan
I do not know the hon. Gentleman. I have never set eyes on him, but I will make the assumption that he is a Scottish Labour MP. I do not know who he is, because he has only just appeared in the Chamber, despite the fact that we are two and a half hours into the debate—[Interruption.] We have heard a lot from the hon. Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan) as well. The hon. Gentleman asks me what the Scottish Government will do about the winter fuel payment, so let me tell him for the next time he is an apologist for the United Kingdom. The Labour Government devolved control over the winter fuel payment, and then effectively took the budget away by cutting it for pensioners elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is the trap of devolution. He does not want to see it, but I can see it fine. I do not know it, so I do not know how he knows what the Scottish Government will do regarding the winter fuel payment, and what targeted support they will provide in the winter ahead. One thing for sure, however, is that whoever in Scotland is standing up for pensioners, it certainly will not be the Labour party.
In closing, it is no surprise that the Bill and the Budget hold nothing but pain for communities, services and business in Scotland. Labour takes Scotland for granted. The Labour Government even ignore representations from their Westminster apologists with Scottish constituencies who sit on their own Benches. This is another tragic Budget for Scotland, and another push factor inexorably moving us closer to independence—at least the Budget is good for one thing.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on a fantastic maiden speech. I am sure that her expertise in the tech sector will be an asset to this place.
I welcome the ability to contribute to the debate on the Finance Bill. I am wholly supportive of the measures announced in the Budget that form the legislation. After 14 years of Conservative mismanagement of our economy and the country, the public spoke on 4 July and gave a clear mandate to repair the dire circumstances we found ourselves in that left my constituents footing the bill.
The electorate knew and showed at the ballot box that they were in dire need of a grown-up Government that would not shy away from the hard decisions. We have heard many contributions from Opposition Members setting out the things they do not like about the Budget. If they support the benefits of the Budget, we have not heard much about how they would fund those measures or what they would cut.
My constituents voted for a Government who would finally ensure, after years of failure, that we would grow our economy, lower the tax burden on working people and restore the fantastic public services that once upon a time made this country a world leader. My constituents understand that there are difficult decisions to be made. They know that government is about making choices and deciding what country we want to be in the future. They made their decision at the ballot box, doing away with the Conservatives.
My constituents chose to no longer be a country with crumbling roads, a country that dipped in and out of recession, a country with low investment ultimately steered by the hands of the Conservatives in a chaotic fashion that clobbered their living standards. They voted for Labour, and with that they decided that they wanted to live in a country with monumental investment in its national health service, which will reduce waiting lists—we are already seeing the benefits of that—and rebuild key hospitals such as Leighton hospital in my constituency. They want to be in a country where their work is rewarded fairly and where minimum wage increases will put £1,400 a year into their pockets. Not only that; they want to live in a country—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I am going to make the request that I have made at least twice—this could be third time or the fourth. Please can Members debate the Finance Bill’s Second Reading, which is what we have on the Order Paper this afternoon? This is not a general debate on the Budget. We debated the Budget several weeks ago and we cannot keep covering old ground.
Connor Naismith
My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am about to move on to points covered by the Finance Bill.
My constituents want to live in a country that levels the playing field and ensures that working families have as much opportunity at all stages of their life, regardless of their postcode or their background. That is why I support the Government’s decision to end VAT relief on private schools, aiming to equalise educational opportunities. I know that many families work hard to send their child to private school, but I have never met a constituent who does not work hard just to make ends meet, and their children also deserve the very best education that our country can provide. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Conservative Members say “Hear, hear!” but we do not often hear them advocating for state schools.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
As a former state school pupil with three daughters in a state school, let me assure the hon. Member that, despite the caricature that sometimes he and others like to paint, not all Conservative Members are privately educated. I say to him quietly that it is not a choice of either/or; we want to see excellence and choice in education right across the board. It is not one against the other.
Connor Naismith
I thank the hon. Member for making that intervention. He says that it is not a choice between one and the other, but for 14 years under the previous Government we heard his side talk about state schools having to make difficult decisions and tighten their belts. As the husband of a state schoolteacher, I know that our state schools were severely underserved by the previous Government. The money generated by ending the VAT relief on private schools will be vital to recruit the 6,500 more teachers that we need in our state schools and to roll out free breakfast clubs across the country, to ensure that no child in education goes hungry.
Damian Hinds
Does the hon. Member know how many additional teachers were recruited in the last Parliament without putting VAT on private education? Does he know how many breakfast clubs are already in state schools in this country? There are thousands of them, thanks to the national school breakfast programme.
Connor Naismith
We have heard lots of contributions from the Opposition Benches about the fantastic record of the previous Government, but that does not stand up to the lived reality of our constituents. That is exactly why we saw the result that we had in the general election. The sooner Opposition Members come to terms with that result, the better.
Connor Naismith
I am sorry, but I have given way several times already.
I welcome the Government going even further in the Bill to level the playing field and ensure that those with the broadest shoulders take the heaviest burden. That is why we need the legislation to close loopholes such as the non-dom status, change the furnished holiday lettings tax regime and provide more resources to HMRC to tackle the tax gap. That will help us address the financial black hole that the Conservative party clearly had no regard for, claims does not exist and has failed to apologise for. The Bill will allow us to fix what the Leader of the Opposition admitted today were broken foundations. I believe that the Government’s Budget and the Bill will be a vital starting point on a long road to recovery for this country. I commend the Government for their work and support this Bill’s progression through the House.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on her excellent maiden speech? Not only will her daughter have been inspired by her words, but so too will countless other young women.
I must declare a personal financial interest in relation to independent school fees. I want to start by telling a story of aspiration, sacrifice and hard work. This story was told to me by a parent who is going into Christmas feeling devastated. They have worked tirelessly, missing valuable time with their child, and sacrificing holidays and any form of luxury because of an aspiration to give their child an education that otherwise would have been out of reach. This parent said to me, “I am not a rich person; I hustle every day to make the money I need to send my child to this school.” This parent will now see all those sacrifices come to nothing, as her child faces the upheaval of moving schools in the middle of the academic year.
Let us imagine that child’s first day in their new state school, their school year having been disrupted, and their efforts to catch up on the missed learning as a consequence of being forced to change schools part way through the academic year. They join 35,000 other students across the country who are expected to do the same as a consequence of this policy. Their classroom sizes swell as the promise of 6,500 new teachers remains years away from becoming a reality, and the school struggles to stretch its existing budget to accommodate the new intake. There are not enough textbooks, computers or teachers.
Let us imagine the child with special educational needs and disabilities. Their routine having been overhauled, they start to fall behind in their class. Despite the very best efforts of their teachers, who want to provide the extra support so desperately needed, they simply do not have the bandwidth. The consequences of that are children’s future prospects slipping through their fingers every day, because the school they now attend has not been adequately resourced for the arrival of them and their fellow new classmates.
Imagine being the parents of these children. They are not rich; they just want the best for their child. As a consequence of one ill-conceived, ideologically driven policy, that dream has been snatched away, with no consideration of the impact it will have on families, on schools and on teachers, who will be left redundant.
While the Government speak of a hope to bring aspiration to all, their policy to charge VAT on independent school fees will do the precise opposite. It will not deliver high standards across the board. This is not a policy that lifts up; on the contrary, it will deliver the worst for all children. It is the very definition of levelling down.
A Government cannot be expected to get things right all the time, but it is not unreasonable to expect a Government to recognise when they have got something wrong. It is not unreasonable to expect a Government to hold up their hands and to pause, reflect and recalibrate. If the Government’s true endeavour is to bring about policies for positive change, they must be willing to recognise when they need to change course, and this is that moment. I ask the Government to demonstrate some moral courage, admit that they have erred and abandon this policy of folly.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
The Budget that was presented to the House will turn the page on what has been a chaotic few years under the last Government. It is also an opportunity for my constituents to welcome a Budget that demonstrates a responsible Government who will take tight fiscal rules seriously. The truth is that economic growth comes when there is financial stability, and the first step towards financial stability is to ensure that the books are balanced.
This Budget protects working people from higher taxes in their payslips and provides an increase in the national minimum wage, which my constituents will absolutely benefit from. It speaks volumes that the majority of the time spent by Opposition Members has focused on a subsidy that used to exist for private schools and now does not because this Government are ensuring that we invest in the state sector.
Nesil Caliskan
No. I can tell those Members that when additional money is spent on the state sector, it improves the life chances and opportunities of my constituents.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Could she identify which subsidy she is talking about?
Nesil Caliskan
I am talking about the VAT relief that existed for private schools. [Interruption.] Yes, it was a subsidy. Politics is full of choices, and a Government’s first responsibility is to ensure that they balance the books. If a Government are responsible, they will invest in decent public services and create conditions for economic stability. I want to concentrate on that final point for a moment. We have heard remarks from Opposition Members on small and medium-sized businesses; I say to those Members that when I speak to local businesses in Barking, they say that the economic instability over the past few years is what has created pressure for them.
I welcome, in particular, the Government’s tax announcements on non-dom loopholes. The Government changing the residential base means they will increase revenue by almost £13 billion. The rate changes on capital gains mean we will maintain our position as having the lowest capital gains tax of any European G7 economy. These measures are a collection of decisions that show we are prioritising investment in public services, alongside an absolute commitment from the Government to create economic stability to achieve the future growth that this country deserves.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
I will speak about the impact of the Government’s changes to the energy profits levy on people and businesses in my constituency, and on the UK as a whole, in terms of the energy security the Government are meant to ensure and the Government’s ever-more ambitious decarbonisation targets, which are being put at risk.
The Chancellor’s decision to increase the EPL rate to 38% and extend it to 2030, while also removing investment allowances, demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of our energy sector—indeed, the global energy sector—and the communities here that depend on it. According to Aberdeen and Grampian chamber of commerce, 100,000 energy-related jobs across the UK, but disproportionately in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, are being put at risk because of the changes. The OBR’s figures project that capital expenditure will fall by 26%, with oil production down 6.3% and gas production down 9.2%. For businesses across my constituency, that means fewer contracts, reduced investment and diminishing opportunities. Or to put it another way: fewer jobs, fewer prospects and more redundancies.
What is incomprehensible about the changes to the EPL is that they make no economic sense. Studies by Offshore Energies UK show that the changes will cost the Treasury £12 billion in lost tax revenue—£12 billion. If the Chancellor is so convinced that she is in a hole, maybe not digging deeper would be a good idea. The OEUK put that down to a rapid decline in production due to under-investment. While we are still going to use oil and gas for years to come, the Government are therefore choosing to take it from overseas producers where there are low environmental credentials and worse employment standards, rather than from the UK where we will be able to increase employment, secure employment, help our tax revenues and secure our economic growth both locally and nationally.
Labour’s changes in the Budget will see a wholly punitive regime, with the effective tax rate being 78% on oil and gas companies—the highest of any comparable off-sea mature basin. What other industry in the UK would be expected to deliver something as fundamental as our heating, lighting or transport fuel—indeed, energy to ensure the NHS can operate and schools can run—while also being taxed to such an extent that the Government are driving away investment in a sector so crucial to our national security?
What is particularly concerning about the EPL is the impact on home-grown energy businesses. These are not global multinationals that are often used as examples of the energy giants who make massive profits; companies that can and do buffer the impacts of EPL by increasing their overseas investments and reducing their investments in the North sea. Instead, this policy hits hardest the companies that have emerged and grown out of north-east Scotland, employing local people, supporting local supply chains and helping our local economies.
Harriet Cross
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We must remember that investment allowances have now been reduced and taken away. Increasing the EPL by a further 3% while decreasing investment allowances makes the North sea a really difficult place to invest in.
Dave Doogan
Apache has announced that it is set to pull out of the North sea basin. How does the hon. Lady think that announcement relates to the fiscal decisions of this Government? Does she think that it is inextricably linked to this Government’s ambitions for North sea oil and gas, and their failure to fully understand how the industry works?
Harriet Cross
The fact that Apache’s announcement came within a week of the Budget speaks for itself when it comes to the question of the final straw that broke the camel’s back.
As I was saying, the energy profits levy has the greatest impact on our local, home-grown businesses. It is turning the lights off in the very businesses that we should be supporting and championing. By removing investment allowances, the Government are forcing companies to scale back their North sea projects, thereby increasing our reliance on expensive imported energy from overseas.
North-east Scotland is already leading the charge on renewable energy. We have hydrogen projects in development, wind farms off our shores, and expertise that could and should position us as a global leader on clean, renewable energy technologies. However, a rushed, ill-thought-out transition—to which the EPL contributes—will undermine our efforts. The skills of our oil and gas sector are precisely what we need in order to deliver a sustainable transition. The companies that will be penalised by this levy are the ones that we need to invest in green technologies. Just yesterday I met developers of floating offshore wind farms, and I asked them about the EPL. They hope that one of their projects will involve collaboration with an oil and gas field; the floating wind farm will help to decarbonise the rig, and in return, the oil and gas producer will help to fund the cabling back to shore. However, now they fear that the increasing and extended EPL will jeopardise the oil and gas company’s ability and willingness to invest.
This Labour Government are turning what was a windfall tax into a permanent feature of our tax system, creating long-term uncertainty that will drive investment away from north-east Scotland. The energy profits levy is a blunt instrument, not a balanced strategy. The Government must listen to industry experts, local businesses, and communities like mine in Gordon and Buchan. We need a competitive, open business environment that attracts investment and will support our energy transition, while protecting jobs and supply chains and securing our energy supplies. The nation’s energy security depends on it.
Kanishka Narayan (Vale of Glamorgan) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak while you are in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was also a pleasure to hear the brilliant maiden speech from my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett). We are colleagues and partners in crime in the cause of technology. I know that she has a glittering career in front of her, and I look forward to witnessing it.
In view of the instruction from your predecessor in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, I studiously read the Budget briefing from the House of Commons Library, which explained the history of the Finance Bill. Broadly, that history commends this country’s stability and its financial institutions—broadly, but with one great blip. Let me start by recognising the context of the Bill: the wreckage from which we emerge—the wreckage of the “growth plan”, as the Conservatives called it under their Prime Minister Liz Truss. The briefing, for which I thank the Library’s staff, tells us that not setting out the prospective flow of a Finance Bill from that was a total aberration. From the wreckage, however, has come the return of stability.
In fairness, I recognise that at the time, the present shadow Chancellor—the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride)—called the party leader out. He said that she was “flying blind”, and others were following her blindly. It seems that blind flight is contagious on the Opposition Benches today. The right hon. Gentleman talks about opposing, about being the party of “no” rather than the party of government. He did not tell us how he would fund public services; he did not tell us what taxes he would raise if he opposed all of ours. I am conscious that he also once called the pension triple lock “unsustainable”. This is not someone to be trusted with government or with opposition.
I note that the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) has just left the Chamber, having said that he was not interested in choosing. He stands for the 100%. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) said, to govern is to choose. To avoid choice is to play the fantasy politics of opposition, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has found the warm Benches opposite.
Dave Doogan
The hon. Gentleman says that the Tories have no plan for public services. I accept that the Labour Government do have a plan, but it is completely unbelievable, so where does that leave us?
Kanishka Narayan
May I recognise, with warm comfort, the traditional place of the Scottish nationalists as total enablers of Conservative Governments? The hon. Gentleman talks about fiscal credibility. May I point out the absolute wreckage of the Scottish Government, who have wasted almost half a billion pounds of offshore wind proceeds on day-to-day spending because of their fiscal mismanagement? If he is taking tutorials alongside the Conservative party, may I ask him to invite his colleagues in Scotland to them? Those will serve them very efficiently.
From my experience of the City of London, and of investing in this country and abroad, the broad lesson I have learned is that finance is always contingent, but the fundamentals matter. For that reason, the Bill has to be seen in the context of what it enables. Where the Conservatives treated the working people of this country as their cash machines, we are protecting payslips. Where they did not support healthcare in this country and wrecked the waiting list system, as I experienced growing up in this country, we are supporting the NHS. Where they slashed public investment and took cowardly decisions across their Finance Bills, we are investing in our future.
I want to mention a proposal in the Bill that is close to my heart: the relief on draught duty, which will affect the Lamb and Flag in Wick, the Three Golden Cups in Southerndown and, closest to my heart, Finnegans on Barry Island. When the “Gavin and Stacey” Christmas special is shown, I will make sure to make the most of the draught duty relief—particularly at Finnegans, but across the Vale of Glamorgan.
Let me return to the choice at the heart of this Bill. As the Treasury’s distributional analysis shows, the overall context of what we have done, both in the Bill and more broadly, is that 90% of households in this country will be better off. That is the amazing distributional context, after 14 years of what we experienced under the Conservative party.
What a daffodil-laden Budget we have! The Bill offers the biggest ever budget settlement for Wales; it means £1.7 billion for Welsh public services. Some 70,000 minimum-wage workers in Wales will be better off. There is £100 million for our coal and steel communities, and a timely £25 million of support for coal tips. For the daffodil-laden Budget and the Bill that undergirds it, I am very grateful to the Chancellor.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate as a member of the Treasury Committee. After suffering the highest fall in living standards since records began, the United Kingdom desperately needs economic growth, yet the OBR forecasts that the policies in the Government’s Finance Bill and Budget will have no impact on growth over the next five years. The recessionary impact of the tax rises, combined with a focus on current spending that crowds out the private sector, largely offsets the fiscal stimulus of one of the largest fiscal events in recent decades, and of borrowing an extra £32 billion a year.
There are potential upsides to the growth forecasts in the Budget, mainly from the impact of planning reform, but this Budget and Finance Bill are a missed opportunity for growth. That matters, because there are chronic structural problems in the British economy that we must address. Indeed, given that public sector net debt is now approaching 100% of GDP, the Government’s ability to borrow to invest in the future, or to cope with an unforeseen shock, is severely constrained.
Many Labour Members have spoken about the importance of public investment, which I agree with, so I would like to address the following points. Since the 2008 financial crash, the UK economy has been hampered by productivity growth collapsing to 0.6% per year—the second worst in the G7. Unless and until we solve the productivity crisis, the UK will not escape its downward economic spiral of higher taxes, an ageing population, ever crumbling public services and ever higher debt. A key cause of that is chronically low public and private investment. In 24 of the last 30 years, the UK has had the lowest total investment of any G7 economy, yet as the OBR testified, under the Budget, public investment will remain flat as a share of GDP, so the Budget is unlikely to help solve the productivity crisis. This is why the OBR is forecasting that for every £1 borrowed by the Government, the economy will grow by only 60p next year, and that these effects will reverse in five years.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman knows that I hold him in high regard, but I am slightly perplexed because he welcomes this Government’s investment in public services, the NHS and so forth, yet his colleagues oppose many of the revenue raisers in this Finance Bill—and perhaps he does, too. Can he help me square that circle?
Chris Coghlan
As the hon. Member will know, the Liberal Democrats have alternative measures for raising those revenues, but my fundamental point is that, yes, I welcome public investment, but it is flat in the Budget; it is not enough, in my view, and furthermore, it is not focused on the right areas.
By contrast, economists have found that optimal forms of public investment are able to raise GDP by £1.50 for every £1 invested. The best public investments for raising economic growth are investments in intangible capital such as knowledge, research and development, patents and licenses. That can bring greater gains in productivity because knowledge can build on existing knowledge, and it can crowd in private investment, as it lowers the financial risk of participation for private investors.
Indeed, the most effective form of R&D is targeted on a specific goal. For example, the Kennedy Administration in the ’60s had stunning success in increasing US productivity and growth by having the very specific goal of the moon landings. I was excited to see that R&D to solve targeted problems was in the Budget, on page 76, but then I saw that of the £70 billion in spending in the Budget, only £25 million will be spent on the best type of R&D to drive economic growth. That is about double the budget of my local district council. That is not really appropriate for the world’s sixth-largest economy.
We stand on the cusp of a new industrial revolution in artificial intelligence, and this country has just one chance to gain the first mover advantage, and to harvest the productivity gains and growth that could result. Indeed, combined with innovations in the life sciences and climate technology, which are mentioned in the Budget, this could be our route out of this downward economic spiral, yet in the 164-page Budget, the words “artificial intelligence” appear once. I call on the Government to redouble their efforts on public investment and R&D, because I would like to live in a country that has the resources that it needs to provide opportunities for our citizens, and this Budget is a missed opportunity to do that.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) has left the Chamber, but I praise her for her maiden speech. I am pleased to speak on this Finance Bill. It underpins the first Labour Budget in 14 years. It also raises the revenue that this country needs in order to recover, rebuild and renew. I will not spend ages talking about the Conservatives and the mess they have made, but—cue groans from Conservative Members—we all know about the £22 billion black hole, the mini-Budget and their reprehensible record on public finances.
However, I want to take a moment to praise the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), because I genuinely enjoyed his astronomy references. It is just a shame that he is not quite on planet Earth when it comes to recognising that we need to not only invest in public services but pay for them—the vehicle for that being this very Finance Bill. Even while this Government are tackling the Tories’ toxic inheritance, we are, through this Finance Bill, protecting payslips, when it comes to income tax and employee national insurance.
Let me get on to other key measures in the Bill that I welcome. Measures on tobacco duty, non-dom tax status and the oil and gas windfall mean that public services in my constituency of York Outer will be all the better off. Let me start by talking about the NHS. This week, I met Yorkshire Cancer Research to talk about the vital work that it does. As we discussed on Second Reading of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill yesterday, the tobacco duty increase will act as a deterrent to smoking, and it will save lives. Taken together, these measures are important to changing habits, but the tobacco duty increase will also raise extra cash to fund our NHS.
Primary care services such as the York Medical Group, which I recently visited, and York hospital will undoubtedly welcome extra investment. I certainly welcome it, as a parent who recently had to wait many hours in York A&E with a screaming toddler after a trapped finger. It is vital that we get the NHS back up and running for constituents like mine. One constituent has been waiting seven years for surgery. Let that sink in: it is half the time that the Tories were in power. I am clear that this Bill raises the revenue to put the NHS on a much surer footing.
Dr Luke Evans
The hon. Gentleman is a conscientious Member of Parliament, and I understand what he is saying, but does he accept that, in the words of a former Labour leader, we invest in public services with the proceeds of growth? When he stands for re-election, will he tell his constituents that he advocated for a Budget to cut growth in his country?
Mr Charters
That is slightly laughable, if I may say so as an affable Yorkshireman. Things like the national planning policy framework will drive growth, and some of these measures were not included in the OBR blue book. This pro-growth Government are doing so much for growth, so I find the hon. Gentleman’s question slightly perplexing.
The Bill will abolish the non-dom tax loophole and replace it with a residence-based regime. I had a look, and this change will raise £12.7 billion. Just last week, the Transport Secretary kindly visited me and the Mayor of York and North Yorkshire to announce £12.7 million of funding for our buses, which will transform our region. My quick maths shows that closing the non-dom tax loophole will pay 1,000 times more than that sum, which is the difference this Bill will make.
I will soon be having my office Christmas do. I am sure there is a joke to be made about liquid assets, but I recently visited Elvington brewery, and this Bill rightly cuts alcohol duty on draught products. That is wonderful news for our Yorkshire pubs. I need to declare an interest for myself and my hard-working team, because these measures mean that we are looking forward to enjoying a cheaper pint of the wonderfully named Fairytale of Brew York, which will be launched by Brew York over the festive period. Conservative Members back investment in our public services, but they do not support the revenue raised by this Bill. Perhaps they have been having too many fairytale economic pints.
The VAT increase on private school fees will bring in £1.7 billion a year, which will go directly to schools like those in York Outer. The Budget announced a £1 billion uplift for SEN provision and a £2.3 billion increase in the schools budget, which will make a huge difference to places like Applefields school and Manor Church of England academy.
I have also visited Askham Bryan college, a fantastic agricultural college in York Outer. Its great students, who are studying T-levels, will benefit from £300 million of extra funding for colleges, directly stemming from this Finance Bill. While making some proportionate tax rises in the Budget, we have maintained our position of having the lowest capital gains tax in Europe. We have struck the right balance, because we will have extra cash for our schools, and it is a real lifeline.
For all the Conservatives’ obfuscation, we have actually kept so many of our manifesto promises, one of which was to deliver a windfall tax on oil and gas companies—a policy so good that the Conservatives stole it when they were in government. The additional revenue raised by the EPL will help us to set up GB Energy, which will deliver for the British people by delivering the green jobs of the future.
May I briefly refer to the first Bill I ever spoke on in this House, which is now the Budget Responsibility Act 2024? I said the Bill was important because it was
“the only way we can grow those public services with a stable economy.”—[Official Report, 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1253.]
That is as true now as it was back then—[Interruption.] I hear grumbles from the Opposition Benches. Conservative Members do not seem to think that economic stability matters when it comes to investing in public services; they certainly know quite a lot about economic instability. This Government have been tasked with ripping out the rot following 14 years of chaos. The Bill helps to fix the foundations by providing the revenue to restore public services in York Outer and beyond.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
We are debating the Finance Bill following an election. In usual times, such a Bill would enact what was said in the winning party’s manifesto, but not this time. On the electoral trail, all the Labour Members who are now Ministers repeated what was said in the Labour manifesto time and again: their plans were “fully costed” and “fully funded”. They repeatedly said that they had no plans to raise taxes beyond VAT on private schools or to increase public borrowing. The manifesto said, in bald terms, that
“we will not increase National Insurance”.
There was no qualification to that—it was there in black and white.
It is extraordinary that we are debating a Finance Bill that has no correlation to the manifesto that it comes after. The electorate were profoundly misled. The reality is that the Labour party is increasing spending by more than £70 billion. Labour Members use the argument of their fantasy black hole, which has been thoroughly debunked by the independent Government body, the Office for Budget Responsibility, the independent IFS and the Financial Times. No one believes Labour, because that black hole is not there. It is not a black hole; it is more like a red herring.
The reason for that red herring is that Labour needed it as the excuse to do what it always intended to do—put up taxes and increase spending on public workers. Why did it do that? Because Labour Members—all of them— knew that if they had been honest with the electorate and told them that Labour was going to be a tax and spend party, no one would have voted for them. Even then, only 34% of the public did. It was a big con on the electorate. That is why we have a petition live on the Government website that says:
“I believe the current Labour Government have gone back on the promises they laid out in the lead up to the last election.”
As of this afternoon, 2.75 million people have signed that petition because they feel misled by this Government.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
The Budget provided £2.6 billion for education, £1 billion for SEND, £22 billion for the NHS and several billion more for things like councils. Would the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Broadland and Fakenham welcome the contribution of those funds to the NHS, schools and councils, or would he not like that investment to go into his constituency?
Jerome Mayhew
There were a number of points in the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. First, how much money should be spent? Secondly, what should it be spent on? And thirdly, where should we get it from? I will go straight to the heart of where we can get the money from: if we return public service productivity back to 2019 levels, there are tens of billions of pounds to be saved; if we return the size of the civil service to the 2019 level, before the big covid expansion, there are tens of billions of pounds to be saved; and if we return welfare spending on disability back to pre-covid levels, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) was in process of doing before the general election, there are tens of billions of pounds to be saved.
Jerome Mayhew
In a moment. If we add that all up, there would be £50 billion that could be spent on the frontline. However, the problem with the Labour party is that it takes money and spends it on inflation-busting wage rises for its union paymasters, but not on increasing and improving the outcomes for the people who use services. That is the big difference between the Conservative party and the Labour party. The focus of our spending is not the people providing the services; we are for the people who use those services—the people of this country.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is making a typically eloquent and excellent speech. I challenged a number of Labour Members to outline that public services can be invested in if, in addition to some of the tax-raising mechanisms they have chosen, we have economic growth. Will my hon. Friend outline how much growth has been cut by under the Government’s proposals compared with ours? Am I correct in thinking it is 0.7% over the Parliament?
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is entirely correct: over the course of the forecast period, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that growth will be cut by 0.7%. It is worse than that, however, because we also have an increase in taxes on businesses of £25 billion through the national insurance contributions, which the OBR tells us will be paid for overwhelmingly by reduced pay for workers, amounting to £7.5 billion. It also forecasts that more than 50,000 full time-equivalent jobs will be lost as a result of the policies that Labour Members plan to vote for.
Kanishka Narayan
The hon. Member keeps talking about his Government having been in the process of making a mark on productivity. Having left us with the worst productivity slowdown in 250 years, will he tell us how long the process would have taken?
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention was not on the point that he rose for, but there is one thing that he does not mention, and that is the covid impact. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can laugh about it, but we spent £400 billion supporting the economy and the people of this country in a once-in-a-century impact on our economy.
Paul Holmes
Does he agree with me that there seems to be a collective amnesia among colleagues on the Labour Benches? If we had taken their advice during covid, when we were making reasonable decisions, not only would we have seen the longer lockdowns that the now Prime Minister was calling for, but more economic damage, which they now deny ever happened in the first place.
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and there is a point worth making here. Since covid, the private sector has improved productivity by about 6%. Productivity in the public sector has yet to improve, although before the general election it was starting to do that.
Jerome Mayhew
I will not. I want to make some progress because I have been quite generous in giving way.
The OBR says that more than 50,000 jobs will be actively lost as a direct result of the decisions Members on the Labour Benches are about to take. I think that is an underestimate. I have been talking to businesses in my constituency of Broadland and Fakenham over the past few weeks and, as a former entrepreneur, I have been taken aback by quite how badly the tax and spend decisions of the Labour party have gone down with my small and medium-sized employers. Their accounts to me suggest that those choices are affecting their decisions on employment, and particularly on employing young people.
One employer said to me just two weeks ago that 18-year-olds are harder to employ than, say, 25 or 26-year-olds because overall more of them will fail in their job as they get used to the working environment. Employing 18-year-olds used to be worthwhile because the national minimum wage was lower and national insurance contributions did not have to be paid on the first £9,200 of their employment. That advantage has been removed and it is now disproportionately more expensive to employ an 18-year-old than older members of staff. That is a real-life case, where the employer told me they will stop employing young people in their business. Is that really what Labour Members wanted to achieve? That is what is happening already.
Jerome Mayhew
I am not telling anyone anything; I am reporting what businesses are telling me. As a direct consequence of the actions of the Members on the Labour Benches, young people are not being employed who otherwise would have been. The OBR says that will lead to more than 50,000 jobs being lost. Time will tell, but I think that is an underestimate.
We have a reduction in recruitment, a reduction in the employment of young staff, a reduction in investment and, as a result, we will have a reduction in growth over the course of the forecast period. But worse than that, we will have a reduction in living standards. This cost of living crisis, which has now been caused by Labour, will reduce living standards by 1.25% by 2029. That reduction is a direct result of the Budget, so if Labour Members vote for this Bill, they will be voting for increasing the cost of living crisis by 1.25%.
None the less, we have seen some increases: debt costs are increasing; inflation is increasing, which will exacerbate the cost of living crisis; and mortgage costs are increasing.
Tom Hayes
You talk about increasing inflation, yet we saw record levels of inflation—11%—under the Conservative Government, one third of which was caused by our exposure to gas shocks. Does he agree with this Labour Government that we need to invest in clean energy, so that we are no longer left vulnerable to foreign dictators and their control of fossil fuel markets?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before the hon. Member answers that intervention, I remind Members not to use the word “you”. Moreover, this is a debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, so can we please make comments, interventions and speeches relevant to the Finance Bill?
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for that intervention. Inflation 11% was a direct consequence of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as everyone knows, but what is important is that the Conservative Government took the difficult decision to get it down to a target of 2%. It is already creeping up under Labour, and it will be higher than it otherwise would have been as a direct consequence of these measures. Do not trust my word for that; that comes directly from the OBR. Again, the OBR tells us that mortgage rises will occur directly because of the decisions of Government Members. Union activity will be up, with the consequential impact on productivity and efficiency of our private sector. The size of the state will go up and, shamefully, the tax take will be the highest since records began. I will not support this Finance Bill, or its Second Reading, so Labour Members will have to take the consequences of their own decisions.
Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)
May I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on her excellent maiden speech? As a fellow technologist, she has done so much to make sure that women in particular are part of the technology sector. That is vital as we work to get more women involved in the technology sector and in technology policy.
Last week, a constituent who had voted Labour at the election came to see me. She was an elderly woman and she asked me this very simple question: what makes this a Labour Budget? As a corollary of that, she said, “If I were to vote now, why should I vote Labour to make sure that we have another Budget like the one you have just passed?” And I had a particular answer for her. We talked about some big things. We talked about the big choices that were in the Budget underpinned by this Finance Bill. We talked about, for example, the choice to make hard decisions in order to fund our NHS properly, to make sure that we shift from a national health service to a neighbourhood health service, so that, in my constituency we can ensure that there is proper health provision in towns like Hindley Green and Orrell, which over the past 14 years, have lost all their primary care provision. She thought that was compelling.
I then said that another of the bigger choices that we made in the Budget, which this Finance Bill underpins, is to invest, instead of accepting the slow decline that the Conservative Members have presided over for 14 years. We then discussed some of the less well covered measures that this Finance Bill supports, and it is those that I wish to talk about today. In these measures, we can see the values that make the Budget, and this Finance Bill, a Labour Budget: care, respect, and pride in our communities. These are the measures that answer her question: what is it that made the Budget that this Finance Bill pays for a Labour Budget?
Let me talk about a few of the smaller things that will benefit my constituents and working people right across the country. Most importantly for those I represent, we will end the injustice of the mineworkers’ pension scheme. Just yesterday, my constituents remembered the Springs colliery disaster in Hindley. Tens of thousands of people who used to live in the constituency of Ince, which preceded my own, came together in what was a powerful and emotional moment for them. By ending the injustice of the mineworkers’ pension scheme, the Chancellor ensured that as we build the next generation of energy, reducing bills and ensuring that foreign dictators no longer have a hold over energy production in this nation, we also remember the last generation of energy production: the workers who powered our industrial revolution and built this nation’s wealth.
Kanishka Narayan
Does my hon. Friend agree that the proceeds from the Finance Bill will allow us not just to invest in the future but to recognise our heritage, compensate mineworkers, and in particular support coal tips in Wales?
Josh Simons
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. To be specific about the benefits that will accrue, there are 500 families in my constituency who for decades have watched the Government take out of their pension scheme and refuse to rectify the ongoing justice. We all know what Conservative Members think of miners. By ensuring that they get a 32% increase in their pension we are not only putting money directly into the pockets of the working people who built this nation but signalling our respect for an industry and profession that made this country’s wealth.
The second smaller, subtler, sometimes missed thing that demonstrates the values that lie behind the measures that the Finance Bill will pay for is the £44 million funding increase for kinship and foster carers. My council in Wigan is a pioneer in the provision of adult social care and care for children. It has blazed the way in ensuring that it works with third sector organisations and maintains the budget to fund its own care provision publicly. Now it is backed by a Government who care about what carers do. As the hon. Member for South Derbyshire has argued, the flipside of a high-productivity and high-technology economy is caring. Caring is the most human thing that we will do more and more of as we build a higher-tech and higher-productivity economy. The Government’s £44 million increase will ensure that caring is properly funded in this country.
Alex Ballinger
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning carers. I was also really pleased to see in the Budget an increase in the carer’s allowance eligibility limit to £196 a week, which will allow many carers to work longer and earn more money before their allowance is withdrawn. Does he welcome that commitment, which shows the real commitment of the Labour Government to supporting carers?
Josh Simons
Not only do I agree with my hon. Friend’s point about the carer’s allowance, which will benefit 8,000 people in my region of the north-west, the increase demonstrates a wider point about respecting those who provide care in our society and economy. For too long, we have thought the profession to be unskilled, and have undervalued it as a path of work. In several of the measures that the Finance Bill will pay for, the Government have demonstrated that caring is a vital part of the economy that we wish to build. I have said this before, and will say it again: higher productivity and more technology mean more care. We must respect and value that most human of professions if we are to build an economy in which we all want to live in the future.
Tom Hayes
Every Thursday during the pandemic, we clapped, cheered and made noise to signal to our NHS carers that we cared about them. It was not just about noise; it was about the promise of a better future on the other side of the pandemic, which is where we are now. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important things that this Labour Government have done is give a much-deserved pay rise to our teachers and NHS staff? Under the Conservatives, 1.5 million NHS appointments were cancelled and 25 million teaching days were lost. Because of Conservative policies, the NHS was forced to spend £9.3 billion on temporary staffing, and we lost school days that cost the economy £900 million. Conservative Members ask how much our public sector workers are paid, and how much they are worth. Does my hon. Friend agree that they are worth every single penny that they will be paid under this Labour Government?
Josh Simons
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that those who kept this nation going, who kept teaching our children and who kept looking after those who were sick and dying deserve every penny of the pay rise that this Government awarded them.
Since the subject of the pandemic has come up, I would add that the moral credibility of Conservative Members to ever use the sacrifices that our nation made during the covid pandemic as a rebuttal to anything that this Government do was lost the moment the Prime Minister told the nation to stay at home while he invited his colleagues to a booze-up in No. 10 Downing Street.
Dr Arthur
My hon. Friend mentioned partygate, but it goes far beyond that. We have to remember that the dodgy contracts that went to mates and donors brought our country into utter disrepute. In this Finance Bill debate, does he recognise the financial impact of that on the country?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I once again remind Members that interventions should be on what is in front of us: the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Josh Simons
I absolutely take that point, but I will remind Conservative Members of the simple argument I am making in case they have lost the thread of it. I am going through the measures in the Budget that may have been lost by media scrutiny of some of the bigger measures. My question is: how would they pay for those measures? If they support them, they need to answer that question posed by the Bill today. As the Minister said earlier, the first words in Labour’s manifesto were about restoring economic stability. If Conservative Members support some of the measures I am describing, they must themselves answer the question of how they would pay for them.
I will mention three more measures before I close. These measures specifically benefit the region that I am proud to represent in the north-west, and they will drive growth not just here in London and the south-east, but right across the country, including in Wigan and the towns across Makerfield. The first measure is the electrification of the Wigan to Bolton line, which will mean that constituents in Hindley will benefit from more reliable train services that do not get cancelled, as they have repeatedly been over the past two weeks due to the weather.
The second measure is an increase in the household support fund of £66 million in the north-west. That will specifically help those just above the pension credit threshold who none the less need support this winter.
The third and final measure is the integrated settlement with our trailblazing Labour Mayor Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester, meaning that we can cap bus fares at £2. It also means that we will trailblaze the Live Well centres, which working people will benefit from and those out of work will be provided with the holistic support they need to get back into work.
Those are the measures that this Finance Bill supports. The question for Conservative Members is: will they support the measures that pay for those provisions? If they will not, they will continue to be the party that does not restore economic stability, that crashed the economy and that sent mortgage rates spiralling. The first and most important thing this Labour Government have done and will always do is protect the economic stability of this nation.
A person’s character is most on display in watching what they do when nobody else is looking. I cannot remember who said that—either a former Prime Minister or a baseball coach in the United States. A Government’s character is often in the things that get less attention, that demonstrate whose side that Government are on. In the provisions, the Government have demonstrated that they are on the side of miners, carers, commuters and workers in Makerfield, Greater Manchester and the north-west. What this Finance Bill shows me is that this is a Government who will tear down any barrier that gets in the way of us delivering for working people in the United Kingdom.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
This Finance Bill should be a chance to begin the vital work of transforming our economy to make it fairer, to restore public services, and to make our economy greener by investing in urgent climate and nature action. As such, I welcome the focus on public investment.
However, overall, the Green party’s view is that the Bill lacks vision for our future and does not deliver the ambitious and hopeful change that people voted for in July. I would argue that that is because it seeks to answer the wrong question. The Bill should not be designed to focus purely on growth for growth’s sake, but should instead focus on more modern and rounded ways of measuring economic success that deliver wellbeing, a liveable future, better standards of living and good-quality jobs. When delivering the Budget, the Chancellor referred to growth 32 times, but she did not mention climate or nature once. When the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s analysis warns that current spending plans will see inequality and poverty increase while average disposable incomes fall, the Government’s plans clearly are not going to deliver a fairer future for us all.
The Finance Bill was an opportunity to set things on the right track, because that is possible with the right choices. I was elected advocating specifically for a transformative wealth tax—for those with the broadest shoulders to bear the greatest financial responsibility for transforming our economy. Therefore, I very much hoped that this Finance Bill would seek to tax all kinds of wealth much more ambitiously to fund our future.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman have a model of a wealth tax from another country that has been successful in raising the amount of money he claims it would have raised?
Adrian Ramsay
I thank the hon. Member for that question—I always enjoy her contributions. Later in my speech I will talk about a specific model that I would propose, one that I put forward in the general election and that has the support of a number of researchers and academics. There are lots of models out there, including those that look at examples from other countries.
I am glad that the Government are taking steps to close the unfairness gap in the tax system, whereby income from working is taxed at a higher level than income from wealth or assets. Reforming capital gains tax has been a major policy priority for the Greens for some time; it is long overdue, and I commend the Chancellor for grasping that particular nettle. However, the Finance Bill could and should go even further, focusing on the very wealthiest in society. Over the past 10 years, the UK has become an increasingly unequal country. Between 2020 and 2022 alone, billionaire wealth in the UK increased by almost £150 billion. The five richest families in the UK are wealthier than the bottom 20% of the entire population. That last stat can be replaced with a more recent one: according to the Equality Trust, the UK’s five richest families now own more wealth than the bottom 13 million do. Both are startling facts.
To answer the question posed by the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), a wealth tax of 1% annually on assets above £10 million, and of 2% on assets above £1 billion, would demonstrate that this Government are serious about fairness. Figures that are backed up by researchers and academics suggest that such a wealth tax could raise tens of billions during this Parliament—much bigger than a number of the figures quoted by other Members today. It would show that the Government are serious about fairness, about transforming the economy and about investing for a better future.
Josh Simons
If the hon. Member is so concerned about inequality and poverty in this country, why does he refuse to support the building of pylons, thereby adding about £4 billion to the cost of increasing electricity production in this country? Those costs will, above all, go on to the bills of working people. Is that not a measure to reduce inequality and poverty in this country that the hon. Member would support?
Adrian Ramsay
If the hon. Gentleman is aware of my campaigning background, he will know that I have been one of the strongest advocates for accelerating to move to renewable energy for decades, with all the benefits that brings for reducing bills. If he heard the Westminster Hall debate yesterday, he will know that we need to combine speed on renewables with bringing communities with us and assessing all the options available, and we had cross-party support in arguing for that.
Adrian Ramsay
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would let me make a little more progress first, please.
A wealth tax would go a long way towards funding the public services that our economy relies on and to delivering nature and climate-friendly policies that will benefit us all. For example, by maintaining the winter fuel allowance for pensioners, while investing in the roll-out of the street-by-street insulation programme, we could bring down household bills and carbon emissions and at the same time support the most vulnerable households with energy bills over the winter months, preventing hundreds of avoidable deaths. There are also nature-based solutions that would help to protect against the flooding chaos and misery caused, for example, by Storm Bert recently. Preparedness or adaptation is often neglected when it comes to climate action, yet this week has demonstrated what a difference it can make.
A wealth tax could see charities and not-for-profit health and social care providers, for example, exempted from the planned increases in national insurance contributions for employers, in recognition of the significant work they do in our communities and the significant further strain that this planned change will put them under. As Community Action Suffolk has warned, this financial challenge may be a step too far for some organisations that
“deliver vital services keeping Suffolk residents safe and well”,
and reduce pressure on other public sector systems, including the NHS.
The Government have taken, or have sought to take, some steps towards taxing wealth in addressing the real problem of very wealthy people investing in farmland to avoid paying inheritance tax. However, the way in which they have gone about doing so is resulting in huge problems. It is clumsy because it is impacting on small farms that may, on paper, have assets worth several million, but if the farmer is not actually earning any income, or very little, they never actually see the benefit of that.
The Exchequer Secretary is back in the Chamber, and I would ask him whether, in considering the agricultural property relief—I know it is planned for a further year’s Budget, so there is time for the Government to look at this—he will look at the work of tax analyst Dan Neidle. Dan Neidle has highlighted that the Government’s own intentions of rightly clamping down on tax avoidance will not be met under the current plans, which will impact far more small, ordinary farms than the Government have admitted. His proposals include an alternative suggestion for meeting the Government’s stated aim of clamping down on tax avoidance, not affecting ordinary farmers.
Dr Arthur
Too often we find that the Greens talk a good game, but when it comes to making decisions, whether on pylons or inheritance tax, they begin to get a little bit nervous, so I would be interested to know the hon. Gentleman’s view. While he may have concerns about the threshold that has been set for inheritance tax for farms, where does he think it should be set?
Adrian Ramsay
First, I have welcomed the measures in this Budget on non-doms and capital gains tax, and I have argued for the Government to go much further and be much bolder with a genuine wealth tax on the very richest. I am very happy to set out the measures I want, which are bolder than the Government’s, to raise capital. On farms, as I say, I would urge the hon. Member and the Minister to look at the work of people such as Dan Neidle, which suggests ways in which the Government could better achieve their own stated aim of rightly preventing people who often have no interest in farming from investing in farmland in order to avoid inheritance tax.
I spoke to many farmers last week, as I am sure did Members across the Chamber, and those with ordinary farms in my constituency told me that typical Suffolk farms of 320 acres may be worth £3 million to £5 million on paper, but if they are always in the family—if they are never sold and those farmers are earning very little income—they are not realising the benefit of that. The farmers I spoke to were extremely distressed about how much pressure they are under for generating very little income, with all the work they do and want to do for our natural environment. We need to look at the detail of what is being proposed, while welcoming the main aim of clamping down on tax avoidance that the Government are setting out.
I make these points conscious that the Government chose to table an income tax charge motion on Budget day, thereby restricting scope for amendments to the Bill today. I wish to put on record my disappointment at that decision, because an “amendment of the law” motion would have demonstrated a commitment to a much broader debate, greater scrutiny, and a healthy willingness to engage with alterative views. I expected better on that, as I know did my constituents. Although I will seek to amend the Bill to take account of the compelling case for a wealth tax, the scope for doing so has been deliberately and unnecessarily constrained by the Government in what Ruth Fox of the Hansard Society called a decision to prioritise
“ministerial control and convenience over robust parliamentary scrutiny.”
Before concluding my remarks, I wish to mention one other aspect of the Bill that relates to the urgent climate action we need to take. That must be about scaling up renewables, but it is also about the transition away from fossil fuels. Hidden in the Bill and the Budget is the Government’s intension to subsidise carbon capture and storage—a fig leaf for new fossil fuel projects—and failing to end the obscene subsidies, including tax reliefs, that are handed out to the oil and gas sector. I hope to pick that up further, and for it to get more scrutiny as the Bill progresses.
Adrian Ramsay
I am about to finish.
In conclusion, Green MPs will vote for the Bill on the basis that we welcome a number of improvements and investments. We are constructive in supporting improvements that move in the right direction and the investment that has started in the NHS, and I want to see that committed to and expanded for the NHS and social care in further years. We look forward to further debates about how that can be strengthened to deliver a coherent vision of a greener, fairer future for all.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I wish first to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for her fantastic maiden speech. Knowing that I had the graveyard spot—or, as we call it in this place, the “Jim Shannon spot”—I took a moment to pop to the Tea Room to have a cup of tea, and I visited southderbyshire.co.uk. I own a dog named after a previous Labour Prime Minister, and I am looking forward to taking him to South Derbyshire—
Chris Vince
I don’t really want to give away my dog’s name—I don’t know why.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in support of the Bill. This is not just another piece of legislation; it is a crucial step towards boosting growth in some of our most dynamic industries, from the creative sector to financial services. It is aimed at repairing our public finances and bringing much-needed economic and fiscal stability, and it considers every person from every walk of life to create a fairer future for everyone. Last week the Chancellor outlined the Government’s plans for growth, focusing on high-growth sectors that will drive our economy forward. The Bill is a key part of that vision, introducing important tax changes to support the UK’s creative industries, speed up our shift to clean energy and enhance our financial markets.
For too long the burden of taxation has fallen disproportionately on working people. The Bill addresses that imbalance—it finds that balance and the fairest way to do it. By choosing not to extend the freeze on income tax and national insurance thresholds, the Government are ensuring that personal tax thresholds will rise with inflation from April 2028. That protects hard-working families from what I would consider stealth tax increases. The Bill also delivers on the promise to maintain the fuel duty freeze and a temporary 5p cut. I know that is welcome for residents and motorists in Harlow, as they have suffered for many years with the appalling state of the roads. We all know about the dreaded potholes, and the Government are doing what they can on that as well.
I will not go on too much about the removal of the VAT exemption on private schools, because I spent a lot of time talking about that on Monday. However, I am delighted that it will generate additional revenue to invest in our public services, including our schools. A number of schools in Harlow have suffered with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, and one school—Sir Frederick Gibberd college—is having to be completely rebuilt because of the previous Government’s failings.
This Finance Bill is more than just a collection of tax adjustments; it is a forward-looking plan that lays the foundation for a resilient economy. It reflects the Government’s commitment to supporting key industries that are vital to our nation, investing in sectors that promise sustainable growth, and ensuring that the UK remains at the forefront of global innovation. It creates a fair and balanced future for all.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to respond to the debate on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. It has been a good debate, with more than 20 Members contributing, but I am a little surprised that we did not hear more from Labour Members wanting to defend their first Budget for 14 years. Some have now appeared miraculously in the Chamber, but they were not here for the rest of the debate.
Let me start with the maiden speech from the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett). I join others in congratulating her on an excellent maiden speech. I was interested to hear about her tech background and the “Samantha spotting” map. She mentioned the influence of her daughter. Family is important in overcoming the instant loathing that some people can take to MPs, which she talked about. In my experience, it is not as bad as some might fear. [Interruption.] That is just me.
James Wild
Thank you. We all appreciated the kind words from the hon. Member for South Derbyshire about Heather Wheeler’s work. I am sure that the hon. Lady will continue that manufacturing event with Rolls-Royce and the other world-class businesses in her constituency. I know from personal experience that she will enjoy taking part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme with the RAF.
There was a familiar theme in the speeches of other Government Members, which the Whips will have been pleased to hear, with lots about fixing the foundations and black holes, although the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca)—I cannot see him at the moment—did concede that it was not a perfect Budget. Perhaps he has been taken away by the Whips to reflect.
I turn to Opposition Members’ speeches. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), who spoke powerfully about the impact of the Bill and the damaging impact of the Budget on high streets, hospitality and family firms in her constituency. My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), in a masterly contribution, took us back in his time machine to the time when cast-iron promises were made. He focused on what is happening in reality and the importance of enterprise. He also highlighted that economic shocks may come, as they have done in the last few years, for example through covid and energy prices, and that the Chancellor may have already boxed herself in.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) displayed his considerable knowledge as a former Education Secretary. He talked about caring for 100% of pupils, and about the damaging impact that the education tax will have. There will be serious consequences for smaller schools, religious schools and parents and pupils involved with them. That theme was also drawn on by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), who talked about his constituents and put us in the footsteps of the pupils who will be affected, as well as their parents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) returned to her consistent theme of the real-world consequences for energy firms of the energy profits tax, the lost revenue, and the self-defeating nature of that measure. Finally, my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) focused on young people’s employment prospects, which will take a hit as a result of the Bill.
There were two very different takes in the debate. Unlike some, I would not claim to be an economist, but the OBR is full of them, and its verdict on the Budget and the Finance Bill is clear: they mean lower growth, higher inflation and higher borrowing. As the Shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), put it, the British people put their trust in Labour to stay true to its promises. What did they get in response? A Finance Bill that is stuffed full of tax increases and breaks trust with the British people. It has £40 billion of annual tax rises. It is the biggest tax-raising Budget in modern history, and it is working families and businesses who will pay the price.
As we heard, the Government have said that their priority is growth. We will not let them forget that they inherited an economy growing at the fastest rate in the G7. Following the Budget, the OBR has downgraded its growth forecasts for the period by 0.7%. Inflation, which went up to 2.3% last week, is now expected to be higher in every year of the forecast period. The tax burden will increase to the highest level since records began. Borrowing will increase by an additional £140 billion over the Parliament. It is little wonder that business confidence is plummeting. The Labour party has consistently talked our economy down. The consequences are clear. The latest purchasing manager’s index output data shows that private sector activity has shrunk for the first time in more than a year. Businesses are rightly blaming the Chancellor and this anti-aspiration, anti-enterprise Government.
Let me turn to some of the parts of this broken promises Budget that were covered in the debate. First, the Bill deliberately undermines incentives for investors, entrepreneurs and people willing to take a risk and back enterprise. It hikes the main and lower rates of capital gains tax. The Treasury states that this measure alone will hit over a quarter of a million people, who will pay more tax as a result. It puts up tax rates on investor relief. It is little wonder that experts have warned that this Government risk stymieing the very investment that they seek to stimulate.
Secondly, the Bill continues the fundamentalism of the Government’s energy policy, which fails to put our energy security first. It will increase the energy profits levy to 38%, bringing the headline rate on oil and gas activities to 78%. The Exchequer Secretary could not name a country that had a higher rate. I am sure that Denis Healey would approve. It extends the rate by a year and removes investment allowances. On the real-world consequences, Offshore Energies UK has said that the hike will choke off investment and put 35,000 jobs at risk. We should be maximising our home-grown energy, not undermining domestic production and relying on imports that have a higher carbon footprint.
Having highlighted the Government’s broken promises, I turn to a single promise that they are actually keeping, unfortunately—the education tax. For some who do not seem to understand, the Labour party is not ending a relief, but bringing in a new tax. It is a vindictive tax, being imposed partway through the academic year, deliberately designed to disrupt the education of thousands of children. Putting VAT on independent schools will particularly hurt parents on modest incomes who choose to save and send their children to a school that they think is best for them. More than 100,000 children with special needs who are without an education, health and care plan, and are in independent schools, will be hit by this charge—something that Government Members who are not in their place at the moment did not seem to understand, but really should. This is an attack on aspiration, pure and simple, and we oppose it.
Other hon. Members have referred to the family farm tax. Next week, every Member will have the opportunity to vote and show whether they stand with their farmers or with Labour’s family farm tax, which will do so much damage to our countryside and food security.
As I mentioned, the consistent theme in this debate from Government Members has been blaming a fantasy black hole for this tax-increasing Bill. Those claims were thoroughly debunked by the OBR, and by the shadow Chancellor in his opening remarks. Before the election, the Chancellor said that she would not pretend to have not known the state of public finances in order to justify tax rises. Then she did just that. Let us hope that she meant what she said to the Treasury Committee on 6 November:
“We have now set the envelope for spending for this Parliament, and we are not going to be coming back with more tax increases or, indeed, with more borrowing.”
There we have it. Read her lips: no more tax increases. That was the commitment, not to the Confederation of British Industry, but to this House; but at Prime Minister’s questions today, the Prime Minister failed to repeat that pledge. He hung the Chancellor out to dry. If the Chancellor breaks that promise, how can she credibly continue in post?
Labour inherited the fastest growing economy in the G7, inflation at target, unemployment halved and the deficit halved. Labour Members may not like it, but it is true. [Interruption.] It is absolutely true. The measures in the Bill do not boost growth but target working people, pupils and parents, small businesses, and the wealth creators we need to grow the economy. Many Government Members have loyally clung to the idea that the Government are fixing the foundations of the economy. Not many would agree—not Tesco, Lidl or the other retailers who have warned that the £25-billion-a-year jobs tax will mean job losses and people’s weekly food shop going up; not the two thirds of firms who say that they will scale back on taking on new people; not the pubs, bars, restaurants and hospitality sector, which is hit by an extra £1 billion of costs.
The Prime Minister has found someone who agrees with him, although he did have to go to Rio to do so. However, while President Xi is so well practised in parroting meaningless slogans that he could be a Labour MP, the British public and British businesses are not buying it. They know that this Government do not back enterprise and do not keep their promises. The difference could not be clearer: we stand with working people, people taking a risk to start businesses and take people on, and people investing in companies. Unlike the Labour party, we are on their side. I urge Members to support our amendment tonight.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)
Just as it was an honour to close the Budget debate on behalf of the Government, it is an honour to close the debate on Second Reading of the Finance Bill—the first Finance Bill by a Labour Government in 14 years. I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and look forward to hearing further contributions during the Committee of the whole House and the Bill’s remaining passages, alongside the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury.
Before I address the numerous points raised in the debate, it is worth reflecting briefly on the points made by the Exchequer Secretary in his opening remarks on what the Bill will achieve. The Bill legislates for key measures in the Budget—a Budget in which we took tough decisions on tax, spending and welfare to restore Britain’s economic stability. The Bill delivers on our manifesto commitments and starts the work of moving to a fairer, more sustainable tax system while raising the revenue needed to adequately fund our public services. The Government have taken a balanced approach that will create a fairer system while still promoting growth and wealth creation.
We are adjusting the rate of capital gains tax, for example —a tax paid by fewer than 1% of adults every year—to raise some of that revenue. Although rates have increased, the Government will maintain the UK’s position as having the lowest CGT of any European G7 economy. There are no changes to CGT rates on property or the annual exempt allowance, and there is a phased increase to business asset disposal relief, to give entrepreneurs time to adjust. That is just one of the many measures in the Bill that will move us to a fairer system, where those who can pay do pay. [Interruption.] I will get on to farmers, hon. Members will be pleased to know.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on an excellent maiden speech. She is absolutely an inspiration to her teenage daughter, but also to young women across the country, including my daughter. I thank her for that. We are very pleased to have her. We need more people with careers in tech in the House. She is very welcome.
We also heard powerful contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith), for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), for Barking (Nesil Caliskan), for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan), for Makerfield (Josh Simons) and for Harlow (Chris Vince). I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) for his play on words—as an English graduate, I always enjoy that, and I thought he was excellent.
Hon. Members have extensively discussed the agricultural property relief changes announced in the Budget, and will note that they are not included in the Bill. That is because the Government are committed to technical consultation on tax legislation. We feel it is important to get complex legislation right, and to give businesses and those affected by tax changes the certainty that they need ahead of the measures coming into force. The Government will publish draft legislation on this measure before legislating for it in a future Finance Bill.
Tulip Siddiq
We will set out plans in due course. The Bill does, however, extend the scope of agricultural property relief from 6 April 2025 to land managed under certain environmental agreements. That supports the UK Government’s wider environmental objective of supporting farmers and land managers so that they can deliver, alongside food production, significant and important outcomes for the climate and environment. The measure is intended to prevent the loss of APR being a barrier to the involvement of agricultural landowners and farmers in land use change under environmental agreements including, but not limited to, the environmental land management schemes in England and equivalent schemes elsewhere in the UK.
I want to address something the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) talked about: family farms. This is not in the Finance Bill, but I will still refer to it. Individuals can pass on a sum of up to £325,000 inheritance tax-free; £500,000 if that includes a residence being passed to a direct descendent; and £1 million when a tax-free allowance is passed to a surviving spouse or civil partner. There is also a full exemption from inheritance tax when passing assets to a spouse or civil partner.
Daisy Cooper
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg for your patience as I retread some of the remarks I made earlier. It is my view that the family farm tax gives us the worst of both worlds at the moment. It does not prevent equity companies from buying up land, but it does treat family farms as collateral damage. I urge her to think again on this measure and think about introducing a genuine family farm test. If she were to do that, she would certainly have the Liberal Democrats’ support.
Tulip Siddiq
It was a difficult decision, and I understand the point the hon. Lady is making, but the reforms to agricultural property relief mean that farmers can access 100% relief for the first £1 million and 50% relief thereafter, meaning an effective 20% tax rate. It was a difficult decision, but we had to do it to fund public services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) talked about tax avoidance and fraud. To stop people taking unfair advantage of our system, the Government announced in the Budget the most ambitious ever package to close the tax gap, raising £6.5 billion in additional tax revenue per year by 2029-30.
Tulip Siddiq
The right hon. Gentleman has spoken enough times in the debate, so I will not be taking yet another intervention from him.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) raised questions about SMEs and high streets. The Government have been absolutely clear that we need to take difficult decisions to deliver long-term stability and growth, and that stabilising public finances is the only way to create long-term stability in which businesses can thrive. But we recognise the need to protect small employers, which is why we have more than doubled employment allowance—she may like to know that—meaning that half of businesses with mixed liabilities will either gain or see no change at all next year.
The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) raised questions about VAT on private schools hitting SEND pupils. To protect pupils with special educational needs and disabilities who can only have their needs met in a private school, the local authorities and devolved Governments that fund those places will be compensated for the VAT they are charged on those pupils’ fees. I hope that reassures him.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised a point about faith schools. Of course the Government value parental choice and recognise that some people want their children to be educated in a school with a particular faith ethos. My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary met the Partnerships for Jewish Schools and the Association of Muslim Schools during the consultation period on this policy. To ensure fairness and consistency between all schools that charge fees, faith schools will remain in the scope of the policy. It is worth noting for the right hon. Member that some faith schools are likely to be less impacted by the policy if some of their income is derived from voluntary donations from the community, because donations that are freely given and for which there is no obligation are outside the scope of VAT. As such, not all the income that small faith schools receive will necessarily be subject to VAT. I hope that reassures him a bit.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I thank the Minister for giving way. I want to ask her specifically about what she just said about special schools still getting funding. Is she aware that many parents of children with special educational needs choose to send their children to special schools even though they do not have education, health and care plans, so do not have funding through local authorities and so will still be affected by this measure? I wonder what she thinks about that.
Tulip Siddiq
My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary says that he will write to the hon. Lady about this, but we note the points that she has made, and we are looking into them.
The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) asked about oil and gas investment. We recognise that oil and gas will continue to have a role in the energy mix during the transition, but we need to drive public and private investment towards cleaner energy. The money raised by these changes will contribute to public investment while the sector continues to benefit from £84.25 in relief for every £100 of private investment. To reflect our commitment to facilitating cleaner home-grown energy, the Government have confirmed that the sector will continue to benefit from a decarbonisation investment allowance with a value similar to the relief that it received prior to the November energy profits levy rate increases.
I end by saying that the Bill delivers on key manifesto commitments from this Labour Government. It provides stability, it supports businesses, and it moves us to a fairer, more sustainable tax system. For those reasons, I commend it to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
First day | |
|---|---|
Second day | |
Clause 7 and Schedule 1; Clauses 8 to 11 and Schedule 2; Clause 12; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those Clauses and those Schedules | 3 hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the first day. |
Clauses 15 to 18 and Schedule 3; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those Clauses and that Schedule | 6 hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the first day. |
Clauses 47 to 49; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those Clauses | 3 hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second day. |
Clauses 50 to 53; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those Clauses | 6 hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second day. |
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Sewage Discharges: South West
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
The issue of sewage dumping in our waterways was one of the biggest concerns of residents across my North Cornwall constituency during the general election. And judging by the number of Members here today, I certainly was not alone in that. In the course of my speech, I will take the opportunity, first, to highlight the scale of the problem of sewage dumping and its effects on our communities; secondly, to set out what infrastructure improvements are badly needed to tackle this scandal; thirdly, to outline some of the regulatory reforms that are required; and, finally, to outline what South West Water must now do to end the scandal of constant sewage dumping in our beaches and rivers.
North Cornwall is a very rural constituency. We have several rivers, including the Camel, the Inny and the Allen. North Cornwall is also blessed with some of the most beautiful beaches in the world, including Harlyn, Summerleaze, Widemouth bay, Daymer bay, Polzeath, Crackington and many more. I was extremely fortunate to grow up in Cornwall where I learned to swim and surf at these incredibly beautiful spots. North Cornwall’s families and residents, young and old, thoroughly enjoy the waves at Mawgan Porth, the fishing villages of Padstow and Port Isaac and the breathtaking cliffs at Tintagel. They also enjoy the impressive sea pools in Bude and Boscastle.
The Environment Agency’s 2023 figures showed that the total duration of sewage overflows discharged into local rivers and waterways in the south-west region was 530,737 hours, which represented an 83% increase compared with 2022.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
In 2020, Natural England notified Somerset councils that the phosphate levels in the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar site were too high, and thousands of homes are still caught in a moratorium. Alongside this, last year, there were 3,336 sewage spills in Glastonbury and Somerton, making it the most polluted constituency in the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that water companies should be investing in more sewage treatment plants and that the Government should introduce a sewage tax on water companies’ profits?
Ben Maguire
I absolutely agree on both of those points and I shall address them in slightly more detail in a moment.
In 2023 alone, many of the blue flag beaches in North Cornwall experienced more than 2,700 hours of sewage discharges across 148 separate incidents. This pollution, as my hon. Friend has just mentioned, is often linked to combined sewer overflows, which are activated during heavy rainfall to prevent urban flooding, severely compromising water quality and endangering swimmers and marine life.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He talks about storm overflows. The data recorded from storm overflows by South Water West is sometimes different to that which appears on the Water UK app. Does he agree that we need just one single reliable source for sewage outflow data?
Ben Maguire
I agree that we need one reliable source of data, and I will come on to address that slightly later in my speech.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for bringing forward this matter. He referred to the fact that his mum and dad live in a farm building, and it is clear what the issues are there. Does he have the same problems as my constituents when it comes to single houses with septic tanks? The removal of sludge can be done only once a year. For disabled people and big families it is important to have it done twice a year. Has he experienced that issue in his own constituency?
Ben Maguire
Having grown up in a very rural area in North Cornwall, I know that many of my constituents face that issue, so I thank the hon. Member for raising it.
To look beyond the shocking statistics for a moment, and properly understand the real impact that the issue is having on coastal communities such as mine, I refer to three-year-old Finley from Widemouth bay. This time last year, Finley’s mum took her son to Widemouth bay to play on the north Cornish beach. Later that day, Finley became extremely unwell, and a friend’s child who had been on the same beach at the same time had similar symptoms of diarrhoea and vomiting, which lasted for weeks. Just last week, there were three sewage dumps in Widemouth bay. Tragically, in just the few months since my election, I have lost count of the number of constituents who have written to me or stopped me in the street to explain how they have stopped swimming or surfing in our oceans for fear of getting sick from the contaminated water.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Cornwall is covered with sewage alerts, and proceedings have been taken against South West Water. Does the hon. Member agree that the new water review will be vital to reform regulation and infrastructure?
Ben Maguire
I will address the water review in a moment. I am pleased that the Government are finally looking at this issue in detail, and crucially, as the hon. Member says, consulting, which is so important.
As I said, I have lost count of the constituents who have told me that they have stopped swimming or surfing in our oceans for fear of getting sick from the contaminated water. Imagine the immense effect of that on our tourist industry in Cornwall and the south-west, which has been the envy of the country. Sewage spills are wrecking not only our health but vital local businesses. Surfers Against Sewage has reported large increases in reports of people getting ill after entering the water. In the year to September 2022, there were 720 reports, double the number in the previous year. By September 2023, the number had rocketed to 1,924. It was with a certain amount of trepidation that I went surfing at Summerleaze beach in Bude just days before the election—not just because my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) was standing next to me in a wetsuit and I wondered what stunt awaited me, but because there were visible signs of a sewage dump from earlier that day.
It is not just our beaches that bear the brunt of sewage dumping but our rivers. Just today, Natural England confirmed that the River Camel remains in an unfavourable condition, and Cornwall Wildlife Trust cautioned me just this afternoon that our ecosystems and species are in grave danger if we do not urgently put a stop to this.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
My constituency is a little further north but still in the south-west. I recently spent an afternoon with some environmental campaigners in Tewkesbury, testing and recording samples from the River Avon for nitrate and phosphate pollution. The amount of pollution was found to be very high in the former and high in the latter, consistent with their findings since June 2023. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time to put environmental experts on water company boards to hold them to account and ensure that environmental concerns take precedence in the boardroom?
Ben Maguire
I do agree with my hon. Friend—I am starting to wonder whether hon. Members have seen my speech because I was coming on to that.
How do we end this scandal? Despite the results of the parent company of South West Water, the Pennon Group, for 2023-24 showing that the group’s revenue had increased 10% to £908 million, largely thanks to higher customer bills, very little of that was spent on much-needed infrastructure upgrades. To add insult to injury, the company recently announced that South West Water bills will rise by a staggering 22% by the year 2030. A copy of Pennon Group’s five-year business plan to 2030 seemingly describes the state of our waterways in a parallel universe. On page 27, under the heading “Bathing water quality”, reference is made to
“delivering improvements at bathing and shellfish waters across the region, to maintain our 100% bathing water performance.”
A quick glance at the company’s own WaterFit sewage app shows there to be sewage dumping at multiple beaches across Cornwall and the south-west region today, and quite likely as I speak.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. Sewage is a massive issue across the south-west, and in Dorset in particular, and a constant source of frustration for my constituents. One issue that comes up time and again is the excessive profits that private water companies are making. Does he agree that it is time those companies were brought back into public ownership?
Ben Maguire
I will lay out some of my suggestions for water company reform shortly, so I will not give away any spoilers just yet.
It is well known that one of the biggest reasons for sewage dumping is that there is not enough capacity in our storm overflow tanks to hold rainwater. To make sufficient capacity, those tanks are routinely emptied and raw sewage is pumped into our waterways. Soon after my election, I was faced with reports of brown water coming out of residents’ taps in St Eval and, in some cases, no water at all. It turned out that the reservoir tank at the nearby Bears Down reservoir had serious cracks in it, and water tankers were deployed to serve the area. The capacity of the tankers was nowhere near sufficient, and a measly compensation of £50 per household was issued after weeks of severe disruption.
Similarly, in Week St Mary, residents complained to me about problems with their water pressure, which have persisted for years. In some cases, the sudden drop in pressure caused scolding from the resulting hot water. It is quite clear that those issues have arisen after decades of under-investment in our water and wastewater infrastructure. We may reasonably ask, “Where has Ofwat, the water regulator, been while all of this has been going on?” Ofwat has seemingly been missing in action, which brings me to the urgent need for a regulation revolution in our water industry.
I welcome the Government’s plan—part of the Water (Special Measures) Bill—to prohibit performance-related pay for senior officials in a year when a water company fails to meet its environmental, consumer or financial standards. I eagerly await how those standards will be more tightly defined. I am more suspicious, however, about the proposal to require each water company to publish an annual plan detailing how it will reduce pollution incidents. Many water companies already do that, and my constituents want to know how those companies with their glossy brochures and ambitious targets will be held to account.
There was a palpable sense of relief among senior executives at South West Water when I met them soon after the details of the Bill were published. On enforcement measures, if the water companies fail to meet improvement targets, Ofwat will be given the power to issue fines. It is questionable whether fines will incentivise firms that are making hundreds of millions of pounds and, again, I look forward to seeing at what level the penalties will be set following the consultation.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. Certainly in my own constituency, further west than his own, in west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, there have been 18 discharges around the coast just in the past 10 days. On the proposed changes in the Government consultation, as attractive as the concept of bringing water back into public ownership is—and I strongly support it—the consequences and costs make it rather challenging. The Conservatives set up the companies as risk-free, money-making emporiums. Does he agree that we need to bring in regulation that ensures they are governed in the public interest?
Ben Maguire
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I will outline some of the measures I will put to the Minister.
I urge the Government to go much further by scrapping Ofwat, which has proven itself to be toothless and missing in action. The Liberal Democrats would replace Ofwat with a much more powerful clean water authority, which could ban bonuses for water company bosses who fail to stop sewage dumping, revoke licences of poorly performing water companies immediately, force water firms to publish the full volume and scale of their sewage dumping, mandate local environmental experts to sit on water company boards, and set legally binding targets on sewage discharges.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way and for bringing this debate before the House. On the question of public ownership, does he think that the independent commission on the water sector regulatory system might be better off if it were tasked with at least considering how public ownership of water companies might work, rather than the current situation, in which this supposedly independent commission has been banned from considering one of the possible solutions to the problem?
Ben Maguire
The hon. Member raises an important point about independence. As was covered briefly earlier, that consultation will be a very important part of this process.
Lib Dem amendments have recently been tabled in the other place to empower the regulator to revoke water company licences in the face of repeated failures and, crucially, to make it a criminal offence for water companies to fail to implement pollution reduction plans, holding senior managers personally and criminally liable. In the last Parliament, my Liberal Democrat colleagues in this place also tabled an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill that would have created a sewage illness victim compensation scheme. Under that scheme, where medical evidence is provided to support a claim, proper compensation would be payable by water companies to their victims, such as three-year-old Finley and his family. I take this opportunity to plead with the Minister, on behalf of all my constituents, to seriously consider these measures so that water companies are finally held accountable, with no more excuses and no more delays.
Picking up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) earlier, EDMs—not electronic dance music or early-day motions, but event duration monitors—that are fitted to storm overflow tanks only measure the number and duration of spills, not the volume. There have also been reports of faults with those EDMs, which could represent a serious under-reporting of sewage spills, significantly skewing the data. That could mean that the situation is far worse than we thought. Whatever enforcement approach is taken by the Government against water companies, the accuracy of the data will be crucial, so I ask the Minister to please consider the accuracy of the current monitoring system.
When I took my seat in this place, I promised my constituents that I would always speak truth to power. In a previous career, I advised businesses and their leaders. If I could offer some advice here and now to the chief executive of South West Water, I would say, “Please do the decent thing and go now.” In what other universe could a chief executive preside over such a record of abject failure? With Ms Davy having been the chief finance officer since 2015 and then the chief executive since 2020, almost 10 years of failed leadership have brought us to this diabolical situation. How on earth can anyone now have confidence that South West Water will miraculously turn things around in the next five years?
Ms Davy declined to take a bonus last year, instead adding that bonus amount to her base salary, which at last count was a whopping £860,000. Before Members start worrying about South West Water’s shareholders, they too were awarded a generous dividend of 44p per share. This is all while water bills are rocketing, children are getting severely sick as a result of that greed, and people everywhere are too afraid to enjoy the beaches and rivers that make Cornwall and the wider south-west so uniquely special. As a society, at what point do we come together and say that this has to stop, for the sake of our children and the sake of us all? Well, I humbly suggest that that point has now long passed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I thank the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) for securing this important debate and everybody who has intervened. May I also express my support and sympathy for Finley? It is awful to hear about children becoming ill when they are just enjoying the things that we enjoyed so much as children. I am genuinely sorry to hear about that.
As I have said before, the amount of sewage in our waterways is unacceptable—clearly unacceptable. For too long, the level of pollution in our rivers, lakes and seas has been left unchecked. The south-west of England, with its 860 miles of coastline, is blessed with some of the most stunning waterways in the country, and it is of course vital that we protect these natural assets.
South West Water’s environmental performance is clearly not good enough. It continues to be rated as requiring improvement in the Environment Agency’s environmental performance assessment, and it has the highest rate of incidents on its network in the sector. So far, as the hon. Gentleman said, there have been 20 pollution incidents in his constituency, and they are clearly unacceptable.
Where companies have failed in their statutory duties to maintain their assets properly and protect the local environment, regulators will take appropriate enforcement action. The Environment Agency has informed me that 24 charges against South West Water currently await a court hearing, and many of them relate to discharges in North Cornwall. Of course, it is inappropriate for me to comment further on these while those proceedings are ongoing.
However, I am reassured that the new powers in the Water (Special Measures) Bill, including those relating to the monitoring of emergency overflows—I quite enjoyed the idea that we could call EDMs electronic dance music instead, and maybe that is what I will be thinking of in the future—will assist the Environment Agency with workload and efficiency relating to these types of offences. Two new dedicated inspection teams have been in place since October this year. Once officers are trained, the annual number of inspections in the region will double from the 335 they will carry out this year. I think that is positive action that has been taken by the Environment Agency.
Looking forward, South West Water is taking action to deliver necessary improvements. Subject to Ofwat’s final determinations, it is planning to invest about £750 million over the next five years to reduce sewage spills by 58% from current levels. It is also aiming to cut pollution incidents by 30%, and investing £140 million to reduce nutrient pollution in rivers. This investment will mean cleaner rivers, seas and lakes across the country—I am keeping an eye on the time this time, Madam Deputy Speaker.
On storm overflow guidance, in support of the forward investment to reduce pollution incidents, on 21 November the Government launched a consultation on updated information and guidance for the management and regulation of storm overflow infrastructure in England. A document will be published shortly afterwards to ensure that water companies have a clear forward framework to guide investment in storm overflow improvements.
The Government have also intervened to increase the transparency of pollution incidents to enable the public and the regulators to better hold water companies to account. We have included a duty in the Water (Special Measures) Bill to require all water and sewerage undertakers to produce annual pollution incident reduction plans, along with an accompanying implementation report. The chief executives will be personally responsible for approving both the pollution incident reduction plans and the accompanying document.
On the national storm overflows hub, the Government have legislated to require water companies to publish all discharge data from storm overflows in real time. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) mentioned the need to have one reliable source of data, which is incredibly important. Water UK launched its national storm overflows hub last Friday. If hon. Members have not had a chance to look at it, please do. On transparency, it is very good; in making us angry about pollution incidents, it is maybe not so good. However, we can see where companies are discharging all around the country, how long they have been discharging for and whether they are online or offline. For transparency, it is a huge step forward.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Although I am not from the south-west, I have the beautiful River Wharfe flowing through my constituency of Shipley. Until now, we have been relying for transparency on Top of the Poops, which shows that there were over 2,450 overflows of sewage pollution last year. Does the Minister agree that these are national problems, and we really need to tackle this not only with South West Water, but with the likes of Yorkshire Water, to make sure these sewage outflows stop in future?
Emma Hardy
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and I commend her for coming and raising that point. I completely support her.
Richard Foord
I am aware of the new storm overflow hub that the Minister talks about. My point is that sometimes the data that the new hub reveals is different to the data that the water companies are revealing on their apps, such as the South West Water WaterFit app. That was discovered by a constituent of mine in relation to Sidmouth last weekend.
Emma Hardy
I am more than happy to look into any anomalies, so if Members want to send through details of where there seems to be a discrepancy in the data, I can pick that up.
South West Water has 156 bathing waters, and I am hoping that the hon. Member for North Cornwall will be pleased not only with our bathing water announcements on removing strict automatic de-designation, and removing fixed dates, but also that we are redefining the term “bathing” perhaps to include people who go surfing—I heard that he is interested in surfing. That will enable more people to enjoy the water environment. At the moment the term “bather” refers to people who swim, but we know that so many more people enjoy our beautiful water.
On 12 November DEFRA, jointly with the Welsh Government, announced a consultation on a package of potential reforms to bathing water regulations, and those changes will modernise the system to meet the needs of the public. The Government have been clear that there is no excuse for poor performance, and we will not look the other way while companies routinely fail to meet agreed standards. Water companies must take seriously their role in meeting public expectations and regulatory requirements, holding them to account when they fail.
Let me recap our three-stage approach to fixing the water industry. In the first week of the new Labour Government, the Secretary of State and I met water companies to secure agreement to amend their articles of association. Funding for vital infrastructure investment is ringfenced so that that money cannot go on bonuses—we saw evidence of that just last week. That money is for infrastructure improvement. There are new customers on the panels of water companies, as we are looking at changing the culture and giving customers a voice, and we are also strengthening protection and compensation for households.
The most significant increase in enforcement powers for regulators in a decade has come from the Water (Special Measures) Bill, which will arrive in the House for Second Reading before Christmas—I am sure I will see many faces in that debate. Those powers include providing Ofwat with powers to ban bonuses, enabling regulators to issue automatic and severe fines for wrongdoing, and there is also a duty on Ofwat to fulfil its environmental duties and legal requirements. The Bill will strengthen cost recovery powers to ensure that water companies bear the cost of enforcement activities.
The independent commission has been mentioned a few times, and it is needed to reform the whole water system. As we know, the system has developed incrementally since privatisation—I do not think anybody here thinks it is a system that we would wish to design in the way it has evolved. The call for public evidence will come in January, and as I have done before, I urge every Member across the House to get involved in that and find some evidence.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) for securing this important debate. Many of the points that have been raised this evening are issues we have all experienced, but I have found that South West Water’s communication and engagement with its customers has been atrocious over recent months. What more can the Government do to ensure that South West Water properly engages with its customers?
Emma Hardy
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for having to rearrange our meeting yesterday as I was visiting a flooded area. We will get that meeting back in the diary quickly. He is right to raise that issue as it is one of the reasons why we want to put customer representation on the water boards, and give customers that stronger voice. I am more than happy to follow that issue up with the hon. Gentleman and see what more I can do to support him. It is incredibly important that customers are treated with the respect they deserve, and if water companies are not doing that, I am more than happy to follow it up.
Several hon. Members rose—
Emma Hardy
I have two minutes left so I will quickly finish if hon. Members do not mind.
The commission will be led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, supported by expert advisers, who will be announced shortly. It will be wide-ranging and report to the Government in the second quarter of 2025. The recommendations are intended to inform future legislation to deliver long-term reform to clean up pollution and return the sector to stability across England and Wales, including of course the south-west.
I am grateful for all the contributions to the debate. This is a really important issue. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to driving meaningful long-term improvement in the performance and culture of the water industry. We are committed to improving the health of our rivers, lakes and seas across England and the south-west. I look forward to working with all hon. Members who are interested in fulfilling that ambition with us.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Human Medicines (Amendment) (Modular Manufacture and Point of Care) Regulations 2024
(2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Human Medicines (Amendment) (Modular Manufacture and Point of Care) Regulations 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Betts. I am grateful to be debating this important amendment to establish a tailored regulatory framework to support decentralised methods of medicine manufacture, moving innovative medicines closer to the patient.
The draft regulations will amend the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004. The regulations create an enabling pathway for innovative manufacturing from early-stage development in clinical trials through to the administration of medicines to patients. The UK is leading the way as the first country to introduce a framework for these groundbreaking, decentralised methods of medicine manufacturing. We are taking action to support medical advancements that are on the cutting edge of technology to benefit patients across the country.
The new framework is being brought forward pre-emptively to encourage increased manufacture and supply of innovative medicines that can only be manufactured at or close to the point of care or by modular manufacturing, where products are manufactured in relocatable units. The framework will help to develop a new sector of medicines manufacturing, enabling safe innovation and development of highly specialised treatments. It will provide the flexibility to deliver medicines directly where patients most need them, whether that is a hospital ward, an operating theatre, a community health centre or even a patient’s home. These products are currently in early development. An example of a point-of-care product is a diabetic foot ulcer treatment using products derived from blood obtained from the patient and manufactured at their bedside. Modular manufacture offers significant advantages to support the faster roll-out of vaccines, for example, by allowing vaccines to be filled and finished on a local or district basis to supply mass vaccination centres.
I will highlight why the change is needed. Advancing health technology increasingly means that new medicines are being developed that need to be manufactured close to the healthcare setting. Our traditional regulatory models need to change to support the new technologies. The current regulations are suited to centralised, factory-based manufacture at a small number of fixed manufacturing sites that are named on manufacturing licences and marketing authorisations. Point-of-care and modular manufacture products may be manufactured at hundreds of different sites for specific patients, when those patients need them.
It would be extremely challenging for these innovative products to be regulated within the currently legislation, and it would cause significant regulatory and financial burden. The products are often developed to meet the unique needs of individual patients, using the patient’s own cells or blood, and they may need to be administered within an hour or even minutes of being manufactured. The urgency and specificity of the products cannot easily be accommodated by traditional manufacturing or by the current regulations.
We need to adapt our regulatory approach to be suitable for manufacturing medicines at many different sites across the country, while maintaining regulatory oversight to ensure that manufacture is safe and consistent. The new framework will provide regulatory clarity to encourage new products and innovative approaches to support the future supply of treatments that are emerging in early-development stages and that may be life-changing for patients.
Patient safety is central to the new legislation. We need to provide a regulatory framework that is flexible for new innovations but does not compromise the safety of patients who receive innovative medicines. I will set out how the UK medicines regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, will ensure that point-of-care and modular manufacturing products meet the necessary standards of safety, efficacy and quality.
The new framework is centred on a hub-and-spoke model, with a single control site as the hub for each product, overseeing all aspects of the point-of-care and modular manufacturing system, including the spokes—individual manufacturing locations—and their activities. The control site will be the only named manufacturing site on manufacturing licence, clinical trial and marketing authorisation applications. The holder of the control site will, as the name signifies, be responsible for notifying the MHRA of reportable issues and ensuring product quality across all the manufacturing sites, the spokes.
The diligence of the control site in overseeing the manufacturing locations will be scrutinised at routine MHRA inspections of the site; arrangements for that oversight will be scrutinised as part of the licensing process. A number of manufacturing spoke locations will be sampled and will be subject to inspections to ensure that the oversight claimed by the control site is independently supported by inspection findings.
The new framework is a modified form of the current system for evaluation of regulatory compliance at manufacturing sites and safety monitoring. There will be no change in the expected standards that must be met for the safety, quality and efficacy of the product. As the MHRA is retaining regulatory oversight, there will be no increased risk to patient safety.
I turn to the benefits. First, patients and carers will benefit from access to new and more personalised treatments in a timely and more convenient manner. There is even the potential for some patients to be treated with medicines manufactured at home, which aligns with our wider ambition to move care from hospitals to communities and reduce the need for patients to stay in hospital. Secondly, healthcare professionals will see a greater range of more effective treatment options for their patients, which will help to improve patients’ response to treatment. Lastly, innovators and industry will have clear regulatory expectations suited to innovation. The new framework will remove regulatory barriers, enabling speedier product development. Companies of all sizes—large, small and medium-sized enterprises—will benefit from that.
The new framework will allow us to use effective regulation to support the development of medicines at the forefront of technology. I am pleased to bring forward the draft regulations, using powers under the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021, to move innovative treatments closer to the patient and support patients’ access to pioneering medicines. That work that has been ongoing for some time within the agency. I hope that hon. Members will join me in supporting these important regulatory changes. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I will be brief.
The Opposition note that the draft regulations are a response to a Conservative Government-launched consultation, more than 91% of respondents to which were supportive. As Conservatives, we welcome innovation and want to support UK patients getting early access to new and innovative treatments. I urge the Government to ensure that funding and hospital resources are available so that patients can benefit from them, and that businesses are structured so that they can use UK hospitals to innovate.
Karin Smyth
I thank the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for her comments. As I say, this is work that was long in progress under the previous Administration; I am pleased that colleagues from the MHRA are here today to see that work come to fruition. We are leading the world in this work.
We are highly committed to encouraging our life sciences sector to take innovations directly to patients. I am pleased to have cross-party support for the draft regulations. I look forward to working with the hon. Lady and others to ensure that we make this a reality for patients.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Information Sharing (Disclosure by the Registrar) Regulations 2024
(2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Information Sharing (Disclosure by the Registrar) Regulations 2024.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 22 May and are part of a programme of statutory instruments that implement reforms under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which I will hereafter refer to as the 2023 Act. The new Government are committed to holding accountable those who abuse our open economy, and to enhancing the UK’s reputation as a hub for legitimate businesses. Our vision is to create a more transparent and accountable corporate environment that not only fights economic crime but fosters trust and integrity within our financial systems.
The 2023 Act reforms the role of Companies House and increases the transparency of UK companies. The reforms will create a more reliable companies register and instil confidence in our business environment, safeguarding rights and the safety of individuals. The reforms, which, it is only fair to acknowledge, begun under the previous Government, will not only strengthen our business environment but support our national security, enhance our international standing and contribute to the UK’s economic growth. As we know, the reforms are already under way; stronger rules and checks introduced since March have already helped to cleanse the register and disrupt organised crime. Companies House is also undergoing a full organisational transformation to implement those changes.
As we embark on this journey, we recognise that although significant progress has been made, more remains to be done. The Government are committed to ensuring that the 2023 Act not only meets but exceeds expectations, establishing a transparent and secure economic system that protects citizens and businesses from the harms of economic crime.
A key priority for Companies House is increasing its intelligence capabilities and embedding that further into the law enforcement ecosystem. There has been significant progress in this area already; Companies House has introduced extensive legal gateways for data sharing with law enforcement, other Government bodies and the private sector. That has led to a more efficient sharing of suspicious activity with law enforcement agencies. Additionally, feedback mechanisms have been established with other Government bodies and businesses in the anti-money laundering regulated sector, to enhance the quality of the information being shared.
We are here today to move further on that progress and discuss the draft regulations, which will amend the Companies Act 2006 to give the registrar of companies greater powers to share non-public information with enforcement agencies and other bodies, for the performance of their functions. The 2023 Act amended the 2006 Act to give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that allow the registrar to expand the information sharing to specified persons for specific purposes. For instance, there may be circumstances where it is beneficial for the registrar to share information with certain office holders involved in administering insolvency proceedings. Such office holders will most often be insolvency practitioners, but may also be the official receiver, or in Scotland the accountant in bankruptcy.
Although the registrar has the power to share information with public authorities, under the 2006 Act, the functions undertaken by office holders relate to private matters, due to the nature of insolvency proceedings. As such, they also involve the identification and realisation of assets in insolvency proceedings. Therefore, the registrar is not currently able to share information with such office holders for those purposes.
The functions can often go beyond the sale of property or personal belongings, into applications to the court to reverse transactions that were made prior to the insolvency proceedings and were not in the best interests of all the creditors. The functions might even extend to asking the court to make directors of the company personally liable where they have allowed the company to continue to trade beyond the point at which insolvency was inevitable, causing further losses to creditors.
For those kinds of actions, the office holder could benefit from information that the registrar’s current powers do not allow her to share. The draft regulations will allow the registrar to share relevant information that the office holder needs to perform their functions and provide the best returns for creditors in insolvency proceedings.
The regulations are fairly straightforward. I would like to emphasise that they are important for strengthening the information-sharing network within the economic crime space. They will enable Companies House to support the Government’s efforts in fighting economic crime and in ensuring that creditors in insolvency proceedings are able to get the best use of the tools available to them to secure the best return. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough on his new ministerial responsibilities. It is my first chance to do that. There could not be a more important role in any Government seeking to drive economic growth than that of the Minister responsible for small businesses, so I wish him well in that role. I hope he will act as a diligent voice for small businesses, including by making representations to the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) after her recent Budget. Small businesses across the country tell me that they are bleeding out as a result of the jobs tax, the family business tax and many other measures. We wish the Minister well, but I hope he is able to be an effective voice.
We are here to talk about the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, and the delegated legislation resulting from it. That builds on the work conducted by the previous Government, particularly by one of my excellent predecessors, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). We will be a constructive Opposition. When this Government do the right thing, we will celebrate and support it. In that context, I confirm that the Opposition support the draft regulations.
Justin Madders
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his welcome. I also welcome him; I think this is the first time we have appeared opposite each other. I will have to correct him. I am not actually the Minister responsible for small businesses, but his points are important. There is a range of economic levers within my portfolio, and we take an interest in all the matters that affect the economy. He will know that it is incumbent on the Opposition to suggest alternative propositions. However, we note the support for the draft regulations. It is important that we have constructive dialogue in this area. It is an important space where parties should be able to work together.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024
(2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
The regulations, which were laid in draft before the House on 24 October 2024, introduce extended producer responsibility for packaging, referred to as pEPR, in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. PEPR is one of the three core pillars of the Government’s ambitious packaging reforms, alongside the forthcoming deposit returns scheme and the simpler recycling programme in England. It will overhaul the packaging waste system, introducing the biggest change to policy in a generation—since the last Labour Government introduced the landfill tax. Collectively, the packaging reforms are estimated to deliver carbon savings of more than 46 million tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent by 2035, which is valued at more than £10 billion in carbon benefit.
The new system established under the regulations will modernise the producer responsibility system for packaging in the United Kingdom by shifting the costs of managing discarded household packaging from taxpayers to businesses that supply packaging, thereby applying the “polluter pays” principle. The regulations implement the international best practice exemplified by the mature systems of our European neighbours, including Belgium and Germany, where comprehensive pEPR schemes have been in place for some time. This is a foundational pillar of our transition to a circular economy, moving away from the linear take, make and throw model, which we know harms our environment and society, to an economic model that keeps valuable material resources in use for longer.
The revenue raised by the new system will generate more than £1 billion a year to support local authority collection, recycling and waste disposal services, which will benefit every household in the UK and stimulate much-needed investment in our recycling infrastructure. It will make a substantial contribution to the benefits of the packaging reforms which together—those three pillars of the DRS, simpler recycling and today’s regulations—are estimated to support 21,000 jobs across nations and regions, and to help to stimulate more than £10 billion of investment in recycling capability over the next decade. Revenue from pEPR will create a much-needed injection of resources to local authorities to improve the household kerbside collection system across the UK.
In England, the revenue will fund the simpler recycling reforms that will enable consistent collection of all dry packaging materials, ending the postcode lottery for recycling. Taken together, the reforms will support this mission-driven Government’s ambition to kickstart economic growth and create the foundations that are required to transition towards a circular economy for packaging in the UK, ensuring that resources are used for longer. It is a critical first step towards meeting our manifesto commitment to transition to a resource-resilient, productive circular economy that delivers long-term sustainable growth.
Let me draw hon. Members’ attention to the new obligations in the statutory instrument. First, the regulations introduce an obligation on businesses that supply household packaging, referred to as “producers”, to pay the costs incurred by local authorities in managing that packaging once it has been discarded. Producers will also be obligated to meet the cost of providing public information about the correct disposal of packaging. Producers will start incurring fees from April 2025, and invoices will be issued from October 2025 for the 2025-26 scheme year.
Additionally, from the second year of the scheme, producer fees will be adjusted to incentivise producers to make more sustainable decisions at the product design stage, including decisions that make it easier for products to be reused or recycled at their end of life. That will mean that a producer that uses packaging that is not environmentally sustainable, such as packaging that is not widely recycled, will incur higher fees. Conversely, those using packaging that is sustainable and readily recyclable will incur lower fees.
It is right that businesses bear the costs of managing the packaging they place on the market, but we must also protect small businesses, which are the lifeblood of our high streets and the backbone of our economy. That is why only businesses that have a turnover of more than £2 million and that supply over 50 tonnes of packaging a year will have to pay disposal fees under the new system. To administer the system, the regulations require the appointment of a scheme administrator jointly by the four nations. This body will be responsible for the implementation of pEPR, including the setting of producer fees, and the apportionment and payment of those fees to local authorities to fund their waste management services. The scheme administrator will initially be hosted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Let me turn to the detail of the obligations retained from the current producer responsibility system. The instrument revokes and replaces the Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) Regulations 2023, along with the equivalent regulations in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The requirement for packaging producers to collect and report data on the amount and type of packaging they supply is carried over from the 2023 regulations, as amended. The data is used to calculate producers’ recycling and fee obligations.
The instrument also revokes and replaces the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2007 and the equivalent regulations in Northern Ireland. As was the case under those regulations, the draft instrument places obligations on producers to ensure that a proportion of the packaging they supply is recycled and requires them to provide evidence of that to the regulator. Those requirements apply to all packaging, not just packaging likely to be disposed of in local authority household collections. To meet that obligation, producers must demonstrate compliance by obtaining packaging recovery notes and packaging export recovery notes from recycling facilities, or from those that export packaging waste for recycling.
Finally, the instrument provides the four national regulators with enforcement powers and a duty to monitor compliance. It contains strong enforcement measures, including criminal offences and powers for regulators to impose civil sanctions in cases of non-compliance. As is currently the case, the monitoring and enforcement activity for the producer responsibility regime will be funded by the associated charges in the draft regulations, such as those for registration and accreditation. The charges operate on a cost recovery basis. They have therefore been increased from the levels in the 2007 regulations to reflect the new duties placed on the regulators and the increased level of monitoring and audit activities.
To conclude, there is no such place as “away”; everything that we put into the planet we put into our environment and, ultimately, into ourselves. It is therefore critical that we create the foundations to transition to a circular economy for packaging, ensure resources are kept in use for longer and secure vital carbon savings. As we look at the global plastic pollution treaty negotiations in Busan, South Korea, we certainly hope to play our part in that work.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and to be a member of this Committee opposite the Minister, for whom I have huge respect.
I thank the Minister for bringing to the Committee these important regulations to enhance our strong record on environmental protection. I am happy to put everyone’s mind at rest: we, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, have no opposition to these regulations, and we appreciate the current Government’s effort to build on the strong Conservative track record of increasing recycling and waste disposal.
The system of packaging producer responsibility has been in place for many years and will continue to play a role in reducing packaging waste. An initial consultation held in 2019 by the last Conservative Government showed strong support for the proposals from respondents. In response to the consultation, we adapted the amendments, leading us to many of the proposals we are discussing.
I am appreciative of the important fact that charities and the voluntary sector will be excluded from these regulations, as that ensures that they are not adversely impacted. I politely encourage the Labour Government to consider applying similar exclusions to their more controversial proposals on the charitable status of independent schools and on national insurance contributions increases, which will have a significant effect on the charitable sector, including hospices and the like. I am extremely pleased that the instrument aligns with the Windsor framework and will be adopted nationwide.
Although Conservative Members offer no objection to the regulations, we will ensure that there is proper scrutiny of any further Government proposals. I would like to point out some wider issues for the Minister to address. First, can she elaborate on what the Government are doing to assist businesses in general to recycle more so that we protect our environment? Secondly, can she explain what the Government plan to do to support businesses to reach the recycling target rate of 75% by 2030? Finally, what consultation or conversations will the Government have with businesses and other relevant stakeholders to ensure that businesses are on board with any future changes that may be coming down the line?
This crucial issue affects us all on this precious planet. I am happy to work with the Minister to ensure we continue to do all that we can to create a cleaner environment and cleaner communities, to increase our recycling efforts and, ultimately, to protect our precious environment.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. Along with my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I welcome these regulations. They are a distinct step in the right direction for recycling packaging, and I am glad to see that they will be UK-wide. There are a lot of things that are rightly decided in Scotland, but I know that producers, certainly those in my own constituency, want to be able to sell their products in Scotland and the rest of the UK without worrying about multiple sets of legislation and different reporting requirements. Indeed, we know that from the difficulties that Scotland’s individual deposit return scheme ran into.
We have all sorts of fantastic producers in North East Fife. Kettle Produce provides pre-cut packaged vegetables, which can be found on the shelves of many supermarkets, and the boxes and packages for Quaker Oats porridge come from just outside of Cupar.
It is not always easy to navigate the needs and interests of different parts of the UK, and I hope that these regulations are the result of positive engagement between the Governments of the four nations that will benefit all our constituencies. I welcome the fact that these regulations provide clarity to businesses. In the run-up to this Committee, I spoke to a producer who told me that they have to comply with two sets of rules and report on two datasets. I am sure we all appreciate how complex and time-consuming that is, so that producer and others will benefit from the certainty provided by having only one scheme in place.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, the regulations place the onus on producers to assess the recyclability of their packaging. What support and guidance will there be for this, and what checks will be in place to ensure that the process is well regulated? Will that require more funding, and have the Government planned for that? Can the Minister confirm that the system administrator will be properly funded and confirm how it will be managed on a cross-border basis? I think we would all welcome any steps to remove the costs of handling recycling from our local authorities, but I would not want to see that offset by poor administration. These regulations are vital steps in the right direction, which I and my constituents welcome as we move towards a greener and less wasteful future.
Mary Creagh
I thank hon. Members very much indeed for their kind and constructive words. We are seeing today an outbreak of unity on the basis of a project of seven years’ gestation. I remember the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs telling the Environmental Audit Committee, which I then chaired, that they would introduce a DRS scheme back in 2017. Here we are, and it falls to a Labour Government to introduce it. Once we pull one thread out of the packaging bin, we affect the income streams on which councils depend—I have a little joke in the Department that simpler recycling is actually hellishly complex recycling. It is a very complex project. There were issues with it during the covid pandemic and there have been four consultations on these reforms, so it has certainly taken a long time to see the light of day.
I would gently say to the shadow Minister that when we left Government in 2010, the recycling rate was more than 40%. It is now at 44%, and kind of going backwards. The original target in 2002 was for us to be at 50% recycling by 2015. The real lesson for all of us as lawmakers of whatever party is that, if we do not continually update policy, encourage behaviour change and give business certainty, these things do not happen on their own. The shadow Minister asked me about taxes; I welcome his constructive comments on charities, but obviously he knows that taxes are a matter for the Chancellor. I believe that the Finance Bill is still being debated in the main Chamber and I am sure he will have an opportunity, should he want to intervene there.
We talked about support for businesses. My officials have worked incredibly closely with businesses on this scheme. I met with a very large bottled drinks manufacturer yesterday in the Department, and I met with other businesses this morning as part of an all-party parliamentary group. We are not getting any comments from businesses that they have not been heard. There has been a consultation. There have been some philosophical questions about where glass should sit, and glass is now in pEPR. We want anyone involved in the production of packaging, such as the great Quaker Oats brand that the hon. Member for North East Fife has near her. That is an example of absolutely perfect cardboard packaging. It is sort of the perfect recycled package—wholesome on the inside and wholesome on the outside.
Most people know that the hard-to-recycle packaging is the plastic films. That is the really tricky stuff. If we look in our waste bins, by the time we have taken out the cardboard, plastic bottles, milk bottles and cans, what is left is food waste—collected in some areas, but not others, and the main source of methane in our landfill—and then the plastic film. Similarly, coffee cups have a plastic liner a few microns thick and then the thick cardboard around it, but they need the plastic to hold the drink. It is a question of product design and innovation. None of this is new, and a lot of it is happening, with pEPR happening in around 30 other countries in the world. Industry and representative groups have actively engaged with Government on developing these schemes and have offered support by sharing their data on recycling.
I take the point from the hon. Member for North East Fife about the two schemes. In a way, it is a bit like Brexit—we have the old regulations, the new regulations, and there are costs. What was supposed to be a bonfire of legislation actually ends up causing more regulation. We also have a number of industry representative groups taking part in the co-design of the future of scheme administration, including consideration of greater value chain involvement in the scheme. Nobody has a monopoly on wisdom—this is the first time we as a nation are doing this.
Dr Hudson
I note that the Minister is saying that businesses are feeding in, but my earlier point was that, with changes coming down the track, dialogue needs to go both ways. What plans do the Government have to talk to businesses and sectors in future? They are taking in information, but it is important that information goes the other way, so that people can plan and put measures in place.
Mary Creagh
That is a valid point. We have had to collect the data, but the data is not 100% there yet. Illustrative base fees were shared in August and we did new base fees in September to reflect some of the comments from business. We are looking at 2024, which has not ended yet, so we need to look at the tonnage and packaging for 2024 before we publish the final, definitive fees from April. We have tried to share illustrative fees with people, because we know there are long supply chains and they need six to 12 months to plan properly.
Further iterations will follow up to the summer next year, when we will share those final fees. They will be invoiced in October 2025, which will cover the period from 1 April 2025 to March 2026. At that point there will be absolute clarity and certainty. If there is anything that we feel is not working or that is driving behaviour in the opposite direction from what we want to see, we will not hesitate to change things further. As a new Government—we have been in power for only five months—this has been a big elephant to digest, one bite at a time.
The hon. Member for North East Fife asked me about producer obligations in the two schemes. The regulations carry over the obligation on the Environment Agency to publish a list of large producers from the 2023 data regulations, as amended. That should help producers to reduce the risk of double obligation, because we do not want people to be obligated under two separate schemes. If a producer discovers that it has reported packaging that it was not required to report, the regulations enable it to make a resubmission to correct any errors. We will continue to review the reporting requirements and engage with industry to ensure that the regulations operate effectively.
The payments will also apply to online marketplaces, something that is important for all of us as constituency MPs. We have seen the displacement of traditional high street businesses by online retailers, where it is usually cheaper to buy something. These regulations try to reset the level playing field.
We have legislated for that by creating the online marketplace producer class to address the rising prevalence of products imported into the UK as a result of sales on a third-party website. Where that happens, the operator of an online marketplace established in the UK must now take responsibility for that packaging under pEPR. At the same time, we do not want to unnecessarily burden small producers, so we are retaining the current de minimis thresholds. We will use the data gathered in the first year of the scheme to review the approach to small producers after that first year. We need to see if it is working as intended.
I hope I have covered most of the questions raised by hon. Members. The legislation is necessary to kick-start the circular economy, drive up our recycling rates, drive down our carbon emissions and change our approach to packaging in the UK, to ensure that materials and products are kept in use for longer. I hope that hon. Members understand and accept the need for the instrument, and I am grateful for the Committee’s time.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
UK Air and Missile Defences
(2 months 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
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered UK air and missile defences.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am pleased to have secured this debate to highlight a critical weakness in our national defences. I am sure it will come as no surprise to hon. Members that I say this, but I sincerely believe that outside this place, and even among many of our colleagues, it is not appreciated that the diversity of the threat we now face from air attack, and the lack of our defences against it, is at its most serious in decades.
This debate is about defences against conventional air and missile threats, not nuclear threats—for that we maintain our continuous at-sea strategic nuclear deterrent. The world is more unstable today than at any point since the cold war, but sadly, despite a changing threat environment, I fear our defences have not been adapted quickly enough to deter or protect against it. The House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee’s report published in September, which analysed the lessons we can learn from Ukraine, laid out in stark terms the significant weaknesses in European defences. Key among them is the fact that our air and missile defences are, frankly, inadequate. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine not only brought conventional warfare back to mainland Europe, but has shown in stark terms the importance of credible and robust air and missile defences.
Nearly 12,000 missiles have been launched against Ukraine by Russia since February 2022. About 80% of them have been intercepted, thanks to different air defence systems protecting military and civilian infrastructure, but that still means that thousands of missiles have impacted, often to devastating effect. Earlier this month, over the course of just one week, Russia used more than 800 guided aerial bombs, about 460 attack drones and more than 20 missiles of various types against Ukraine.
During the cold war NATO’s air defences were a largely static system arrayed in belts around a unidirectional and well-defined threat of manned aircraft from the Soviet Union, but today’s environment is less predictable. The range of air and missile threats is larger and the threat can come from any direction. Indeed, according to reports from earlier this year, NATO states can provide less than 5% of the air defence capacity deemed necessary to protect allies in central and eastern Europe against a full-scale attack.
Unlike Ukraine, the UK has some obvious geographical protection from attacks by ground-based short-range missiles and drones, but two significant and concerning reports over recent days show once again that there is no cause for complacency. First, Russia is now prepared to use intermediate-range hypersonic ballistic missiles against targets in Ukraine. This is the first successful use of that type of missile with conventional warheads in combat. They are harder to intercept and represent a significant escalation. The second concerning report in recent days relates to the presence of unidentified unmanned aerial vehicles around three RAF bases—Lakenheath, Mildenhall and Feltwell—between 20 and 22 November and overnight on 25 November. I do not expect the Minister to go into too much detail about that recent incident or about what counter-measures are in place at our bases, but both reports show that short-range and long-range threats to the UK are very real, very diverse, and we need to be able to defend ourselves against them.
If we look at events in the middle east, we can also see the diversity of short to long-range aerial threats. Israel has faced rocket, drone and ballistic missile attacks from Iran and its proxies in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Syria. In October, Iran launched almost 200 ballistic missiles against Israel following its previous attack involving 300 missiles and drones in April, but, unlike the UK, Israel has a sophisticated and multi-layered air and missile defence system to counter wide-ranging aerial threats. The Iron Dome intercepts short-range rockets of the type fired by Hamas and Hezbollah. David’s Sling can intercept medium to long-range rockets, as well as ballistic and cruise missiles, and Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 can intercept long-range ballistic missiles. Recently, we saw the deployment of US THAAD—terminal high altitude area defence—batteries to bolster defences against ballistic missile threats.
The UK’s current air defence capabilities against such threats are primarily made up of Sea Viper on Type 45 destroyers, utilising Aster missiles, Sky Sabre ground-based air defence, and quick reaction alert Typhoon fighter jets. Typhoons on quick reaction alert at Coningsby and Lossiemouth can intercept potential hostile airborne threats, including aircraft and UAVs. The Sky Sabre ground-based air defence system can intercept multiple cruise missiles, aircraft and UAVs up to 25 km away. However, there are only about six Sky Sabre systems in service with the British Army, and at least two are deployed overseas, to the Falkland Islands and Poland. Clearly, many more such systems would be needed to provide sufficient cover to a larger number of critical military and civilian national infrastructure sites across the UK.
I know the business case for more Sky Sabre launchers has been approved, but orders have not yet been made. Bizarrely, no business case has been made for ordering more missiles for Sky Sabre, despite such orders taking longer to fulfil. Crucially, Sky Sabre cannot defend against ballistic or hypersonic missile threats—it was not designed to do so. The only defence the UK currently has against ballistic missiles is Sea Viper, which utilises Aster 30 missiles on our six Type 45 destroyers. Sea Viper can currently track potential threats at ranges of up to 250 miles, and eliminate them within about 70 miles.
I know that Sea Viper is being upgraded over the next decade, with initial operation capability in 2028. That is very welcome, but given that we have only a few Type 45s in service at any one time, the coverage that they can provide in defence of homeland targets against ballistic missile threats is limited. To defend London against ballistic missile threats, a Type 45 destroyer would have to be permanently moored in the Thames estuary, which would mean that it could not do anything else. In particular, it would be unavailable for its primary role of protecting one of our aircraft carriers from air and missile threats. That alone makes the case that some form of new or upgraded ground-based air defence system that provides protection against threats, including ballistic and hypersonic missiles, is needed.
To consider only the military critical national infrastructure that would be vulnerable to air attack and would need adequate protection, we have the three main Royal Navy operating bases at Portsmouth, Devonport and Clyde; seven RAF bases, including Lossiemouth, Marham and Coningsby; and the major Army garrisons. We have radar sites, ammunition depots, and overseas sites, including the sovereign base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus, which are in range of Iranian ballistic missiles, unlike sites in the UK. Major defence industrial sites would also presumably be at risk. Then there is a plethora of significant civilian infrastructure that could be targeted, including nuclear power stations, large transport hubs, industrial sites and Government buildings. We know tragically from the war in Ukraine that Russia has no compunction about hitting civilian targets such as hospitals, shopping centres or concentrations of housing, purely to terrorise the civilian population and degrade national morale.
The previous Government’s integrated and defence reviews slowly started to acknowledge the threat from air attack. The 2023 Defence Command Paper described the threat as being
“at its most acute for over thirty years”.
Clearly, the resources have not yet been put into upscaling equipment and filling the gaps in capability that we need to counter that.
Other European countries have been taking the issue seriously and placing orders. In the past decade, France and Italy have jointly developed the medium-range SAMP/T air defence system, which can intercept ballistic missiles, drones, fighter jets and other targets. In September, France ordered eight new SAMP/T NG systems, capable of intercepting hypersonic missiles. The first ones will enter service in 2026. Italy also ordered 10 of these new systems, which will utilise upgraded Aster 30 missiles.
Many European countries already utilise the American Patriot air defence system. To bolster that, existing operators Germany, the Netherlands, Romania, Spain and Sweden are procuring 1,000 additional Patriot missiles between them. Poland has signed contracts worth £4 billion with UK industry to deliver the NAREW next-generation air defence system. Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, France and Hungary are jointly buying around 1,500 Mistral short-range air defence—SHORAD—missiles. Latvia and Estonia are jointly procuring IRIS-T for medium-range interception, and Finland has ordered the David’s Sling system.
To fill capability gaps and ensure interoperability, we should be working with our European NATO partners on joint procurement. The Government have said that the UK is engaging with the European Sky Shield initiative, which seeks to establish a ground-based integrated European air defence system with anti-ballistic missile capability. There are clearly different views across Europe about which systems it should comprise to ensure not only interoperability but to develop and maintain Europe’s defence industrial base.
I am aware that the UK signed a letter of intent to launch the integrated air and missile DIAMOND initiative in October, alongside six allies: France, Germany, Latvia, Norway, Poland and Sweden. That is clearly welcome, as it shows the seriousness with which the threat is recognised, but there is no clear timetable of key milestones associated with the DIAMOND initiative. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update.
It is not just our ability to take down hostile airborne threats that we must consider; there is also our ability to detect them in the first place. It is no secret that we have only a limited number of fixed and mobile land-based radars on UK soil, which would probably be among the first targets vulnerable to air attack. The previous Government’s early retirement of E-3 Sentry left a capability gap in airborne early warning and control, which has only been compounded by delays in the E-7 Wedgetail programme.
Airborne early warning and control will be crucial in monitoring the western and south-western coasts of the UK, where ground-based radar is limited, to detect potential submarine-launched threats. We also need to take seriously the potential for radar evasion along the east coast, particularly by UAVs or projectiles passing through wind farms. The Government are actively working on deconflicting windfarms and existing air defence surveillance systems. I would be grateful if the Minister could speak briefly about that.
Ministers will be acutely aware of everything I have said but, as I said at the start of the debate, I do not think many of our colleagues, including across Government outside the Ministry of Defence, appreciate the scale or seriousness of the issue. The defence analyst Francis Tusa has compared the current situation with that found by General Frederick Pile in 1937 when he was appointed commander of the 1st Anti-Aircraft Division. General Pile highlighted the severe lack of anti-aircraft batteries to defend civilian and military locations. His analysis led to an increase in personnel in anti-aircraft roles and the mass production of anti-aircraft artillery.
Our armed forces are among the best and most capable in the world but, unfortunately, the defence they can provide today against significant airborne threats to the homeland, such as missile attack, is very limited. We have highly capable equipment but not enough of it to protect the significant amount of critical infrastructure across the length and breadth of the country, and to defend troops deployed on operations overseas. Principally, that is because we spent most of the previous few decades focused on expeditionary overseas missions rather than active homeland defence. We have been too slow to adapt to the changing threat picture.
The lack of active homeland defence is fundamentally a strategic failure. I hope the ongoing strategic defence review will deem it such and outline how it can be urgently addressed. The first responsibility of our Government is to protect our people and defend our freedom. I fear that further delay in outlining the action we are going to take and, crucially, the budget to deliver it, brings only greater risk of catastrophic failure in fulfilling that fundamental responsibility.
Addressing that capability gap needs to be an urgent political, funding and industrial priority for Government. I hope the Minister feels that this debate helps her demonstrate the political support in Parliament for tackling it.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members to bob if they wish to be called in the debate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. It seems only a few minutes ago that you and I were last in Westminster Hall—you brought the 4.30 pm debate to an end yesterday afternoon, and we moved on, but here we are again, within minutes it seems. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on bringing forward the debate. I spoke to him last week when I became aware that he had this upcoming debate, and he is right to bring it to Westminster Hall for consideration. We must recognise the importance of UK air and missile defences and of us in Parliament collectively making a clear pledge.
The Ukraine conflict, in tandem with the sustained attacks on Israel, has illustrated—in a way that none of us wants to see, but that has unfortunately become a reality—the need for strong and robust air defence. On Israel, I will just say that it is good news that a 60-day ceasefire with Hezbollah has hopefully been agreed. We hope that the peace agreement will stand firm and can last 60 days, and possibly longer.
As hon. Members may be aware, the leading air defence company Thales in the UK and perhaps the world is based in the constituency neighbouring mine, that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), although he tells me that the majority of the workers are my constituents. I am thankful to this good local employer for not simply providing skilful, gainful employment at a very decent wage, but offering incredibly helpful apprenticeships. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East and I met Thales back in August, we pushed for apprenticeships, and we were pleased that the company was approaching the issue constructively. Those who gain an apprenticeship have their student fees paid, because Thales wants to retain those apprentices for the long term. One worker, who happens to be my constituent, has won the Northern Ireland apprentice of the year award, which is an indication of how much Thales does for apprentices. The use of local suppliers also means that more people than just those on site owe their employment to Thales’s innovation and excellence. The company’s design and production of air defence capabilities in Northern Ireland directly employs more than 800 people, and contributes £81 million to Northern Ireland’s GDP.
I am pleased to see the Minister in her place, and I look forward to her support for our requests for a long-term commitment. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), in his place, and I know he has made numerous visits to Northern Ireland; indeed, he will probably comment on that when he makes his speech. We appreciate his past and ongoing commitment.
My gratitude extends to Thales for the security that its products offer our entire nation as we ensure that we can withstand warfare, should that be necessary. Looking back to the start of the Ukraine crisis, Thales was able to supply shoulder-held weapons that slowed down the advance of Russian armies across the whole front. That was Thales in Belfast—part of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—doing its job for liberty, freedom and democracy.
A few months ago, I was pleased to learn that Thales had secured a £176 million MOD contract to produce lightweight missiles for the British Army. The order will equip the Army’s current and future short-range air defence capabilities, such as Stormer combat vehicles, and be fired by the Royal Navy’s Martlet maritime anti-surface missile systems, which are deployed from the Wildcat helicopters the hon. Member for North Durham referred to in his introduction. That is coming from us—Thales, in Belfast, in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The MOD said that these lightweight multi-role missiles, weighing only 13 kg each, provide a solution against threats such as drones, helicopters, aircraft, and small, fast maritime targets. They have been used in Ukraine to aid our allies in their ongoing struggle, and they have truly made a difference. It is right and proper that we ensure we have a decent stock and the facilities and capacity to quickly access more, should the need arise.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
My hon. Friend refers to the stock that we require. Hopefully it never needs to be used, but we definitely require it. Does he agree that it would help if the Government were to outline in clear detail how quickly defence spending will get to 2.5%?
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Minister, who is assiduous in her work, will no doubt take note of that, or her officials will and will pass forward up-to-date information on where we are. I will comment on that later on, because it is really important that we look forward.
It is my hope—I know it is a shared hope in this room—that we can shortly find a way forward to peace for Israel, Ukraine and Africa—peace in so many theatres of war. Two weeks ago in the Baptist church I attend, the pastor said in his prayers that there are 47 wars in the world; that is how many there are. The ones that feature highly are Ukraine and Israel, of course, but across the world there are wars and rumours of wars. Those 47 wars give an indication of why peace is so important.
While we hope, aim and strive for peace, we must also be prepared for war. We must ensure that our armed forces are equipped and trained on land and sea and in the air, as well as in the new cyber-space, and missiles are part of that preparedness. The UK has to prepare for Russian aggression. It was in the paper this morning—the hon. Member for North Durham referred to this—that Russian drones were looking at the east of England, and I understand that the MOD was responding to them. I know that that is a hot story—if that is the way to put it—having been in the paper for the first time this morning, but maybe the Minister can give us some indication of how we are preparing ourselves for any such incursion by Russian forces, wherever it may be in the east of England—or indeed coming through the Republic of Ireland, into Northern Ireland and ultimately towards the rest of the United Kingdom. I would love there to be a special NATO relationship with the Republic of Ireland, but we must be aware that it is a back door to Britain, so we need to be prepared and ready. What is most important is that we are doing what we can.
I welcome the news that we are again to increase our GDP spend, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) referred to that. I know that the 2.5% is something we all want the Minister and the Government to achieve, and nobody differs in that view. What discussions have taken place with our fellow NATO countries and compatriots in battle about their preparedness to spend 2.5% for a similar reason?
I am conscious that within NATO we have our commitment to Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland, who are on the frontline with Russia. They have stood firm, but how can we ensure that their commitment is likewise at 2.5%? How can those that are not on the frontline, who may think they are safe because they are a way behind those countries, also commit to that 2.5%? That is something I would very much like to see. We have a change of Administration in the United States. President-elect Trump will take over on 21 January, I think, with President Biden still there until then. Have there been any discussions with the incoming President on the 2.5% commitment? If there have not been, could the Minister indicate when they might take place?
I conclude with this comment: I welcome the news that we are again to increase our GDP spend on military. This is right and proper. The production of high-level defence capacity by Thales and other UK providers must continue, to ensure that we can help our allies in need and that anyone who positions themselves as our enemy knows that our calmness and kindness are certainly not weakness. I am proud to be part of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I am proud to be the hon. Member for Strangford and to ensure that we, collectively in this House, offer our support. I support the creation of these necessary arms, and I thank those who ensure that we have the capacity to continue having the world’s very best armed forces.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
It is pleasure, Mr Dowd, to serve under your chairmanship. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for obtaining the chance to debate this vital matter, and I commend him on his comprehensive diagnosis of the threats we face.
My hon. Friend is right to say that we have entered a period of global instability not seen since the cold war. First, there is Putin’s brutal and illegal invasion of Ukraine, where the threat continues to escalate and the damage continues to spread. We must answer Russia with a European, transatlantic and UK-based response that adapts to the evolving threat of warfare—be that through technology, on land, in the sea, in the air or in space. I am proud that my constituency of Stevenage plays an integral part in the UK’s response to Putin, as the place where Storm Shadow missiles are refitted for use by Ukraine.
Secondly, there is the ongoing instability in the middle east—with the risk of escalation to an all-out regional conflict that will implicate allies around the world. We must also assess our preparation for the vastly different challenges that ongoing chaos in the region will cause.
Regardless of the conflict, and the differing threats posed, it is clear that NATO, Europe and the UK are not where we need to be to confidently say we can protect our interests at home and abroad. On air defence alone, NATO states can provide less than 5% of the air defence capacity needed to protect Europe from a larger attack.
This matter is of deep importance to me and my constituents in Stevenage. As a former local armed forces champion, I am proud to represent a constituency where MBDA is based. The company produces Sea Ceptor and Sea Viper, which bolster our naval-based air and missile defence capabilities and are integral to the UK’s missile defence strategy—both in protecting our ground-based assets at home, and for our blue water naval capabilities wherever they may be deployed across the world.
Primes in Stevenage, such as Airbus, also support the UK’s thriving small and medium-sized enterprise sector. One of those firms supplies MBDA with the thermal batteries that allow its missiles to sit dormant under pressure before going off quickly when activated. We must not downplay the role that our industry partners play in our air defence. Without the ingenuity of industry, such as that in Stevenage, we would not be able to maintain—or scale up—our missile response. It is the proud international role that my town plays in the defence sector that inspired me to take up a role as part of the UK delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and for the past week I have been at the NATO summit in Montreal discussing these exact issues with international partners. The consensus across NATO is clear: growing threats lead to growing strength, faster evolution and a more unified response than ever.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
It is clear that war in Europe—war on our continent—has fundamentally shifted defence priorities and key areas for our focus. Does my hon. Friend agree with the Chief of the Defence Staff’s recent comment that a key area for future investment should be integrated air and missile defence, so that we better address growing global challenges and threats?
Kevin Bonavia
I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee on Defence, and I absolutely agree. We must have interoperability across all our services—not just on land, at sea and in the air, but in space, which is not just the next frontier but brings it all together. We must not forget that.
Currently, the UK, alongside 22 other NATO allies, is meeting the NATO contribution requirement of 2% of GDP. I am pleased that this Labour Government have a commitment to increase that to 2.5% following the strategic defence review. In undertaking that review, the Department will be looking at the many ways in which we can develop strength where we are weak and efficiency where we are slow—and develop strength we must. It is integral to that that the UK bolsters its air and missile defence capability, especially as we saw only last week Putin’s first use of intermediate-range hypersonic ballistic missiles in Ukraine. We must ensure that our constituents and the infrastructure on which we rely are protected from missile attack, and the threat of such attacks will continue rising for the foreseeable future.
I believe that the only way we can upscale our capability effectively is by working with both our strategic partners in NATO and our geographically-closest partners in Europe. I urge the Minister to explore the viability of a defence and security pact with the EU and across Europe. As a third partner currently, we run the risk of not just the UK Government but our industry being locked out of discussions with our counterparts across Europe. We must work to supercharge our UK-based defence industry and give it the correct tools to work hand in hand with our European partners to keep us all safe. If that does not happen, we will not be effectively maximising either our own capability for our defence or our wider response to the war in Ukraine and to increasing uncertainty internationally.
I make this case to the Minister: keep spending, bolster our armed forces and do everything in our power to retain sovereign capability over every area of the defence sector, from manufacturing to procurement. We must speed up production and explore every avenue to develop the new technologies and systems that we need to face down modern threats and tackle global challenges. At the very heart of this all, we must prioritise the UK’s missile defence capabilities so that companies, such as MBDA and Airbus in my constituency, can contribute in an ever bigger and better way than they already are.
I urge the Minister to explore the viability of a defence and security pact with the EU and wider Europe—one that includes an industrial pact for UK-EU collaboration on weaponry to guarantee our safety and stability while we navigate our evolving relationship with our close allies in the US.
To conclude, the rules-based order across the world is under the greatest threat since the end of the second world war. The UK has been at the very heart of creating that rules-based order, and we must do all we can to protect it. Boosting our own defences is now critical.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I apologise for my late arrival, Mr Dowd. Two airbases in my constituency of West Suffolk, Lakenheath and Mildenhall, were recently targeted by drones; residents were concerned to hear aircraft being scrambled in the middle of the night to intercept them at the weekend. When the Minister responds, I would be grateful if she could give us a clear account of what happened and what the response is likely to be if that continues.
I particularly want to raise a related security concern. Concerning Russia, the director general of MI5 recently said:
“We now face…state-backed sabotage”
and
“we should expect to see continued acts of aggression here at home. The GRU in particular is on a sustained mission to generate mayhem on British and European streets: we’ve seen arson, sabotage and more.”
That is obviously a serious threat to our country. I do not expect the Minister or other hon. Members present to know the details of the proposed Sunnica solar and battery farm, but it is very close to both Lakenheath and Mildenhall, and many of the service personnel who work at the bases live even nearer to the proposed site. At that site, the proposal includes battery energy storage systems, which are especially vulnerable to acts of sabotage. BESS fires on similar sites have been caused by lithium battery failure leading to thermal runaway. That can cause explosions and the resulting fires cannot be extinguished using conventional methods.
Four years ago, a fire at a BESS site in Liverpool took 59 hours to put out, and similar stories apply elsewhere around the world where those facilities have been constructed. The fires emit toxic fumes, which means that people in the vicinity must remain indoors throughout. The risk to the bases, given the location of the Sunnica solar farm, is quite obvious. I do not expect a full answer from the Minister, but in her concluding remarks can she commit to having a meeting with me and some of her officials so we can talk privately about the issue? I would be very grateful.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I declare an interest as the Member of Parliament for Bolton West, which is the home of MBDA’s Logistics North production site. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on securing this important debate; I particularly welcome his comments on both the lessons to be learned from Ukraine and the need to ensure that our armed forces can protect us from a diverse range of threats.
All of us will have constituents who are concerned about last week’s developments between Russia and Ukraine, including Putin’s use of an advanced hypersonic missile. This is a personal issue for me. My own father was stationed in Germany throughout the 1970s as the threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union loomed. The shadow cast by that period of constant existential fear is, unfortunately, a long one. The terrifying reality is that now war is not just something we read about in newspapers; it is on our doorstep. However we are not fighting on the beaches, landing grounds, fields and streets any more. The long distance missile capabilities of hostile states mean, regrettably, that war can now reach us in our own homes.
All that is to say that sovereign capability for missile defences here in the UK has seldom been so important. As others have already noted, we are vulnerable to advanced missiles such as the one fired by Russia last week and the one fired by Iran on Israel earlier in the year. As our armed forces and defence infrastructure were left to crumble during the last 14 years, a serious capability gap has emerged, particularly around defence against air threats and our ability to engage targets at extended range. Only in September, the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee warned that the Government must
“pay greater attention to homeland defence”,
particularly to
“integrated air and missile defence…in close collaboration with our European NATO allies”.
Mr Dhesi
I thank my hon. Friend, who is making an excellent speech. It is increasingly clear that enhanced co-operation with NATO and other allies will be essential in achieving air and missile defence aims in the UK. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we have seen in the recent Estonia pact, these continued alliances will not only enhance our ability to meet procurement challenges but ensure that we are able to defend against these long-range missile threats?
Phil Brickell
I agree with my hon. Friend; I will come on to that issue in the context of the recent Germany-UK defence agreement, which was signed in Trinity House only last month.
Over the weekend, there was also an intervention from former Defence Minister and former Chair of the Defence Committee Tobias Ellwood, who said that we are “woefully unprotected” and described London as “almost a sitting duck”. This issue can garner support from all sides of the House; I know that other Members will recognise the scale of the challenges ahead, which necessitate ever closer international relationships and collective defence within NATO and the European Union. With that in mind, I should say that I had the immense pleasure of talking to German counterparts as part of a delegation to Berlin in September. As the secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on Germany, I enthusiastically welcomed last month’s UK-Germany Trinity House agreement on defence.
The Government’s shared objective with Germany to sustain effective deterrence against would-be aggressors by building credible, resilient defence forces and defence industries is vital if we are to work towards the vision of a peaceful and stable Europe and north Atlantic. Sovereign capability, as an enduring necessity, is something that I expect the Government’s forthcoming strategic defence review will attest to. To ensure adequate manufacturing capacity, industry must remain at the very heart of our missile defence system.
MBDA employs 1,200 people in my constituency and almost 6,000 across the UK. I am sure that colleagues will agree with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) that MBDA represents the very best in ingenuity, working as a trusted partner throughout Europe and providing the air defence capability that we and our allies need to stand up to Russia’s unwarranted aggression. I therefore welcome the Secretary of State’s comments at the Farnborough International Airshow earlier this year, when he committed to
“renewing important partnerships with industry and continuing to push technological boundaries”.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way; he has done so already.
Scotland is a tremendous asset in defence. Companies right across the country provide enormous pieces of equipment, such as the aircraft carriers built in Scotland. Scotland also has many small and medium-sized enterprises—we have Raytheon, which provides parts for Tomahawk, and Thales on the banks of the Clyde. However, does the Minister know that there is something of a hostile environment from the Scottish Government towards companies that need to ramp up and access finance to deliver the large orders coming from the Ministry of Defence? Senior Scottish Government figures have boasted about the fact that, under their watch, money would not be given to large companies for warfighting capabilities; it would be for civilian use only. That is alarming. We will need to ally with defence companies as well as NATO.
Phil Brickell
The hon. Member makes an important point about the importance of the defence sector across all four nations of the United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State also spoke at the Farnborough International Airshow about the importance of driving prosperity and creating skilled jobs across the country. But defence cannot be done on the cheap—we will have to put our hands in our pockets. It is an investment, not a cost, and I must urge the Government to reach the 2.5% of GDP defence spending target at the earliest opportunity so that the rogue states causing ongoing geopolitical instability know that their continued unlawful aggression will not and cannot win.
To conclude, the threats we face are very real, as are the resourcing, production capacity and resilience needs. I look forward to further measures from the new Government to show their resolve to stand up to Putin, invest in our defence capability and increase domestic manufacturing capacity.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst); I know how important this subject is for not only his constituents, but mine and many others across the north-east. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) and for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) have made remarks on the importance of manufacturing and industry, and that is where I will focus my comments.
Prior to arriving in this place, and since my election, I have done some work on manufacturing and industry with the Royal United Services Institute. I draw hon. Members’ attention to the conclusion of some work it did a couple of years ago: a prolonged war will be won ultimately by the country with the strongest industrial base. That is a comment with which we can all agree.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West mentioned the September 2024 House of Lords report on the importance of paying greater attention to homeland defence. That is really the crux of the opening remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. The reorientation of defence from expeditionary to homeland defence means that we must rely on our own domestic industry to secure our defence. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham also talked of the number of missiles, drones and so on that have been expended in the war in Ukraine. It is important to think of all of those missiles and drones as machines composed of semiconductors, plastics, metals, ceramics, advanced manufacturing and advanced machining, all of which we would be required to produce from our own economy in a conflict.
That House of Lords report also drew attention to the need to generate and maintain mass in a conflict. That is the ability of our economy to ensure that we can field second and third-echelon fighting forces, protect our critical national infrastructure and safeguard lines of communication to frontline troops. I know that the Government are considering integrated air missile defences in the forthcoming strategic defence review, and I am pleased that this debate and my hon. Friend’s opening remarks will raise the profile of that. However, I hope that review will also look at how we strengthen our homeland security. Particularly given the threat from Putin, we need to consider how we will grow our industrial base.
Fortunately, we are starting in a reasonably strong position: our defence industry is a global leader. That is why I believe the Government have included defence as one of the eight growth sectors in our modern industrial strategy, Invest 2035. But we need to invest further in capabilities that will deter and defeat future threats, and that will rely, beyond our defence industry, on our wider foundation industries.
I will talk a bit about the foundation industries and their role. I welcome the Government’s protection of the Coherent semiconductor plant in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland). But we can think of other examples such as the CF Fertilisers plant in Billingham in my constituency, which produced ammonia for explosives for over 100 years but closed last year due to an uncompetitive business environment in the UK. In the steel industry, we talk a lot about big steel centres such as Port Talbot and Scunthorpe, but a number of years ago we lost our only electrical steel capability almost without a murmur.
There is a wider issue here in Europe. Plastics demand in Europe grew by over 6% last year, but production in Europe declined by 3%. Technical ceramics are essential for all our missile defence systems, but the ceramics industry is also struggling under high and uncompetitive energy prices. The Defence Committee report earlier this year, “Ready for War?”, identified some serious deficiencies in our defence procurement practices, with the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and suppliers
“not anywhere close to where it needs to be”.
The report identified a pressing need to strengthen domestic production across the board.
If supported by a positive investment environment and a pipeline of projects, we know that the UK economy possesses a range of domestic steel producers—the sector that I worked in—and suppliers in other areas that can produce these key components. We have a great opportunity, with the combination of the defence industrial strategy, the steel strategy, which will be published in spring, and the modern industrial strategy, to set the scene for private sector investment that will enable us to strengthen these capabilities.
Finally, I draw Members’ attention to the words of former NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. He characterised this debate appropriately when he said,
“without industry, there is no defence, no deterrence and no security.”
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for bringing forward this critical debate.
In 1988, The Sunday Times published a formative exposition of the integrated air defence system that protected the UK at the time. I managed to find the article, called “Can the RAF defend us?”, with the aid of the Library. It gave a very detailed analysis of the system in place, some parts of which had not changed since 1938, and it spoke of how an investment of about £10 billion on combined programmes would address that. I enjoyed reminding myself, while reading the article, of the places that were commissioned back then that I finally served in during the early 2000s. The reason for bringing that up is that, then as now, we need a clear understanding of where we are and of the degradation in our services since the 2010 strategic defence and security review.
Defence has three outputs: policy, capability and operations. We must convince ourselves of the need to do some of the things that my hon. Friend spoke about eloquently earlier. On policy, we must recognise that our security problem is inherently European. The European Sky Shield initiative is fundamental, so it is critical that we enhance and recover some of our relationships with our European partners, and that we remain NATO-first. We must recognise that we will not stand alone, and that the solution to our problems and funding must have a European bent. I urge the Minister to do as my hon. Friend discussed and enhance our European relationships —specifically regarding access to funding and partnerships.
I note the article’s clear recognition that our Army was inherently European based. It is largely pointless having tanks on Salisbury plain when the threat is elsewhere. I wonder whether now is the time to reconsider where some of our Army is based. Having a deployed Army that contributes to a security problem will also need an air defence above it. We need to give consideration to the service that, at present, is prime in delivering parts of our integrated air defence system. I also welcome the discussion about Type 45s. It is imperative that we understand that the Royal Navy has a part to play in our air defences, and that Type 45s not just protect the carrier but are fundamental to ensuring the long sea track.
With policy, it is essential that, whatever solutions we come to, we ensure that we are in the grey zone right now. Defence is about deterrence, and it is fundamental that we maintain a posture that deters our enemy. We must understand that this logic has already started: our enemies have already started to encroach on some of the fundamental parts of our deterrence, including damaging the rules-based international order. I urge the Minister to take back to the Department a discussion about a deterrence policy that works around our integrated air defence—something that is discussed incredibly well in the 1988 article.
On capability, I do not wish to politicise the debate, but just as we now reflect openly on the damage that the 1957 defence review did to our industries, we must have an honest discussion about the impact of the 2010 SDSR. Critically, we must recognise what happens when we take capability holidays, and how those create long and lasting impacts on our capabilities. That is why we are in the position that we are in now. Some of the capabilities that were mentioned in the opening speech are not there because we did not support the industries that were enabled to build them. A recovery of our industrial base is essential. Readiness is about availability, capability and sustainability. The greatest damage that has been done to our defence enterprise is in our ability to sustain a response. We must have an industry that is capable of building and sustaining the stocks necessary to counter mass.
On operations, we have circa 10,000 people deployed on 250 operations worldwide at the moment. The Defence Committee was told the other day that we have about 100,000 personnel fit to fight. For it to be sustainable—not using harmony guidelines, which are complex to work out—that is a force of 30,000 people who are committed today to operations. It is also not unreasonable to assume that an amount of our forces above that are in readiness, and they should also be at a ratio of 3:1 or greater, so something upwards of 30% of our fighting force is currently deployed sustainably.
I ask the Minister to foster an honest discussion within the Department about whether that is affordable and sustainable. We need our forces at home, or on European soil, training and getting ready for the coming fight. We cannot erode our defence enterprise by doing what may be considered profligate operations that do not contribute to our future security.
Mr Dhesi
My hon. Friend is making a very thought-provoking speech. In an increasingly volatile world where new global threats are constantly emerging, we must ensure that we are at the cutting edge of technology. That is why I was pleased to see recent progress on the new air defence laser, equipping RAF pilots with high tech to defeat missile threats. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must ensure that steps are taken to put us at the cutting edge of innovation to enhance our air and missile defence capabilities?
Mr Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for that eloquent and apposite intervention. I agree that to be able to respond and counter mass, we need technology. To align that with the point I was making, it is essential that we have people trained and ready to use that technology, which is why the size and mass of our deployments is critical. If we do not allow our forces to train and recover adequately, they will not be able to exercise and be ready to use those technologies as they come online.
I urge the Minister to address the points that I have made in this honest discussion, particularly about deployment. I also ask her to look at the disparity in some of the policies we are using when our forces are deployed—in particular, those that have an impact on weapons carriage hours. There is a significant disparity in the policies that we use to sustain our stocks, and an alignment with NATO and, certainly, the US would bring significant cost savings and reductions in the size requirements of our stockpiles. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) might be able to talk about that, based on his experience and understanding.
I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham for securing this debate. I welcome the Government’s announcement last week about the removal of costly and antiquated systems. I am hopeful about the SDR, and I am very grateful that the Government value the service of our armed forces.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time in a Westminster Hall debate, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for securing this important debate on the UK’s air defence systems, and Members from across the House for their enlightening and insightful contributions.
We are all aware of the gravity of this topic, given recent events. Our armed forces play a vital role in defending the UK; I echo what others have said about them and our defence systems. The previous Government oversaw an ongoing, real-terms decline in defence spending, which has had a lasting impact on our armed forces. In January 2023, the former Secretary of State for Defence, Ben Wallace, described them as “hollowed out and underfunded”.
Given the serious dangers around the world—the war in Ukraine, comments by members of the incoming Trump Administration, and conflict in the middle east—it is more essential than ever that the UK invests in a safe future for our children and grandchildren. We have all seen the news coverage showing the devastating effects that long-range aerial attacks can have on civilians. The emergence of new hypersonic missiles poses a major strategic challenge.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the news that the Prime Minister has given the green light to the Tempest project, in collaboration with Japan and Italy. At our Defence Committee last week, the deputy chief of the defence staff, Lieutenant General Sir Rob Magowan, described the global combat air programme as
“absolutely central to the UK’s defence industrial base, from combat air and jet engine to missile sensor capability.”
Working alongside our allies is essential, and we look forward to seeing how that venture opens new doors to further co-operation.
The UK remains independently protected by the Royal Air Force quick reaction alert force, by Sky Sabre surface-to-air capability and by air defence missiles launched from the Royal Navy’s surface fleet. However, the security landscape has changed dramatically in the last few years. The Liberal Democrats believe that, for the UK to remain secure, we need a comprehensive security and defence agreement with the European Union. The European Sky Shield initiative now has 21 countries involved, and the UK signed a letter of intent in 2022, indicating that it would also take part.
I was heartened to see that the recent Anglo-German Trinity House defence agreement also indicated that we would work more closely together on air defence. The last Government lacked that co-operation and the pragmatic approach to Europe, potentially jeopardising the security interests of the UK for political posturing over our relationship with European allies. By showing leadership and developing new defence technologies, equipment, systems and training programmes with our neighbours, the UK can achieve better results and enhance our shared security.
The global combat air programme will contribute to our armed forces readiness and the future of this country’s aerial defence, but it is a long-term project. Our question should be: what policy moves can we make in the near to medium term to show both allies and adversaries that we are serious? For example, in the midst of the strategic defence review, how does reaffirming the Government’s support for GCAP fit with the review’s work? Is it now safeguarded regardless of the SDR’s other findings?
I join colleagues from across the Chamber today in expressing my concern over the state of procurement in the armed forces. Over one third of defence contracts under the last Government were awarded uncompetitively. A key priority must be addressing this persistent and pressing issue, which has plagued successive Governments for too long. Inefficiencies and missed opportunities have hampered our ability to ensure that our armed forces are well equipped, supported and prepared for the evolving security challenges of any future conflict. I believe in a sustained effort to fix the problems, including integrating defence procurement into a comprehensive industrial strategy. We must create a reliable, long-term pipeline of equipment procurements, giving our armed forces the tools they need while supporting the UK’s manufacturing and innovation sectors.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for securing this debate. Leonardo is a key player in our defence industry and an employer in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that Leonardo, as the sole remaining bidder in the next stage of the procurement process for the new medium helicopter, represents an important step in moving towards supporting the UK’s manufacturing and innovation sectors?
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
He is not right hon!
Ian Roome
Sorry—my hon. Friend.
The introduction of flexibility in defence capital spending would mean we can focus on meeting critical in-service dates rather than simply hitting financial deadlines. Fixing defence procurement will ensure that our armed forces remain modern, capable and ready to protect us in an ever-changing world. A fresh approach has never been more essential in our lifetimes.
I would like to mention Systems Engineering and Assessment in my North Devon constituency, which won a £135 million contract to supply state-of-the art defensive countermeasure systems to the Royal Navy—groundbreaking technology that will also likely be deployed via export to surface fleets across a number of this country’s allies. We also welcome the ambition of the Secretary of State for Defence to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. However, the Government have not issued a timetable to do that, and we need clear, tangible plans outlining how the target will be achieved in practice. It is critical that the Ministry of Defence has certainty about its future funding so it can plan effectively. Can the Minister now provide more clarity on the measures the Government intend to take to increase the defence budget and ensure long-term financial security for the MOD?
Finally, by taking action now we can prevent future generations from facing the need to allocate 3%, 4% or even 5% of GDP to address challenges such as air defence that could have been anticipated and managed earlier. This is about building lasting resilience and protecting our nation for the long term. A co-ordinated approach across Government is essential. Many Members have put some very important strategic defence questions to the Minister today and I look forward to the replies.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. My strong congratulations to the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on an extremely timely debate. He spoke very well—in fact, all colleagues have contributed very thoughtful speeches on this important subject. Because of what is happening in Ukraine and what we have seen in the Red sea and Israel, many now say we should adopt some form of Iron Dome. This debate is very timely and I am grateful for it.
I echo the comments of my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) and the hon. Member for North Durham in asking the Minister to update us on the overnight story of drones flying over United States Visiting Forces bases in Suffolk and Norfolk, and the apparent deployment of the negation of improvised non-state joint aerial, or NINJA, and ORCUS systems—which is different from the AUKUS defence pact with our partners. It would be good to have an update on how that was used.
The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) made a key point. I launched the integrated procurement model in February, and he is right that one should not look at missile defence in silos—no pun—because there has to be a joined-up multi-domain approach, particularly for space. I strongly agree with him that that will be a decisive factor in the early stages of something we hope will never happen: existential war. We need to be interoperable with allies, and the systems we procure need to be integrated across all the domains of our defence posture.
We do still need to consider these issues at domain level. My last visit to an army base, a week before the election was called, was to Thorney Island on the south coast to the 7th Air Defence Group. It used to be regarded as quite obscure but, because it is a ground-based air defence unit, it found itself at the heart of the debate on future defence. When I visited, I was clear that we would be ordering significant new levels of GBAD, including lightweight multi-role missiles for short-range, but also Land Ceptor units. I hope the Minister can confirm that those orders are continuing under the new Government and will be scaled up. As colleagues have said, we need more scale than we currently have because of the changing threat.
In the air domain, we currently rely on the Typhoon as our backbone. The hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) made a good point that GCAP, which I support, is way off in the future, in the 2030s. What is going to happen to boost lethality in the near term? It would be good if the Minister could update us on E-Scan radar with Typhoon, which will significantly increase its capability. It has been intercepting drones and missiles in the middle east and remains the backbone of our air defence. We must ensure that it is operating at the most capable level it can achieve.
I am particularly concerned about the maritime threat. We are supporting Ukraine, not in the theatre, but through the supply of ordnance. In the naval situation, our own ships were threatened, along with our own British sailors. It is in the public domain that the Houthis have obtained ballistic missiles from Iran and possibly other actors. That is a very serious threat. They may not yet have the fullest capability, but there was a worrying report this week that they are sending troops to support Russia in exchange for targeting information. That is a very serious development.
Given the ballistic threat, and given that Sea Ceptor cannot currently intercept in the terminal phase, we need rapidly to accelerate the Evolution upgrade, as far as we are able. That would give us an anti-ballistic capability. We may have to consider an urgent operational requirement for the standard missile 3—a US missile on the USS Arleigh Burke—that can intercept ballistic threats. I believe that could go in our Mark 41 launchers when our Type 26 and Type 31 start entering the sea. We will have to think like that because the threat is evolving so fast.
I strongly feel that technology is where we can enhance our forces. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), Chair of the Defence Committee, spoke about laser. When I was presented with DragonFire, I thought, “Wow!” If we can get this capability into service as fast as possible, crucially—although is obviously experimental up to a point—there may be a way to intercept drones without denuding our missile stockpile. That is incredibly significant. The other directed-energy weapon we looked at was the radio frequency one, which I saw at Thorney Island. That is not an electronic warfare system; it is a kinetic strike from sound waves that can take out multiple drones at once, for something like 10p a shot. At the moment, it has a relatively limited range.
I hope the Minister will confirm that the Government will be pursuing those directed-energy weapons. If we go at them hard and fast, and deliver them into the arms of our forces quicker than other nations, we will boost not only our lethality and capability, but our defence industry. It is not just the link with industry, but the link with the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory and our brilliant scientists that matters, as well as creating the integrated procurement system that I wanted. I was pleased that the hon. Member for North Durham talked about that system, which enables us to develop really quickly and remain at the cutting edge.
Obviously, as I think all colleagues have said, there is one key issue: procuring these weapons, systems and capabilities costs money. We need to commit to 2.5%, and the Conservative position was to achieve that by 2030. Now, we can go back to the 2010s, as the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) did. He knows that I am a great fan of his; he showed me around the cockpit of an A400 and I was very grateful. He has huge expertise from his time in service, but I have to be clear that the Labour party would have cut defence spending by 25% in 2010 had they won the election. The financial position then was incredibly bleak. We now have to put the past behind us. It was a long-term decline—[Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering, but the fact is that defence spending fell under both the Conservatives and Labour, as it had around the world since the end of the cold war, because we all thought peace was upon us. In defence, we all have to adjust to the threat picture as we see it.
This is the crucial point: when we announced our funding pathway to 2.5% in April, which the Prime Minister announced in Germany, it would have included reducing the civil service to its pre-pandemic size to pay for it. That is not a particularly ambitious target, but the No. 1 priority of that extra spending would have been replenishment and rearmament. By replenishment, we mean replacing the arms we have given to Ukraine, and by rearmament, we mean replacing our technological warfighting capabilities—for example, making the evolution system for Sea Viper an absolute priority.
If we have a multi-year funding path in the MOD, we can procure at scale and at pace. If we have one-off, one-year adjustments—even if it is £2.9 billion—they will not enable procurement at the scale and pace that we require, and that is a fact. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) actually made the very good point that, if we go back to the Select Committee appearance by the Secretary of State, Lieutenant General Rob Magowan of military capability said that we need “always on” production. That is what a multi-year settlement gives us. Ultimately, wars are fought on industrial capability.
I will make two more points. On our allies, an excellent point was made about DIAMOND—delivering integrated air and missile operational networked defences, an initiative that I launched—which is about having tests for missile defence, like those we have in the Outer Hebrides for cruise missiles with the Navy. We need to train to be interoperable as NATO in Europe in those capabilities. We also have to look at multilateral procurement so that we as a continent are buying together to leverage economies of scale.
My final point, which I think is absolutely crucial, is about the deterrent. The hon. Member for North Durham said at the beginning that this is about conventional air defence. We have to be absolutely clear that, when Putin starts talking about an intercontinental ballistic missile being used, he is not going to not use it because we have missile defence; the thing that will stop him using it is fear of second strike from our ballistic missiles. We hope that would never happen—it is the extreme response to the extreme threat—but, while people talk about neglecting homeland security, we have had a submarine continuously at sea since 1969 with the most extraordinary lethality aboard. The scale of what it can do is quite unimaginable, and it is still absolutely at the technological cutting edge.
My point is this: we must not take that for granted. It must still be the cornerstone of the SDR; it is our No. 1 defence and it is ultimately the reason why countries will not, I believe, be tempted to launch conventional missile attacks. After all, if they attacked London with conventional missiles, that is a declaration of war under article 5, and a country doing that would ultimately have to be prepared to risk a nuclear response—that is what would be at stake.
That is not to say for one moment that we should not be considering how we upgrade our air defence— I totally agree with everyone who has spoken about the importance of that—but in the SDR, the nuclear deterrent should still be the No. 1 priority because it is the fundamental way in which we defend ourselves. Again, that means a multi-year funding settlement so that we can invest in infrastructure and the expensive capabilities that come with it.
We have heard some excellent speeches. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) spoke about the need to get to 2.5% as soon as possible. The Conservatives strongly agree with him, and we hope the Minister will still be pushing for that.
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on obtaining this debate and making such a superb contribution—very knowledgeable and incisive. I agree with the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) on one thing: the quality of this debate has been superb, with excellent, knowledgeable contributions from all sides. I want to answer some of the questions that I was specifically asked before getting on to the meat of what I want to say.
The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) made an important point about concerns in his constituency, which contains Lakenheath and Mildenhall. He also referred to a nearby site at which developments are worrying local people. As far as I am aware, we do not have concerns in the MOD about that development, but I fully acknowledge that his constituents do. I am more than happy to offer him the meeting he seeks, so I can understand more fully the concerns that have been raised with him and so we can engage to make sure that he is reassured, to the extent that that is an accurate thing for him to be.
Hon. Members across the Chamber have spoken about the commitment to 2.5%. I make it clear that that is our commitment. The hon. Member for South Suffolk tried to make sure that I do not resort to saying that the last time the country spent 2.5% on defence was at the time of the last Labour Government, but I will disappoint him: that is, in fact, accurate. I can understand why the party that has just left office after 14 years does not necessarily want to talk about all aspects of its record. None the less, the record is there.
We are committed to setting a path to 2.5% in the spring. As Members across the House know, the strategic defence review will report in the spring. When we have a full strategic sense of what we ought to be spending the money on that we are going to be committing in order to meet the current threat, rather than operating on the basis of an industrial strategy and a defence and security review that, even with its refresh, did not take into account—
Maria Eagle
I will when I finish my sentence. Even with its refresh, the review did not take into account what was happening with Ukraine. At that point, we will be in a position to know very clearly what we ought to be spending those increased resources on.
James Cartlidge
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. I will just say this: last week the Government announced very significant cuts to defence capability without waiting for the SDR, so why do they have to wait for the SDR to realise that we need to go to 2.5% to replenish our munitions as a matter of urgency? They must know that, no matter how many SDRs they undertake.
Maria Eagle
Last week, the Secretary of State made a statement that dealt with withdrawing six capabilities. It would, in fact, save some money—£150 million over two years and £500 million over five years—but the primary purpose is to ensure that we do not continue to spend money on capability that will not actually provide modern defence. It is a rationalisation. It is fairly clear that with some of those announcements, it was just necessary to get on and make the decision. As the hon. Gentleman will see in the new year, a path will be set out to 2.5% in the spring, along with the SDR, which I think is the right way of doing it. We are committed to it and we will get there. That, I think, answers the point that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who is no longer in his place, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made about getting to 2.5%.
This has been a timely and excellent debate across the Chamber. If the aim of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham was to show that there is support across the House, he has succeeded. It will be clear to anyone who reads the debate that there is no real distinction between the concerns that we all have across the parties. As we were reminded last week by Russia’s reckless and escalatory use of an intermediate-range ballistic missile, which my hon. Friend and others mentioned, the global air and missile threat is advancing, proliferating and converging.
Given the increasingly volatile and contested threat environment, we must ensure that we have the capability and capacity to counter threats in the most appropriate way. In this uncertain future, as the hon. Member for South Suffolk said, deterrence—not only of the nuclear kind—will form the main line of defence. We have to ensure that we provide the right level of deterrence through the joint effort of land, sea and air power. To do so, we must properly consider the range of threats, from the low-cost drones that we see affecting the UK today to the strategic long-range weapons that Russia threatens to use.
This might be an opportune moment to deal with the points that hon. Members made about the drone situation. Obviously we are aware of recent reports of drones flying in the constituency of the hon. Member for West Suffolk and elsewhere. Protection of our personnel and bases is our highest priority. We employ multi-layered and credible force protection measures. I will not say here precisely what has been employed and where; for security reasons, I will not go into specifics, but the Chamber can be assured that we are taking steps. We are aware of what is going on and are doing our best to deal with it.
The House will be aware that through the Civil Aviation Authority, aerodromes in the UK are protected under the Air Navigation Order 2016 by uncrewed air system flight restriction zones. We will be making sure that anybody we manage to catch engaging in such behaviour is shown the full force of the law for their illegal activities. That is about all that I can say at present. Obviously, the Chamber would not expect me to go into too many details, but we are fully dealing with the matter.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham says, our geography makes the threats facing the UK different from those facing many of our allies. Solutions preferred by some will therefore not necessarily be suitable for us. However, our geography should not and does not make us complacent. We have to continue to look at how the UK can meet her own NATO commitments, provide defence and deterrence and protect the UK homeland, but we must also ensure that we become increasingly interoperable with our NATO allies.
Let me be clear that although the threat is evolving, the UK is not defenceless. We have a very broad range of capabilities contributing towards our integrated air and missile defence approach. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and the hon. Member for West Suffolk said, we have Typhoon aircraft on alert 24 hours a day. The Navy has proved the effectiveness of the Type 45 against various air threats. Although it is right that we do not predetermine the outcome of the strategic defence review, the Chamber can be clear that a key part of it will be to look at how we can deal with preparedness against air and missile threats.
It would be wrong to suggest, however, that the Government are therefore not taking any action. We have recognised the vital importance of integrated air and missile defence, which is why we are not just passively reviewing our own capabilities but actively leading the way internationally with initiatives such as DIAMOND, which the hon. Member for West Suffolk did indeed initiate during his time in office. It aims to improve air defence integration across Europe, boost interoperability and strengthen NATO integrated air and missile defence. It is all very well for us all to procure different missiles, but if we do not work together, one ends up with holes and gaps. There is a good argument for ensuring that we can join up whatever systems there are to boost overall defence for Europe. That is what DIAMOND seeks to do.
That is all going on now, and it should put us in a better position to understand how to go forward and spend the money wisely on the right things, not the wrong things. The Secretary of State announced at the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers last month that the UK will lead on some of that work. The UK has also launched the NATO multinational procurement initiative on defensive and offensive missile capabilities to mobilise the Euro-Atlantic defence industry in support of Ukraine. We still have to double down on supporting Ukraine and ensure that we boost it as best we can to defend it against the appalling aggression that it faces.
Boosting industrial capacity is another key part of the debate. It is a certainty in our strategic way forward. We have boosted the money that we will be spending. Members present will recall that at the recent Budget we got an extra £2.9 billion for defence over the next year. There is no way that all Government Departments are as happy with their settlement from the Treasury as the Ministry of Defence is. That is a down payment on the support that we need.
We have to do more to improve co-operation in Europe. We are boosting bilateral engagement, for example. Last month, the UK and Germany signed the landmark Trinity House agreement. We committed to improve and enhance bilateral defence co-operation with a shared objective of sustaining effective deterrence against would-be aggressors by sharing plans on integration of capabilities, taking more steps together to procure the right kind of equipment, supporting implementation of NATO-agreed common standards, and ultimately working towards the vision of a peaceful and stable Euro-Atlantic area by having sufficient deterrence to prevent any aggression.
We also work closely with France. Co-operation in the field of defence capability and equipment is a vital pillar of the Lancaster House treaty. We intend to ensure that that gets a boost and works better and faster towards improving our defence co-operation in areas such as integrated air and missile defence. We have a substantial range of equipment and capabilities across all domains, and we continue to work closely with the French and the Germans.
One of my hon. Friends—I cannot quite recall which—suggested that we need to focus much more on boosting our relationship with Europe and with the EU. We are also doing that—
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Order. Sorry, Minister, but I want to give the Member in charge the opportunity to wind up. You have a minute left.
Maria Eagle
Thank you, Mr Dowd. All the screens are showing different times. I am perfectly happy to conclude my remarks.
Luke Akehurst
Actually, I think it is appropriate that the time has been used by the Minister, because getting those reassurances is extremely important. That is what we all wanted to hear. I am particularly pleased that she recognised that the purpose of the debate was to demonstrate the support across the House, as well as the knowledge of the set of threats. I welcome her saying that a key part of the SDR will be to look at preparedness against missile threats.
I reassure the shadow Secretary of State that he need have no concerns about support for the nuclear deterrent. A recurring theme of my entire political life has been getting stuck into the arguments for the sustaining and renewal of the nuclear deterrent. It is part of my political brand. I am sure we can have that debate another time.
I thank all hon. Members who contributed. There were important contributions from Members who have an industrial interest in their constituency. From Thales to MBDA, we have some excellent technologies around the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) made an excellent contribution about the wider industrial concerns. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) made another insightful contribution, based on his service in the armed forces—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Devolution: Lancashire
(2 months 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
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of a devolution deal for Lancashire.
It is a pleasure to serve under the chairship of a fellow Lancastrian Member of this House, Mr Dowd, on this very special day. I begin by wishing everybody fortunate enough to have been born in the red rose county, and those who have chosen to make it their home, a very happy Lancashire Day. Very shortly, schoolchildren across Lancashire will be tucking into their special school lunch, which I believe includes a favourite of mine, butter pie. I can highly recommend it with some nice warming baked beans on the side, washed down with Lancashire’s finest soft drink, Vimto.
The county of Lancashire was established in 1182 and came to be bordered by Cumberland, Westmorland, Yorkshire and Cheshire. An awful lot of history happened between 1182 and the 1970s. Since we only have half an hour, I will not go into that now, but if Members are keen perhaps we can apply for a longer debate on it. By the census of 1971, the population of Lancashire and its county boroughs had reached over 5 million, making it the most populous geographic county in the UK.
I suppose that is partly why, on 1 April 1974, under the Local Government Act 1972, the old county was abolished, as were many county boroughs. The urbanised southern part largely became part of the metropolitan counties of Merseyside and Greater Manchester, with Lancashire over the sands to the north becoming part of a newly formed Cumbria. It is a great pleasure to have members from the Cumbria, Merseyside and Greater Manchester parts—
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward. I want to add my support for the Lancashire Day celebrations. My connection is with the hon. Lady—I have always attended to support her debates, and I want to continue that tradition. I wish her well in what she does. Lancashire is an integral and important part of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and we thank her for the opportunity to discuss it.
Cat Smith
I thank my friend for that lovely intervention and celebrate the links between the west coast of England and Northern Ireland—long may they continue and prosper.
The outline of the 1972 boundaries looks much like the Lancashire of today. The ceremonial county of Lancashire is divided into 14 local government districts. Twelve are part of our two-tier non-metropolitan county of Lancashire, which is administered by Lancashire county council—the 12 districts of the non-metropolitan county are Burnley, Chorley, Fylde, Hyndburn, Lancaster, Pendle, Preston, Ribble Valley, Rossendale, South Ribble, West Lancashire and Wyre—but Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen are unitary authorities formed in 1996, before which each district was part of the non-metropolitan county of Lancashire.
Lancashire has 16 Members of Parliament, and I consider myself honoured and privileged to be one of them. I served the Lancaster and Fleetwood constituency from 2015 until the last general election, when I was re-elected to serve the newly created—or potentially recreated, depending on how far people’s memories go back—Lancaster and Wyre constituency. As part of my work getting to understand my new patch, I tried to work out how many local councillors I had with a shared geography in my constituency. Unfortunately, I quickly became overwhelmed, and I would like to put on the record my thanks to the House of Commons Library for its assistance. I asked the Library for the number of county, district and parish councillors who represent areas within the Lancaster and Wyre constituency, but it turned out that even it did not have access to a complete dataset of the number of councillors in each of those types of area. However, it did provide me with an analysis of the number of county electoral divisions, wards and parishes in the constituency, which got me started.
I ask Members to bear with me, because not all the geographies exactly match up, as I explained, but this will give some idea of the number of councillors at play. When it comes to elected representatives, we have one police and crime commissioner for Lancashire, who covers the whole of Lancaster and Wyre. There are eight Lancashire county councillors elected to serve across eight divisions, including Lancaster Rural East, about a quarter of which is in my constituency.
Turning to district council wards, all eight of the Wyre district council wards are within the constituency boundary—that is nice and neat—along with 11 Lancaster council wards, including Skerton, half of which is in a different constituency. In total, that makes 19 wards. However, wards in Wyre and Lancaster can be represented by one, two or three councillors. This is where hon. Members might need to start making detailed notes if they are trying to add up how many councillors I have. There are 27 Lancaster city councillors and 15 Wyre borough councillors in the constituency, which totals 42 district councillors for Lancaster and Wyre.
Much of the Lancaster and Wyre constituency, and indeed much of Lancashire, is parished. Many parish councillors—I pay tribute to them—are incredibly active and engaged with their communities. There are 27 parishes within the boundaries of my constituency: seven in the Lancaster area and 20 in the Wyre area. That figure includes two Lancaster parishes that are only marginally within my constituency, with the majority of the parish in a different constituency.
The parishes in the Lancaster part of my constituency are Aldcliffe-with-Stodday, Cockerham, Ellel, Heaton-with-Oxcliffe, Morecambe, Over Wyresdale, Scotforth and Thurnham. The parishes in the Wyre part of my constituency are Barnacre-with-Bonds, Bleasdale, Cabus, Catterall, Claughton, Forton, Garstang, Great Eccleston, Hambleton, Inskip-with-Sowerby, Kirkland, Myerscough and Bilsborrow, Nateby, Nether Wyresdale, Out Rawcliffe, Pilling, Preesall, Stalmine-with-Staynall, Upper Rawcliffe-with-Tarnacre, and Winmarleigh.
Looking at the websites of those parish councils—I had to assume that they are not carrying any vacancies—I found that there were 194 parish councillors in Lancaster and Wyre. I quickly realised it would take me a long time to have a cup of tea with all of them. If we add those to the 42 district councillors, eight county councillors and one police and crime commissioner, we discover that the Lancaster and Wyre constituency has not only one elected Member of Parliament, but 245 other elected officials who can claim to represent it. If that was replicated across Lancashire’s 16 other parliamentary constituencies, we would have almost 4,000 representatives across the red rose county. I am not sure how many elected representatives the Minister serves alongside in his constituency, but I will guess, given its metropolitan nature, that the number is not quite so high.
Why does Lancashire have so much local government, and is it a good thing or a bad thing? To be fair, I think there are pros and cons. Sometimes, my constituents can get confused about which councils are responsible for what. The district council collects their waste and recycling, but the county council processes it, and that can seem quite muddled to a lot of folk. But it is not just my constituents who get confused and frustrated; I confess that I, too, have been known to exclaim in the office that some trees are pruned by the district council and others by the county council. When I have an angry constituent frustrated by a tree on the end of the phone and am not clear which council is responsible, it is no wonder our constituents get frustrated too.
The upper-tier local authority, Lancashire county council, often generously, shall we say, offers to relinquish its responsibilities to parish councils. I have seen that trend more and more. That may take the form of the county council giving up the maintenance of assets from its estates department, such as the Esplanade shelter in Knott End—which it has just realised, after 113 years, that it does not formally own—or asking parish councils, instead of its transport department, to buy their own electronic speed indicator devices. It feels grossly unfair that residents are doubly charged, through council tax and parish council precepts, for the same maintenance and transport services.
But is the answer pushing a one-size-fits-all model of local government that works for England’s metropolitan areas on to a rural county such as Lancashire? Lancashire’s local government looks the way it does because it has evolved to meet the needs of the communities across our vast and diverse county. I mentioned the commitment and enthusiasm of parish councillors. Those are completely unsalaried posts. Passionate volunteers give up their time to organise village gala days, Christmas lights, Remembrance Sunday parades and so much more. We would be foolish to underestimate the dedication of our parish councillors and their commitment to the communities they call home. Similarly, district councils help residents feel more connected to local government in a county that has many towns and villages with distinct identities. They do not always have strong transport connections between them, and are separated by vast swathes of countryside.
I can see the attraction on the part of the Government to neatly divide the whole of England into broadly equally sized unitary authorities, with metro mayors sitting above them. It makes the Government’s job easier to have a one-size-fits-all approach.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I proudly acknowledge that I too am a Lancastrian, and my constituency includes vast amounts of Lancashire over the sands, which it is my privilege to represent. The hon. Lady says that local government reorganisation is sometimes done by the Government to suit the Government, rather than the communities that councils are meant to serve. In Cumbria, we had a unitary reorganisation only last April. Does she understand why businesses and residents in Westmorland and the rest of Cumbria are heavily opposed to the idea that a mayor might be imposed, and another reorganisation carried out barely five minutes after the last one?
Cat Smith
I understand very well why the hon. Gentleman’s constituents feel that way. I was very involved in the consultations around the reorganisation in Cumbria, not least because there was a strong bid by the Lancaster district within Lancashire and a desire to go in with South Lakeland and Barrow councils to form a bay authority, which would have matched what the community looks at and where its identity lies. The north of Lancashire has always looked to the north, into what we now call Cumbria—which, of course, was fictitiously created in 1972, as I alluded to earlier. In my opinion, much of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency to this day remains part of the red rose county, but I would certainly not support his constituents being further inconvenienced by a local government reorganisation. I think he will enjoy the arguments I am about to make about a mayor for Lancashire. We may find common ground on which we can form an alliance.
We need something that works for communities. The communities represented by these structures should feel that they represent them and work for them. It is hard to see how a rural county that stretches from the edge of Merseyside and Greater Manchester right to the edges of the Lake District national park—from the Irish sea to the Yorkshire border—can truly be represented by just one man. I make no apology for saying “man”. The vast majority of mayors elected have been men, and I see no evidence to suggest that Lancashire might suddenly buck the trend. Since 2012, Lancashire has elected a police and crime commissioner; it is the only post elected across the whole of Lancashire, and it has only ever been held by a man. Clive Grunshaw served from 2012 to 2021, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) served from 2021 to 2024, and since May this year Clive Grunshaw has been in post again. I must declare that I have a good working relationship with both men. Clive was my constituency Labour party chairperson for many years, and the hon. Member for Fylde is now my constituency neighbour, and we are finding common ground on many constituency issues. My issue is not with those individuals, but the point is that they are both men.
In fact, no woman has ever stood as a political party’s candidate for police and crime commissioner. That does not bode well for a future mayor of Lancashire. In 2012, there were four candidates for police and crime commissioner—Labour, Conservative, UK Independence party and Liberal Democrats—but all were men. In 2016, there were again four candidates—Labour, Conservative, UKIP and Liberal Democrats—and all were men. In 2021, there were four candidates—Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats and Reform—and all were men. In 2024, there were three candidates—Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats—and all were men. Asking Lancashire to adopt a mayoral model of devolution is asking us to devolve power from women council leaders, roughly half of whom are women, to a man, as mayor.
After all the progress the Labour party has made in increasing women’s representation in Westminster, we have more women MPs than ever in Lancashire—six out of 16, so there is still work to be done—we risk undoing that progress. There are women council leaders at Lancashire county council; at one of our two unitary councils, Blackpool; and in six of our 12 districts—Fylde, Hyndburn, Lancaster, Rossendale, South Ribble and West Lancashire. There is clearly something about this model of local government that seems to create a more equal gender balance among leaders, and I fear that we are taking power away from those women leaders and regressing to a model that favours men.
So here we are: Lancashire Day 2024. We are a county that has changed and embraced change many times before. We have a rich history, a strong cultural identity and a diverse range of cities, towns and villages across the rich landscapes of our red rose county.
Local councillors and I have questions for the Minister, which I hope he can address.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing a debate on this historic day, which we celebrate as Lancashire Day—a day that promotes and preserves the true identity of Lancashire. I support the devolution of powers and funding to Lancashire. Lancashire includes Blackburn, which is, incidentally, the best-run unitary authority in the area, and which has more than 25 years’ experience of managing children’s and adult social care services. I am working closely with that authority. Does the hon. Member agree that any changes to the powers given to local authorities must be made in close consultation with authorities such as Blackburn with Darwen borough council?
Cat Smith
The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. Devolution must not be done to Lancashire; it must be done with us. We have examples of successful councils, as he outlines, and we do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We all want to see Lancashire move forward, be successful and embrace change, but not in a one-size-fits-all way.
The Minister will be aware that I sent him an advance copy of my questions, and I hope that we can get some clear answers. My local councillors want to know whether politicians or civil servants will decide what can and cannot happen in this round of local government reorganisation, as well as how much weight will be given to community wishes and voices—that is a feeling not just from my local councillors but from hon. Members present. They also want to know whether current district authority boundaries are fixed, or whether, should Lancashire be divided, an authority can be split into two unitary authorities. Which is more important in local government reorganisation—ceremonial county boundaries or functional economic areas? What weight will be given to the mirroring of health and NHS footprints? Often the NHS is organised in a far more practical way than is local government.
What reassurance can my constituents have that their local council will not suddenly feel a million miles away from where they live, and that it will still be relevant to their lives? When it comes to a representative democracy, how can we ensure that Lancashire’s representatives continue to look more like the people we represent? How can we ensure that both rural and urban voices are heard, and that coastal communities are not forgotten? How can we ensure that we continue to make progress towards 50:50 representation of women and men in elected office? I continue to be of the belief that Lancashire is the finest of England’s counties. We are everything. We are diverse and we are beautiful, and we have a proud history going back 842 years. I want to progress with a future as bright as our past. Happy Lancashire Day.
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
As a fellow Lancastrian—I am from Oldham—I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) on securing this debate on this special day, Lancashire Day. If you go into Lancashire county hall, you will see Oldham’s crest emblazoned on the wall, pointing to our historic ties to the county of which we are very proud. This is a special day, and I am pleased to see the flag flying in New Palace Yard in recognition of that.
I welcome this debate. This is an important moment, as the English devolution White Paper is due to be published before Christmas. I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I will wait for the White Paper to be published before discussing a number of aspects of that framework. However, I am certainly happy to talk about Lancashire, the agreement that has been reached and the next steps forward; that may address some of her points more directly.
This Government were elected on a platform to widen and deepen devolution across England. As part of our central mission to drive economic growth and improve living standards, we want to move power out of Westminster and back into the hands of those who know their areas better, giving those with skin in the game the tools to get the job done. In September, the Government agreed to the Lancashire devolution deal, which marked a significant step in delivering on that mission for the region. The agreement will help to reshape communities and unlock the economic growth potential of the region to benefit all residents by returning power from Westminster to local communities. Specifically, the devolution agreement means that a county combined authority will be established with Lancashire county council, Blackpool council and Blackburn with Darwen borough council as its constituent members.
Local leaders through that body will take responsibility for services delivered at a strategic level, giving them more control and influence over the levers of local growth. For example, local leaders will take control of the adult skills fund, allowing Lancashire to better shape local skills providers. The Lancashire local enterprise partnership will be integrated into the new body, ensuring a more strategic and co-ordinated approach to business support. The new body will take on the status of the local transport authority, meaning better integration for local transport in the area to make it easier for local people to get from A to B. There will be new land assembly and compulsory purchase powers, enabling housing and economic development to flourish in the future.
Yesterday, a statutory instrument was laid before Parliament to enable the combined county authority for Lancashire, and I look forward to debating that in more detail. The SI gives local leaders the powers I mentioned over transport, housing and economic development; powers over adult skills will follow. A locally run consultation demonstrated widespread support, including from the business community, for the area’s taking on these new powers.
Investment matters. That is why the devolution agreement also sees the release of £20 million of capital funding to support local growth priorities identified in the area. That could include projects such as the National Cyber Force headquarters, the innovative low-carbon data centre at Blackpool airport, the civil service hub in Blackpool, the Blackburn innovation quarter and the cosy homes project to deliver better quality, more efficient homes in the area.
I recognise that there have been live discussions on the role of district councils in the combined county authority, and it is my firm belief that district councils will continue to play a key role in the success of devolution in the area. We expect effective levels of collaboration to be demonstrated between upper-tier, unitary and district councils. In the end, it is the place and the people that matter, and we expect councils to work together in that endeavour.
The devolution agreement that we have reached with Lancashire, which is being implemented at the moment, to be the start, not the end of the devolution journey. Essentially, it is the first step. It is a down payment made in good faith to work toward a mayoral combined authority. The discussions that we have been having in that area are not only about realising the potential of Lancashire, which is important, but enabling the north of England to realise its full potential. The way to achieve that is by taking power, decision making and resources away from the centralised model that we have in this country and bringing it closer to people and the communities where they live. We believe that where mayors are in place—and they are working together now, as a unit through UK Mayors, and on the Great North project where they are organising—they are beginning to make a significant difference and showing collective leadership for the north of England in particular, and we want to see all of England benefit from that. We do not shy away from that ambition.
Cat Smith
Will the Minister pick up on the points raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Hussain) and myself around Cumbria and Lancashire, which are very rural counties? Does he have any thoughts on the challenges of being a mayor in a disparate and spread-out area rather than a neat metropolitan area?
Jim McMahon
It is important to separate out the different roles and responsibilities. We do not see mayors as being super-councils. We see mayors as regional leaders that have a strategic responsibility. That is very different from councils that provide a public service delivery responsibility. We are seeing mayors begin to make a difference where they are in place. For instance, York and North Yorkshire is highly rural, with one of the biggest geographical combined authorities in the country. We have just agreed a mayoral combined authority for Greater Lincolnshire. There is a significant rural population there, too. Of course, Hull and East Riding will have a mayor next year as well.
These devolution deals are being rolled out across the country in both urban and rural areas. In the end, it is about political leadership, accountability and getting powers from here. If people feel as though somebody down the road is distant, people feel much more that this place is distant. We have got to break the centralised model of command and control that we see here. In many of the questions that have been raised are the issues that we wrestle with—how do we balance a functioning economic area with a public service foot- print with people’s locally and strongly held identity and sense of belonging in a way that balances all those out to get to a settlement that can be supported and accepted?
Those are all issues that we face in the English devolution White Paper and will continue to form part of the agreements that we have reached. On all of those tests, Lancashire is the ideal model. It is a modern county outside of our historic roots. It has units of local government that speak to that footprint. It has units of public service delivery that speak to that footprint. It has a police and crime commissioner that speaks to that footprint, and is a functioning economic area that speaks to that footprint, too. On that basis, I think that Lancashire is a very good candidate; and I think the people of Lancashire have a lot to gain from the mayoral model of devolution.
This is worth facing head-on. In the discussions that we had in Lancashire—to refer to the intervention by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Hussain)—we recognise that we want to see district councils represented, but local government reorganisation is clearly part of the conversations that are taking place. We get representations fairly regularly from council leaders and Members of Parliament, and we recognise that those are live discussions. They are separate discussions that might come together at a point in time, and we need to allow both processes to run and to be worked through in more detail.
Finally, I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre for securing the debate. Although we have an overarching national ambition to see devolution across the country, it is fundamentally a local issue about how best to shift powers to communities and deliver real change on the ground. We look forward to that ambition being realised in Lancashire.
Question put and agreed to.
Violence against Women and Girls
(2 months 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
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of tackling violence against women and girls.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. Violence against women and girls is one of the most prevalent and pervasive human rights violations in the world. The statistics are stark and frightening: globally, almost one in three women has been subjected to physical or sexual intimate partner violence at least once in their life. As an ongoing survivor of domestic abuse and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, I know that it can affect women at all stages and in all aspects of their lives. It damages health and wellbeing, and undermines our democratic freedom and pursuit of equality.
The phrase “tackling violence against women and girls” is now frequently used, but there is often a gap—a vast gulf, even—between the good intentions professed in this place and the reality of our lives. Urgent and immediate action is overdue. As survivors, we are complex and multifaceted beings, and we are being let down. I therefore aim to set out why there is a need for a multifaceted approach. To address perpetrators and empower survivors, we need a comprehensive and cross-departmental strategy that goes beyond criminal justice to social security, housing, employment and health. I place on record my recognition of the Minister’s work in this area, and I know that she has indicated her commitment to rolling out a plan in the new year. I welcome the opportunity to continue to engage constructively with her in the interests of survivors everywhere, and today’s debate aims to be a part of furthering that common interest.
Although much of my speech will be about responses to the problem beyond the criminal justice system, there can be no question that the system woefully lets down survivors. There are abysmal prosecution and conviction rates, with perpetrators being released too early from prison. There is a crisis in legal aid and a lack of independent legal advice for survivors, and it is estimated that the majority of women in prison and under community supervision have experienced domestic abuse.
Mistrust of the police is at an all-time high. Obviously, not dealing properly with abusers in their own ranks undermines trust. As Women’s Aid continues to emphasise, policing reforms are urgently needed to rebuild public faith in the institution that is supposed to protect us, but the Government’s announcements so far do not address the scale of the problem.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Constituents have made me aware of problems when the family courts have not understood that they can be used to perpetuate the abuse of the violent partner. Does the hon. Member agree that we need greater understanding in the family court system so that people fleeing violence do not see that abuse continue?
Apsana Begum
I agree with the hon. Lady that every parliamentarian could understand the situation in the family courts better. The law is often used and misused by perpetrators to further the suffering of their victims.
I draw Members’ attention to the recent work of the Home Affairs Committee on rape investigations, prosecutions and non-contact sexual offences, which highlights the need to ensure that victims feel confident in reporting offences knowing that they will be supported and taken seriously. Likewise, the London Victims’ Commissioner’s recent stalking review makes a number of stark findings on both victims’ experiences and the response that they receive. Its evidence of the disastrous consequences of the confusion and lack of awareness among police and prosecutors is also profound. For example, police continue to treat incidents as single events, meaning that stalking goes unrecognised and patterns of behaviour are not properly understood.
Ending impunity by holding perpetrators accountable and establishing zero-tolerance of violence against women and girls is imperative. That requires providing support and consideration at every stage of the criminal justice system, yet not only do the law and court systems let us down, they can even be used by our abusers. I will not say much more about that today as last Thursday there was an opportunity to address my and other women’s experiences of lawfare in that regard. However, just as the impact of violence against women and girls is vast and far-reaching, so must be the solution. A whole-system approach is therefore vital.
On Second Reading of the Employment Rights Bill, I said that domestic abuse can have an impact on an individual’s working life: unexplained absences, lateness and a negative impact on performance. For about one in 10 survivors, abuse continues in the workplace, often because their partner is turning up there, is stalking them outside it or is an employee there. The statutory guidance in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 reminds us how pivotal the role of an employer can be by providing, for example, flexible working or paid leave. It is undisputedly the case that being a member of a trade union is the best way for workers to ensure their rights, and that is certainly the case for survivors.
The cost of living crisis is especially dangerous for those faced with a choice that is no choice, really: remaining in an unsafe environment or facing destitution or homelessness. Lower incomes, rising poverty and soaring rents mean that people feel trapped in a relationship even when they need to leave. Safe and affordable housing, including social homes, for women and girls who are escaping is an urgent necessity, and protection from eviction for survivors is absolutely essential. In fact, domestic abuse is by its very nature a housing issue, with perpetrators often creating a context of fear and curtailed freedom, usually within or in association with the home. There is a reason that my ex-husband and his supporters are still so focused on my living arrangements and regularly try to use the media in that regard all these years after the vexatious case pursued against me about my housing arrangements.
It is no coincidence that the current crisis of violence against women and girls comes after 14 years of attacks on social security. Women are more vulnerable to poverty because they are more likely to have lower incomes and wealth and to have caring responsibilities. That leaves them more reliant on social security and public services and means that they are impacted more severely when public services and social security are cut. Disabled women are twice as likely to experience abuse, which is why it is crucial that disabled people receive the support that they need.
The Women’s Budget Group has argued that economic violence has disregarded the needs of women, reduced the already inadequate services that they rely on and deprioritised their safety and wellbeing. Oxfam’s publication “The Assault of Austerity” argued that the most common austerity measures have been shown to precipitate both direct and indirect forms of violence against women and girls. There is no doubt that the funding crisis for domestic abuse services and other support continues to be catastrophic. Women are dying every day while support services continue to be cut. Refuges, community-based services and specialist support on a broad range of needs are critical, and the funding of such services can literally be the difference between life and death, hope and despair, and imprisonment and empowerment.
It is a matter of urgency that the no recourse to public funds rule is scrapped and that there is an end to the hostile environment. The current political climate has created a toxic, dangerous atmosphere for migrant women. Immigration status and the fear of deportation are used as control tactics by perpetrators. That is why there needs to be a firewall between all public services and the Home Office so that every survivor can report abuse and perpetrators cannot evade justice by weaponising immigration status in order to silence, abuse and control. Migrant women, including those who are pregnant, are being detained in immigration detention centres as I speak, despite centres such as Yarl’s Wood being the subject of considerable political and media attention due to the high-profile allegations of sexual abuse and mistreatment over the years.
Globally, violence against women and girls continues to be exacerbated by conflicts. In Haiti, women face gang violence, including pervasive sexual violence, and the reports of mass rapes in Sudan are horrific. In Gaza, women and girls are being bombarded, killed and starved, so tackling violence against them must include a ceasefire and an end to all UK arms being sent to Israel or anywhere else where they are used to kill women.
It is important to understand that violence against women and girls can affect individuals from all backgrounds, but sadly society does not treat all survivors equally. The power and control that abusers wield to perpetrate abuse can interact with a range of experiences of oppression, and systemic discrimination can make it harder for individuals to seek help.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. Following White Ribbon Day, and during Islamophobia Awareness Month, we must address the unique challenges faced by Muslim women, who often experience a triple whammy of gender-based violence, Islamophobia and discrimination. Those intersecting issues can prevent women from seeking help. Will she join me in stressing to the Government that services should be equipped to address those barriers and challenge the harmful stereotypes that perpetuate violence and discrimination?
Apsana Begum
I completely agree, and I greatly value my hon. Friend’s raising that issue during Islamophobia Awareness Month.
Fears of discrimination or bias, such as racism, homophobia or transphobia, are exacerbated by incidents in which people have been denied assistance and access to services. Black and Asian survivors are more likely to mistrust the police. Although black and Asian people are over-policed for certain crimes, domestic abuse tends to be under-policed in minority communities because of so-called cultural sensitivity. When speaking out about my experiences, I have been particularly anxious not to perpetuate tired racist tropes about Muslims. We need to be clear that that does nothing to empower women. Rather, racism is a driver and facilitator of abuse, causing the voices and lives of ethnic minority women to be overlooked and devalued. It is fundamental that any violence against women and girls strategy is actively anti-racist.
It is impossible to cover all the types of violence against women and girls in the time that I have today. Nevertheless, I have tried to set out examples to illustrate that violence against women and girls is not a side issue or separate; at its core, it is about inequality and the type of world we live in. It is intrinsically connected to structural discrimination, exploitation and the intersection of different oppressions. As such, it requires joined-up thinking and bold and brave initiatives.
As hon. Members are aware, this week began with the UN’s 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. I want to take a moment to draw out the term “activism”, because the history of challenging violence against women and girls has always had pioneering activism and the fight for social change at its heart. The movement has been driven by the bravery of so many who have spoken out and organised, despite the challenges they faced. It is that that keeps me going. Because of those activists and survivors from around the world, I will never, ever allow my voice to be silenced. Human rights are fundamental. Ultimately, tackling violence against women and girls is about the hope of a future in which everyone is able to live freely in dignity, with joy and pride.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in this debate. Everybody can see that we have a large number of people here. We have less than an hour now, given that the mover of the motion has already spoken, and the Government and Opposition spokespeople get 10 minutes each. You do not need to be a maths expert to work out that you are going to get less than two minutes each. Please have cognisance of the fact that any time you go over that, you will be taking time off somebody else. We will be extremely lucky if everybody who has indicated that they wish to speak gets to do so. I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Sir Mark—it is not often that I get called first. I will do my best to outline the issues before the two-minute deadline. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing the debate and for the personal story that she told us last Thursday in the Chamber. There is not one of us that was not moved by it.
The Minister has a special determination to do things in Northern Ireland—I know that that is already in motion. In the last year six women have been murdered in Northern Ireland; there have been 33,071 incidents of domestic abuse; 800 women and children have been referred to Women’s Aid, and 10 babies were born in a Women’s Aid refuge. I have referred people to Women’s Aid for help; I want to put on the record my appreciation and thanks for all that it does. The Northern Ireland Health and Justice Departments have launched a domestic and sexual abuse strategy. An abuse incident is reported to police every 16 minutes in Northern Ireland and a sexual offence every two hours. It is absolutely horrendous.
When women come into my office with black eyes or unexplained injuries, it is clear what is happening and clear that we must respond quickly. So what do we want to do? We must support the victims, strengthen the children who are impacted by the abuse, and seek to raise generations of young women who know what to accept and young men who know how to act with women. Violence will not be tolerated and hidden by the darkness. We come into the light to say that the nation will not turn away and will not stay silent. We will work to secure a safer future for my granddaughters and all the women and children in the UK.
My wife Sandra and I strove to raise sons who respect women, and all three have settled down with equally strong and lovely young women. I am very pleased that we are having this debate. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse deserves congratulations. I look forward to what the Minister has to say, and the shadow Ministers as well. I have left about nine seconds for somebody else.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
It would be great if everybody could follow Mr Shannon’s example. I call Steve Witherden.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this crucial debate and for her exceptional dedication to tackling violence against women and girls.
UN Women’s latest femicides report reveals that globally the home is now the most dangerous place for a woman to be. For far too long, domestic homicide has been treated as an unavoidable tragedy. In the UK a woman is murdered by a man every three days; 62% of those women are killed by their partner or ex-partner, often in brutal and unimaginable ways, and many of them in front of their children. Given those harrowing statistics, the Government must confront domestic homicide for what it truly is: a national emergency. I fully support our ambition to halve violence against women and girls within a decade. Education must play a vital role in achieving that and raising awareness of domestic violence in schools is crucial.
For decades, road and fire safety has been taught in schools, yet the harsh reality is that women are 50 times more likely to be injured by their partner than in a house fire, and more than three times as likely to be killed by a partner as by not wearing a seatbelt. Despite that, research from Women’s Aid shows that four in five people in Britain do not believe that the scale of domestic abuse in the UK is greater than that of car accidents or house fires. Educating young people about the true severity of domestic violence is a key part of prevention work. The culture of inequality and misogyny, often rooted in harmful masculine norms, contributes to the widespread tolerance of domestic abuse.
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
As a family lawyer for many years before I came here, I found that some children—some as young as 13—felt it absolutely normal to be hit by their boyfriends. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that educating our young people, girls and boys, about the importance of respecting themselves and others is a key part of eradicating violence across the board?
Steve Witherden
Yes, I 100% agree. The role of education cannot be understated; it is fundamentally important.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Before we continue, I would appreciate it if people would desist from interventions, because they take a lot of time away from people whose names are down to speak.
Steve Witherden
Schools must be equipped to teach boys and young men to hold themselves accountable to women and each other. That is essential to beginning the work of dismantling those toxic cultures and creating safer environments for all. Empowering young people with the knowledge and skills to challenge inequalities and change harmful norms would enable meaningful progress in preventing domestic violence. What discussions has the Minister, who I know is deeply committed to ending violence against women and girls, had with colleagues in the Department for Education about making awareness-raising and prevention work on domestic violence and domestic homicide a priority in schools? How are the Government supporting schools to tackle domestic violence at its core?
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
It is a fact that sexual harassment and violence happen in the workplace, yet protections for workers are limited. The Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) 2023 is a laudable effort in creating a preventable duty for employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, but as enforcement can only take place after an experience of sexual harassment, the Act is limited in its protection of workers from different forms of violence. We need more robust measures and better employer accountability. The brilliant teams at the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and Rights of Women agree, and together we are presenting a Bill that seeks to do just that—the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (Amendment) Bill.
My presentation Bill would address a gap in the law after the UK ratified the International Labour Organisation’s convention 190 in 2022. It introduces clear, actionable duties for employers to protect workers from violence and harassment through risk assessments, policy development and training. It brings sexual harassment and violence into protections already in place for health and safety at work and under, importantly, the regulatory oversight of the Health And Safety Executive, which will be mandated to create an enforceable framework, holding employers to account.
All means should be at our disposal to both mitigate and ultimately stop gender-based harm. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 already places a duty on employers to ensure the health, safety and welfare of employees at work, but it is 50 years old and does not explicitly mention gender-based violence. Harnessing the toughest mechanism we have in the workplace would establish a structured approach to safeguarding women at work and make a tangible difference. I should be very grateful if the Minister would respond at the close of this debate to that proposed Bill.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this important debate. On Monday, we marked White Ribbon Day, a global campaign to end violence against women and girls. The statistics are stark: every 10 minutes a woman is killed by a partner or family member somewhere in the world, and in the UK a woman is killed by an abusive partner every five days. The police receive a call related to domestic abuse every 30 seconds, and by the time that I finish this speech, four women will have made that call. The data paints a clear picture. Everyone in this room will know a woman who has been affected by this issue, and sadly it is on the rise. The theme of this year’s White Ribbon Day is “It Starts with Men”, and it starts here with men calling out unacceptable misogyny and violence.
In Gloucester, domestic abuse and sexual assault reached record levels last year, and across the county we saw an increase of nearly 2,000 more domestic abuse-related crimes. Earlier this month, I held a roundtable with local organisations, such as the Hollie Gazzard Trust, FearFree and the Gloucestershire Domestic Abuse Support Service, to discuss how we can tackle violence against women and girls, domestic abuse and stalking in Gloucester. The issue is complex, but we must prevent violence against women, ensure that women are supported to leave domestically abusive relationships, and provide the support needed for women facing all types of gender-based violence and stalking.
I am pleased that the Government are committed to halving violence against women within a decade, and I am pleased that they are working to improve police responses and ensure faster justice for survivors. As well as the recent introduction of workplace sexual harassment laws, I welcome new protections for victims of stalking, and to make spiking a criminal offence—something that my predecessor worked hard on. All those measures will help keep my constituents safe and ensure that the women of Gloucester feel safe and supported. Together, we can create a society where women and girls are no longer subjected to fear, abuse or violence. Together, we can end violence against women and girls.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
This is a very important debate in which we have acknowledged the scale of the issue and the epidemic of violence that women face every single day. Because of time, I will just highlight three crucial points domestically and reflect briefly on the international situation.
First, we have to invest in organisations on the frontline and support them. In Norwich, there are many excellent local organisations that are working on this issue, including Leeway, the Sue Lambert Trust and Dawn’s New Horizon, and I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I pay tribute to them, and it would be good to hear from the Minister how we are supporting those organisations.
Secondly, on the criminal justice system, last week in the House I raised the unacceptable waits that women in Norfolk are facing. We all know the pain and distress that that causes and the impact it can have on the outcome of court cases. I want to welcome the focus that our police and crime commissioner Sarah Taylor has put on the issue. Thirdly, we must have a holistic approach that tackles misogyny at its root—including in schools and by tackling the hosting and promotion of harmful content online. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken in that regard.
I turn finally to the international context, having worked in international development for many years before joining Parliament. Violence is happening everywhere, as the United Nations has highlighted. Reports from Afghanistan have highlighted the scale of gender-based violence under the Taliban. As the Malala Fund has highlighted, Afghan women and girls find themselves being denied the basic freedoms of going to school, walking in the park and getting a haircut. The fund, alongside many experts and activists, is calling for this situation to be recognised by world leaders as gender apartheid. I know this is not specifically the Minister’s area, but I urge us to do everything we can, because the international community is letting women and girls down.
On Sudan, this week the UN humanitarian chief highlighted an epidemic of sexual violence. I am a member of the International Development Committee and we heard that reiterated this week. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken in this regard, with the doubling of our aid package, but we must do more. To conclude, we need a multifaceted approach, and we need to be bold and tackle violence against women and girls wherever it occurs.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) on securing this important debate.
Having worked for charities supporting women and girls for the best part of a decade, I am undeniably passionate about this issue. All of us who are present know why it is so important. We have all met victims and survivors—those abused by the ones they love, the girls who shake off the unwanted sexual images sent to them on the way to school, and the women who are trafficked and pimped into prostitution. We know the situation we face, and I am glad that the Government have made a landmark commitment to halve violence against women and girls.
I am conscious of time, so I wish to raise just two issues that I hope the Minister can address. First, I remain concerned that vulnerable women who have fled their abusers and found a new home in a refuge continue to have their addresses disclosed through court documents. That opens them up to be tracked down by their abusers and can force refuges to close. I believe this was a measure that the previous Government, to their credit, tackled; but the problem appears not to have gone away entirely.
Secondly, I am concerned about the financial situation facing local specialist charities, many of which have been forced to close due to lack of funding, and the huge gaps in support as shown by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s mapping report in 2022, which found that most victims could not access the support they wanted. We need a new statutory duty to commission services for domestic abuse and sexual violence victims, both adults and children, in order to end the postcode lottery and ensure that vulnerable people are not left to fend for themselves. The same applies to interventions for perpetrators. To halve violence against women and girls, we need to focus on the root cause: men’s violence against women and girls.
I know how dedicated the Minister is and for how long she has campaigned to end VAWG. I look forward to working with her, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse who obtained this debate, and colleagues from all parties to make our commitment to halving VAWG a reality.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this important debate.
In my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby, Scarborough has the highest rate of domestic incidents per 1,000 head of population, at 15.7 recorded in North Yorkshire. A constituent, who I will call Anna—not her real name—came to see me to tell me what happened to her. I commend her for her bravery and honesty. Anna suffered abuse of the most extreme kind from her ex-partner, including an attempt at strangulation. She applied for and was granted a restraining order, but it was ignored by the perpetrator and the order was not enforced.
At a pre-trial hearing, the judge came to an agreement out of court. Despite Anna’s passing out, it was decided that it was pressure on her neck, not strangulation. Anna’s attacker was given a suspended sentence in order to undertake a relationship-building course with the probation service. Anna lives in fear of what he might do to her or other women at his workplace, who of course have no knowledge about his violent past. Anna’s experiences of the criminal justice system have taken a toll on her, leaving her without the strength to ask for a review from the court or the police.
My constituent’s case is far from untypical. A study by Women’s Aid on the family courts published last week found that survivors overwhelmingly felt that their experiences had been made worse by the justice system. We must do better. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how we can support people like Anna, whom I commend for her bravery in speaking out.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I commend the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing a debate on this extremely important subject, on which she speaks with real authority. This is a pervasive problem that we cannot afford to ignore. It is our responsibility to tackle it head on. We must use every lever available to target the perpetrators and address the root causes of this heinous abuse and violence.
That requires a comprehensive approach that does not centre on punishment alone. We must implement a holistic response that delivers justice and protection for survivors, effective prevention, and education that challenges the harmful social attitudes, inequality and discrimination that underpin the abuse that women and girls face. That is essential if we are to achieve our landmark mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade and break the cycle of violence.
In the time I have, I would like to focus on stalking. We must recognise that stalking is a form of violence that can have devastating effects on victims, both physically and emotionally, and has not been treated with the seriousness that it deserves in recent years. It is imperative that we elevate our response to stalking, ensuring that victims feel supported and protected, and that appropriate interventions are provided to perpetrators.
I am proud that Winsford in my constituency is home to the Cheshire harm reduction unit, which enables police, health professionals and the Probation Service to work collaboratively, within an integrated multi-agency unit, to manage the risks associated with stalking and to support victims. I visited the HRU last week with my hon. Friend the Minister. We saw at first hand the nationally leading specialist work undertaken by the unit to support victims of stalking and bring offenders to justice, as well as the preventive measures it takes to try to reduce offending in perpetrators.
The HRU epitomises the best-practice response to stalking. I believe it is vital that its work is replicated and rolled out to every police force area across the country, and is extended to include the Prison Service, so that the work of changing behaviour continues before offenders are released.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this important debate.
In my constituency, we know all too well the terrible consequences of the misogyny and rape culture that enables the perpetuation of violence against women and girls. In 2022, our neighbour Zara was walking home from Ilford town centre when she was brutally murdered, just minutes from her front door. Zara was much loved by her friends, her family and the community as a whole. She had a bright future ahead of her, which was so callously stolen from her. Nothing will ease the pain and suffering of all those who loved Zara but, in her memory, her family have fought relentlessly to prevent further violence against women and girls. No one should have to endure what Zara endured.
The stark reality, as has been mentioned, is that one woman is murdered every three days in the UK. Every single day, women and girls are suffering from a systemic rape culture that normalises, overlooks and excuses sexual violence and the abuse of women. Violence against women and girls is a national emergency. We know that violence does not exist in a vacuum. Society tolerates harassment, leering, casual misogyny and sexist jokes, which creates an environment that fosters the hatred of women, normalises abuse and ultimately leads to violence.
Jordan McSweeney, who murdered Zara Aleena, had accrued 28 convictions for 69 separate offences, dating back 17 years. Despite his history of violence, he was categorised as medium risk and allowed to roam the streets seeking another victim. McSweeney’s categorisation as medium risk is a stark reminder of the grave consequences of underplaying this serious crime. Will the Minister please agree that violence against women and girls is a national emergency, and that we must tackle the misogyny and rape culture that leads to abuse?
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
My constituency is classed as the most dangerous major town in Nottinghamshire, and by far the most common crimes are violence and sexual offences. Like much of the rest of the UK, Mansfield is victim to deeply rooted misogynistic beliefs and social norms that allow violence against women and girls to proliferate.
In the time I have, I would like to welcome some of the valuable work and initiatives already ongoing in my community, particularly the work by Mansfield district council and Nottinghamshire police in relation to their Safer Streets initiative, and the police and crime commissioner’s strategy for tackling violence against women and girls.
As a proud father to three women, I recognise the privilege I have had throughout my life. Simply being a man has protected me from having to navigate the gender-based challenges that are ever present in the lives of girls and women. For example, I do not know the feeling of silently suffering sexual harassment in school and the effects that it could have on my education, or of being scared to walk alone at night, with the constant need to check over my shoulder. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree with me not only that there is great value in putting the voices and experiences of women and girls at the centre of our work, but that equally every one of us has to acknowledge the responsibility that we have for tackling this issue?
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this really important debate. Tackling violence against women and girls is one of the most important issues of this generation. Globally, one in three women will face domestic abuse. In the UK, 97% of young women have been sexually harassed, and more than 1 million VAWG-related crimes were recorded by the police in 2022-23. That equates to about 3,000 offences each day.
Everyone will know someone who has been affected, and people may even have their own stories to tell. We must tackle the root cause of violence against women and girls if we are ever to reduce or eradicate it. That starts with social norms and attitudes towards women. It means tackling catcalling, hatred of women, sexist remarks, the normalisation in the media of violence against women, harassing and stalking—I could go on.
Tackling violence against women and girls can sometimes feel like an endless task, but I want to raise some of the amazing work happening across the country, including in Nottinghamshire. Communities Inc and Nottinghamshire Women’s Aid have developed the Stand by Her programme, focusing on exploring attitudes and behaviours that contribute to harassment, abuse and violence against women and girls. Stand by Her aims to change social norms and prevent men’s violence against women in Nottinghamshire. Training has been carried out across schools, workplaces and other organisations, and by the end of the year 4,000 officers and staff members in Nottinghamshire police will have been trained.
We all must play our part in prevention. That means stopping violence against women and girls before it occurs, by tackling the root cause of the problem. Women and girls should not live in fear. Violence against women and girls is never acceptable, never excusable and never tolerable.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Every woman has a story and every woman knows how to carry her keys as a weapon. Any other extremism and murder on this scale would be front-page news every single day, but what we see instead is language like “incels” and “red pill”, which hides what is actually going on with our young men and boys.
I am thinking of people like Andrew Tate, who very openly says:
“If you put yourself in a position to be raped, you must bear some responsibility.”
In a video viewed 1.6 million times, he discusses how you should fight a woman, saying that you should
“grip her up by the neck.”
Eight out of 10 boys aged between 16 and 18 have read, listened to or watched Andrew Tate, and they have a positive view of him. They think that he wants them “to be real men” and that “he gives good advice”.
This is the core of the issue. Some people will say that this has always been the issue. It has, yes, but not at this scale. Young men’s attitudes are more misogynistic and violent than their elders’. Only half of young men between 18 and 24 recognise that rape can still happen if the victim does not resist or fight back. Less than half of them think that if a man has been drinking or taking drugs, then he is still responsible if he rapes someone. If someone says they want to meet online, most young men think that they deserve sex as a result. Yes, our 16 days of activism starts with men, but it is also for men’s sake—because this toxic masculinity is causing problems across our society—and for the lives of our women and girls.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak under your chairship, Sir Mark. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) on securing this incredibly important debate.
I am ashamed that, on average, one woman is killed by an abusive male partner or ex-partner every five days in England and Wales. This violence has to stop and we must all play our part—especially men. I want to think about this issue in relation to the attitudes of young men, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) has just done. I am the father of two boys and I am deeply concerned by the social media influencers and YouTubers who promote misogynistic attitudes and behaviours towards women. Algorithms push this vile material on to impressionable young minds and, as my hon. Friend just said, notions of consent to sex have been entirely distorted.
Obviously, we need to understand better the causes of misogyny but, in my view, the concept of masculinity needs to be rescued from the toxic clutches of self-interested and corrupt influencers such as Andrew Tate. The popular idea of masculinity must include the qualities of compassion, empathy, solidarity and co-operation. All too often there is a chain reaction where isolated young men become manipulated by influencers.
I also want to raise the question of women who lack the right kind of immigration status, or who do not have any status. The system currently makes it much harder for those women to leave an abusive situation, because the policy, the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession, excludes many domestic violence survivors from its protection based on immigration status. I pay tribute to the Southall Black Sisters, who have tirelessly campaigned on this issue and with whom I have worked on it.
I thank the Minister for her many years of work on this issue and ask her what the Government intend to do to level the playing field for that group of women, as well as what steps the Government are taking to educate young men about the causes and consequences of misogyny and to call it out.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Sir Mark. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) on bringing forward such an important debate.
I want to touch briefly on the example of a young woman in my constituency who told me that during one walk across town she had been subjected to two separate incidents of catcalling. She was angry and upset, and she felt there was nothing that she could do. Rather like the concept in law that someone can be a victim of assault when attacked with words, not just physical force, so—I am sure we would all agree—we should consider the catcall as a form of sexual violence against women and girls.
I know that the Minister wrote earlier this month to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee to confirm that she supports research into the potential links between a broader range of non-contact sexual offences and subsequent offences. I am confident that the Minister will agree that we must engage in both a shift towards proper enforcement, despite evidential challenges in this area, and a cultural shift among men. Catcalling is not a low-level offence and it is certainly not a bit of harmless fun. The men who do not catcall must also take action—we must call out catcalling.
Enforcement and cultural improvements are linked. When the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 comes into force, I hope that there will be some prompt convictions. I do so because I hope that that will send a strong message, like our announcement today on antisocial behaviour, that men will no longer be able to create a toxic, demeaning, and threatening environment for our women and girls going about their lives. It is those women and all law-abiding citizens who own the streets, not catcalling misogynists.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this important debate, and for her bravery.
Domestic violence is a massive issue in Knowsley: more than 3,500 incidents are reported each year, and we know that many more are not reported. More than 85% of the victims are women, and the majority of perpetrators are men. Those women often turn to people and institutions they trust, such as doctors, teachers and others who work in frontline services. Does the Minister agree that we need to break down the silos between Government Departments so that public bodies and agencies can spot the signs of abuse and train their staff to offer help to victims at the point they are ready to receive it?
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this debate.
“I’ve been told online I’m not pretty enough to be worth raping. I don’t go into some bars in Bournemouth because I don’t feel safe.”
Those were the words of a young woman I met last week at a Bournemouth University students’ union question and answer session.
“I wear headphones when I walk at night with one AirPod in so I can talk to my mum on the phone”,
in case anything happens,
“and the other out so I can hear what is going on”.
Those are the words of a young girl I met last Friday from 22nd Bournemouth Girl Guides and Rangers.
“I wear my hair in a ponytail but my hood up because I don’t want someone to grab my ponytail, pull me into a hedge, and rape me.”
Those are the words of another young woman from Charminster I spoke to recently.
Alison from Moordown feels unsafe as a woman in the town centre. Desiree from East Cliff does not go out once it gets dark because she is too vulnerable. Fifty per cent of the population of Bournemouth and Britain are being forced to change who they are and how they live their lives. The response to a new social media video by AFC Bournemouth has been striking. It shows how a walk home from the football might not be the same for everyone, because the street lighting can be so low. Enough is enough.
The latest annual figures show that 723 offences of the rape of a female took place in Dorset, yet in the year ending June 2024 there were 36 prosecutions and 14 convictions for rape. That is not acceptable in any way, shape or form, and we have to stop it. I commend the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole organisations working to support victims of domestic abuse, including the Bournemouth Churches Housing Association, the Waterlily Project, Victim Support and STARS—Sexual Trauma and Recovery Services.
The focus should always be on the victim—the survivor —and the children who live with domestic abuse every day. We who have worked in the world of domestic abuse know that if public policy continues to ignore the abusive partner, we cannot address the roots of abuse, so what will the Minister and her Department do to provide more perpetrator programmes in our country as part of her new VAWG strategy? I welcome the Labour Government’s commitment to halving the incidents of violence against women and girls, but that will be the tip of the iceberg, because as more people report crimes, many more will need to support.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) on securing this debate. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of launching a new report, “Why Should Our Rage Be Tidy? Minoritised Survivors’ Experiences of Mental Health in the Context of Violence-Abuse.” I hope the Minister has a copy—if she does not, I will make sure she gets one—because it contains some excellent recommendations. It was produced by Imkaan and the Women and Girls Network, and it has received UK Research and Innovation funding. When we hear the statistics, such as one woman killed every three days, we think: “When is that going to change? How are we going to change it?” That report will help.
I also want to highlight the Level Up campaign, which calls on the Independent Press Standards Organisation to introduce an amendment to the editors’ code so that when the press reports on domestic abuse and the murder of missing women, it does not sensationalise them as it normally does. That needs to change. It is inaccurate and undignified, and it prioritises sensationalism and negatively frames the victims—it suggests that they deserved it. I want to see words such as “sexism”, “misogyny”, “extremism” and “terrorism” used to describe violent men; “jilted partner” just will not do. I hope the Minister looks at that report so that we can work together and begin to move in the direction of eradicating violence against women and girls.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Sir Mark. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this debate during the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence.
Due to the nature of domestic violence, the data available to us will never fully record the extent of the abuse, but we know that there was a minimum of 2.2 million victims last year. To me, that number is clear evidence that the issue is endemic. I am sick and tired of seeing women and girls facing the same threats of violence and abuse every day. It is often framed as a women’s issue—something that we need to be aware of in case our actions are somehow responsible for men’s behaviour. And I say men, because the reality is that the vast majority of violence against women is clearly committed by men.
I was proud to stand on a manifesto that committed to halving violence against women and girls within a decade, and I am pleased that Ministers are treating it as a cross-departmental problem and have established a ministerial board on tackling violence against women and girls. Combating the epidemic will require specialist local services and charities but, as every Member knows, our councils face extreme budgetary pressures thanks to austerity. When faced with such a grim economic future, the vast majority of councils’ spending goes towards fulfilling the provision of their statutory legal obligations.
I wanted to speak about a charity called Vida Sheffield, which is very close to my heart and had been running for nearly 30 years. Sadly, Vida Sheffield recently announced its closure. It had been relying on an emergency grant from the National Lottery these last few months, and had applied for funding from the Home Office and the suicide prevention grant fund to continue its work. Vida estimated that it saved other services about £50,000 a month through its complex mental health service. I fear that the burden of the surviving mental health and therapy services in Sheffield will only increase with the loss of Vida.
The barriers are only more pronounced for those women from minoritised communities. I have total regard for the Minister, and I know how tenacious and committed she is. I am sure she will listen to us all and come back with good responses.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) on securing this debate.
This week in the main Chamber I highlighted the vital work carried out in my constituency by independent sexual violence advisers, who are on the frontline tackling increased violence against women and girls. However, not everyone is able to access support when they need it the most. Black and minoritised women, including women with disabilities and from LGBT+ communities, often face further barriers when reporting crimes to the police and accessing support from statutory services, including discrimination, language barriers or immigration status.
There is a real need for lived experience to inform the designing of services to ensure that they are run by and for marginalised women, to provide the vital culturally specific support that is often lacking in mainstream services. That support is desperately needed because, for example, deaf women are twice as likely to experience domestic violence as hearing women, and deaf children are three times more likely to than their hearing peers. Many of the perpetrators of that violence are also deaf, meaning that survivors are often left isolated, even within their own community.
SignHealth is the only by-and-for deaf domestic abuse service, and it provides all its support in British Sign Language. However, deaf domestic abuse services are generally small-scale, often with limited staffing and geographical reach—the ultimate postcode lottery. It is vital that deaf women and children have access to support from professionals who speak BSL as a first language, and I hope to see that sort of accessibility consideration in the Government’s plans for tackling violence against women and girls.
Research from the Domestic Abuse Commissioner found that by-and-for services are six times less likely to receive statutory funding, which leads to minoritised women being locked out of support. They recommended that a minimum total of £178 million from the overall funding settlement is ringfenced for specialist services, led by and for marginalised women. I know that the Minster is the biggest champion we could have in the Department. I hope she will work with organisations such as Refuge to ensure that specialised services are available for all women.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
I commend Members on keeping their speeches brief. We now move on to the Front-Bench contributions.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this crucial debate, and I pay tribute to the Minister for her work over the last few years in raising awareness of the tragic cost of violence against women and girls.
I want to draw attention to an issue that I believe is a critical front in the overall struggle to end the epidemic of violence against women and girls—an issue that far too often goes under-reported, unrecognised and unappreciated. It is the crime against women and girls of stalking, which the hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) spoke about. Stalking is a form of psychological violence that will affect approximately one in five women. It is an insidious crime that can shatter lives. I have heard from stalking victims who feel trapped, are too afraid to leave their homes and are constantly looking over their shoulder on their way to work.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this incredibly important debate. Violence against women and girls on trains has risen by 50%, and figures from the British Transport police show that over a third of women using the rail system are likely to be assaulted. That is clearly unacceptable. With that in mind, does my hon. Friend agree that a more holistic system is needed to deal with the problem and to help the British Transport Police to get not only a conviction, but a suitable conviction for perpetrators, as well as increase the perception of safety on our rail network overall?
Luke Taylor
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
Victims of stalking often find themselves cutting ties with loved ones out of fear of repercussions and putting them in danger. Even years after the harassment ends, stalking survivors are often left with lingering anxiety, trauma and pain. In the most extreme cases, stalking can escalate to acts of physical violence, such as rape and, most tragically of all, murder. It is a crime that thrives on control, leaving victims in a constant state of fear and uncertainty.
What makes stalking so dangerous is that it is often difficult to detect. A victim may not immediately notice someone following them, watching their movements or infiltrating their personal space online. The harassment might appear subtle at first but can persist for years, eroding the victim’s sense of safety and security.
We cannot continue to leave the current legislation on stalking outside the scope of public debate. As it stands, the legal framework is not robust enough for victims and, at a more fundamental level, we must change the way we think and talk about stalking to recognise its severity. I have heard harrowing accounts from women who, when they confide in friends, family or even the police about their experiences, are often met with dismissive responses. Too often the perpetrator is written off as nothing more than a clingy ex-boyfriend who simply cannot move on.
Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, stalking offences are categorised under two distinct sections, 2A and 4A. Those sections have created ambiguity as to how stalking is understood and prosecuted. Under section 2A, it is defined as pursuing a course of conduct that amounts to stalking. That is considered a lesser offence, carrying a maximum sentence of up to six months in prison upon conviction. Under the more serious 4A offence, the perpetrator must be proven to have caused the victim fear of violence, or significant alarm or harassment that disrupts their daily life.
It is clear that there are cracks in that framework. The two separate offences fail to recognise the total scope of stalking and its impact on victims’ lives, and there are real barriers to pursuing a section 4A offence. Victims are often left with the burden of proving the scale and severity of the stalking to convict perpetrators under the section 4A offence, and they must also meet an unreasonably high threshold of evidence, demonstrating that the crime has disrupted their life to a terrifying extent just to secure an appropriate sentence for the perpetrators. That process can take years, leaving victims trapped in fear while their tormentors remain at large.
The burden placed on victims to provide extensive evidence often leads many who pursue a section 4A offence to lose faith and withdraw from the criminal justice system altogether. In London alone, the 2024 London stalking review found that 45% of stalking victims felt compelled to abandon their pursuit of justice. That is just not good enough. I therefore urge the Government to reform the current legislative framework and take action to address that gap in our justice system. A new, singular and well-defined stalking offence must be created with victims in mind. We cannot continue to allow years of harassment to persist before victims are able to seek prosecution.
The London stalking review revealed another chilling statistic:
“39% of the recorded stalking experienced by under 18s was the more serious Stalking 4a”.
That throws into sharp relief the importance of defining stalking laws as they pertain to social media, which many perpetrators use to harass and exploit young victims online. As I have said, many young girls may be entirely unaware that they are being stalked at first. Disturbingly, the ability of stalkers to hide behind anonymous accounts and leave few digital traces of their stalking makes that worse. It allows stalkers to hide and to commit crimes in ways that can easily be overlooked compared with in-person harassment.
I recently met a brave woman in my constituency who, as a victim of stalking, shared her fears about young girls in her family using social media platforms. These platforms enabled her perpetrator to harass her for years. She worries that her family members could fall into similar traps due to a lack of awareness around recognising such behaviours. We must urgently raise awareness about how young people, especially girls, are targeted online. As has been said, educating them in schools about the warning signs of online stalking is critical to preventing this crime from escalating into more severe forms of harassment.
I have focused today on one aspect of violence against women and girls, among many others that demand our attention. I was appalled to read the national statement from the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing, which highlighted the staggering scale of this issue. Every day, 3,000 crimes of violence against women and girls are recorded in this country. That is simply unacceptable and we should call it out for what it is: an epidemic of coercion, control and violence that has no place in our society.
I welcome the Government’s pledge to halve the numbers over the next decade. I look forward to working cross-party to explore how I and the Liberal Democrats can contribute to meaningful changes in the law on stalking and other acts of gendered violence, so that, within our lifetimes, we can stamp out this epidemic once and for all. No one can truly be free if they are forced to live in fear, and no women or girl can live their life to the fullest while this scourge goes unchallenged.
In the words of the White Ribbon campaign group, which has done such an admirable job of putting and keeping this issue on the agenda, this starts with men. The men in this room, me included, must recognise our responsibility, hold ourselves accountable, challenge the warning signs and dangerous societal norms that we see around us, and act now to protect women and girls across our country.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), both for securing this debate and for her courage in consistently speaking out on her experiences. It is an incredibly brave thing to do, and I hope that she is receiving the support she deserves but which she feels has not been forthcoming in the past, because she warrants it.
It is vital that women feel able to share our stories, because too often society still attempts to afflict shame on us, as though there is some fault, some responsibility, on the survivor. There is not. Male violence against women and girls is an act of cowardice, and every woman in this room—indeed, in this country—has a memory that makes us shudder; a moment in time in which we felt unsafe or under threat. Those memories stay with us and shape us, and we cannot shake them. It is therefore our duty in this place to do everything we can to prevent future generations from experiencing the same feeling that we all describe differently, although we all know exactly what it is. It is our duty to give our voices to all survivors, particularly to women like Gisèle Pelicot, who has stood in strength and demanded that the videos of men raping her were shown in open court. As she said, it is not us who should feel shame, but them, the perpetrators.
Male violence is found in our homes, schools, universities, outside clubs, in the streets—there is almost no space where it is absent. I should make it clear that I use the term “male violence” because VAWG excludes the role of the perpetrator. It shifts the focus from the individual who should feel ashamed and guilty and on to women and girls. Male victims also overwhelmingly experience violence at the hands of other men.
Much of this violence comes from a sense of entitlement; a man’s belief that they have an entitlement to a woman’s body or to control her. But they have no entitlement. I thank all colleagues here today for sharing their experiences and those of their constituents. I mention, in particular, the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), because he is right that there is a crisis of masculinity. We have to work harder on this, but it comes from parenting and the decisions that individuals make in their home. The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) also touched on that. There were comments about the media and the way they talk about women, whether that is when they are missing and it is suggested that that is due to their menopause, or whether they are facing an attack. It is wrong. I also welcome the comments made by the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) about women who are deaf.
Fighting for girls and women in our communities is one of an MP’s most important acts, and it breaks my heart every time I meet a victim or survivor. But every time, my team and I—especially Lisa—fight to get those women to safety and to help them navigate the system and secure prosecutions. We can do that as MPs. Individuals are now in prison because MPs have referred cases to the police for people who did not have the guts to do that before, because they did not feel listened to.
We must work together in the House on this issue, and the previous Government took it extremely seriously. I pay tribute, in particular, to Baroness May for her work as both Home Secretary and Prime Minister, to my friend, Laura Farris, the former Member for Newbury, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant). Over the last 14 years, we have brought in offences to better protect women and bring perpetrators to justice—in relation to stalking, ending the rough sex defence, the vile sharing of intimate images or revenge porn, the non-consensual taking of images of a women breastfeeding, and upskirting—while raising the maximum penalties for harassment.
We also supported survivors to give evidence behind closed doors, and to be cross-examined without having to wait for trial. I am grateful for the part that I was able to play in 2012, as a civil servant at the Ministry of Justice, in bringing in the first victims service and more support for people, particularly those coming from slavery, and introducing the first domestic abuse service for gay men. We also developed and rolled out Operation Soteria across all police forces in 2023. That project led to the development of the first national operating model for the investigation of rape and serious sexual offences. On that matter, has the Minister assessed the performance of the roll-out, and will she continue to develop the operation?
We also passed the world-leading Domestic Abuse Act 2021. That created a legal definition of domestic abuse, encompassing financial, verbal and emotional abuse, as well as physical and sexual, but it also recognised that abuse is a pattern over time. Importantly, it recognised that children are explicitly victims if they witness abuse. We relaunched the flexible fund in January, with a further £2 million investment to help remove barriers to domestic abuse survivors leaving their abusers. I would be grateful if the Minister can confirm whether the funding for that important programme will continue.
I have highlighted that we took important actions, and although they were necessary, more still needs to be done. There continues to be an epidemic of male violence in our country and across the world. It is no surprise when the rape of women, but never of men, is normalised on our TV screens as a storyline. Even in this place, some people diminish their acts and demonstrate a lack of responsibility for the actions of their past, which serves to retraumatise the survivors.
Globally, women’s bodily rights are under attack. Gender apartheid is under way in Afghanistan and femicide is taking place in Iran. Knowing the Minister, I am absolutely certain that she will do everything she can to better protect survivors and to crack down on male perpetrators. If anything, this is her life’s work, and I am pleased that she now has the opportunity to lead on the area that she cares about so passionately.
The Government’s proposal to cut the rate of violence against women and girls in a decade is a significant target that could transform the lives of so many. Last week, the Home Secretary stated that the policy was ambitious and that no other country had set it before. However, as I understand it, the Government are still determining how to measure progress, so I would be grateful if the Minister could set out precisely what metrics will be used to measure the rate of violence against women and girls.
I also welcome the Government’s focus on spiking that was announced over the weekend. We fully support the commitment to create a separate criminal office, which we had hoped to bring forward in the Criminal Justice Bill. I stress to any victims out there that spiking is already a criminal offence. The reason for creating a new spiking offence is so that we can better understand the picture of spiking nationally and get more prosecutions. At the moment, the police are recording it as an offence against a person, or as sexual violence or assault, which means we cannot make the necessary interventions.
I would be grateful if the Minister could share her thoughts on a few other issues. The first one, which others have touched on, is the prevalence of violent porn and its impact on young boys and men. The increasing normalisation of violence during sex for young people worries me greatly. The viewing figures of porn are concerningly high, with children being exposed to content without searching for it, even porn depicting rape. Although the Online Safety Act 2023 goes some way towards better protecting children, access obviously continues into adulthood and continues to shape the attitudes and behaviours of young men, so what actions is the Minister considering taking across Government to tackle that content?
I finish by thanking all the organisations across our country, and particularly in Rutland, Stamford and the South Kesteven and Harborough villages, for all they do to protect women and girls from violence. I also want to thank my father, and all the fathers out there, who are the ultimate feminists, and who raised me and women across this country to believe that violence has no role in relationships or in the home. Shame lies with the perpetrator alone, and we must never accept the status quo while women and girls continue to suffer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark. I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) for her impassioned speech. However, I must give the biggest credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for bringing forward a debate on such an important issue. I have handled a lot of cases in my life, and have seen almost every way that the systems that are meant to protect us, such as the courts system, are used against victims in a patriarchal system. However, I have never seen a case that compares to the one that my hon. Friend spoke so bravely about, where our very democracy is used to allow a perpetrator to control. As in the case of Gisèle Pelicot, whose name has been mentioned today, it takes a huge amount of bravery to try to shift the shame elsewhere and keep speaking up. It has been a pleasure to work with my hon. Friend over the years, and long may that continue.
I am going to do something that did not always happen when I was on the other side in a debate: try to answer Members’ questions—that was not always my experience. Please bear with me if I jump around a bit. First, my hon. Friend is exactly right that we must make this issue everybody’s problem. By “everybody”—others mentioned the issue of silo Government—I mean every Government Department. I joked this morning that I was struggling to connect the issue to solar panels, but give me time.
To the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, I say that the Conservative Government had a good track record of changing legislation, but what did not change at the same pace were the systematic processes that ensure that the legislation means something on the ground. Today we launched domestic abuse protection orders. The previous Government passed those into law, and three years after the fact, the first one was handed out this morning.
It will take a huge amount—a lot of different Departments and people having the will—to make things happen, and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse is exactly right about that. A cross-Government strategy must not be just a piece of paper that sits on a shelf, and we say, “We’ve ticked that box.” It has to be targeted, and it has to have the will of everybody. As she said, that is what we will do. That will be out next year.
A number of people, including my hon. Friend, mentioned the concerning issue of non-contact sexual offences. Part 1 of the Angiolini review, which followed the death of Sarah Everard, made a huge number of recommendations with regard to how the police handle non-contact sexual offences. That was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger). Frankly, it is not good enough, is it? It is woeful. I picked up a case just this morning, funnily enough, involving somebody sending naked images of themselves to someone—I will not use the colloquial term, even though I am sure everybody would expect me to; I am a Government Minister now.
These things have to be taken seriously. The Home Office is looking into the evidence about the escalation of non-contact sexual violence to contact sexual violence, because that evidence base does not currently exist, even though common sense would lead us all to assume it does. We need to ensure that we are continuing to work on that.
The issue of migrant women came up a number of times; my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) raised it, as did my hon. Friend the. Member for Poplar and Limehouse. Quite astutely, my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe reminded me of all the things I have said in the past on this issue. Although I now find myself in a different position, my heart is exactly in the same place. The issue of how migrant women are supported in our country is one that we are currently giving huge attention to. I do not care what stamp is in someone’s passport; if they have been abused on these shores, they deserve protection on these shores. That is what we will continue to strive for.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is right to say that I have a special interest in Northern Ireland. That is not to say that I do not love Wales and Scotland as well, because I do, but my father, who also raised me to be a feminist, makes my loyalty to Northern Ireland a tiny bit stronger than to elsewhere.
Alicia Kearns
The Minister and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) may welcome the information that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee will hold specific hearings on violence against women and girls in Northern Ireland in the next few months. I am sure we will share with them in the next few months the outcomes of those hearings.
Jess Phillips
Yes, I had heard that from the Chair, and I am very pleased about it. For the now finally formed Government of Northern Ireland—we were all delighted to see that happen—one of their top priorities, in not a long list for government, is violence against women and girls. I will go over in January to work with the devolved Government and the Police Service of Northern Ireland to see how we can help each other to make this issue better.
Another point to make is about women’s experiences in post-conflict areas. Lots of people have mentioned conflict zones, but the women’s experience of violence in conflict zones, and then post conflict, does not get discussed when we talk about peace treaties and what needs to be put in place to rebuild infrastructure. We must not lose sight of that either.
Staying on the theme of the international stage, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) said that this might not be my area to talk about with regard to Malala Yousafzai, so I will take this moment to shamelessly say that it is literally my area, because I am her Member of Parliament. I feel pretty proud that it was my city that took Malala in when she really needed refuge. I once had to lecture her school class about activism and how to be better activists, and this was after she had won the Nobel peace prize. That was a moment in my life that I felt slight shame in, but I hope they took something away from it.
I met with Malala recently on the very issue, as touched on by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North, of the experiences of women in Afghanistan and the regime they are—I cannot even say “living under”—under. In fact, I met some of her people yesterday and will be continuing those conversations, and when I met with Malala herself it was with Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Ministers, so those conversations are ongoing.
The issue of funding was mentioned by many, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) mentioned a statutory duty in her comments. This links to the point about Cheshire. When my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) and I visited Cheshire police, we saw NHS-funded posts, probation-funded posts, police-funded posts and police and crime commissioner-funded posts sitting in a room together working tirelessly, and this goes to the point from my hon. Friend about rolling this out, as it is in London with the Metropolitan police and only two other areas. It is all well and good the Government saying, “I’m gonna have this fund and that fund”, but we will never solve this issue unless violence against women and girls is specifically mainstreamed into funding programmes in every locality, in every Department. This cannot be just a nice-to-have on International Women’s Day, and the example in Cheshire is a fantastic one, so we know it can work elsewhere. This is about the Government seeing what levers we can pull to ensure that that can happen.
Dan Norris (North East Somerset and Hanham) (Lab)
Many social workers and police officers have kind hearts and great practice. How will the Government reach out to encourage their best practice while at the same time dealing with the bad practice?
Jess Phillips
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, because trusting police officers comes up quite a lot, and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse talked about how trust in police was at its lowest. What I would say is that the women who I have worked with over the years do not have the privilege of having an alternative to trusting the police; they have to trust them, because in most of their cases that is the only option they have. We also must work to ensure that, as my hon. Friend suggested, we do not demoralise the workforce with review after review, which sometimes demoralises people and makes this process a sort of check-box exercise of, “I did everything I should have”, rather than people’s response being, “Are you all right, love?”
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—the Government will have a fierce regime for standards in policing, but we will always celebrate good practice. This morning, I was in the constituency of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor)—well, I was not in his constituency, but I was with his borough command, as Sutton and Cheam will be one of the first areas to have the roll-out of domestic abuse protection orders. I met dedicated staff from Sutton Council who work on domestic abuse and the police officers working in that borough command to make sure the roll-out happens. I could not have asked for better examples of police officers; they were totally dedicated. We need to do both things; celebrate the good and punish the bad.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) on Anna’s case that—I am sure my officials will get annoyed with me doing this every time—I am personally happy to help Anna. I cannot listen to that story and not think that something has to be done about Anna’s specific case. However, we cannot just change things for Anna; we have to change them for everybody. We have to make sure that such stories—I do not want to sit and listen to such stories for the next five years. However, changing things will take quite a lot of time.
Several Members mentioned employment. I would be happy to have a conversation with the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), as I have already had many times, about exactly what she is seeking to achieve. The tackling violence against women and girls strategy is a cross-Government strategy and women will absolutely have a role in it. I mean, women do go to work; indeed, that feels like all I do. But women being safe at work was one of the things that she and I discussed while we were fighting for the domestic abuse protection orders to cover a woman’s workplace, when we served on the Domestic Abuse Bill Committee. As I say, I am more than happy to work with her, and workers’ rights and how we deal with people’s employment will absolutely be part of Government strategy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) talked about Zara Aleena’s family, who I know well and have worked with over the years. We absolutely must ensure that we do not hear such a story again. My hon. Friend told the story of Zara Aleena and her perpetrator. The failings in Zara’s case show exactly what I am saying about a crippled system; we could make better law, or better rules, but the system of probation had been so crippled that that was the outcome. I feel immensely upset about Zara’s case.
Many Members mentioned education; indeed, somebody asked me directly if I speak to the Department for Education. My officials or I speak to the DFE daily. Apart from the Ministry of Justice and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), with whom I work very closely, this mission focuses most on the Department for Education, because prevention is vital.
Many Members have spoken about boys. For example, as the mother of sons myself, I was affected by the harrowing stories that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) told about boys’ attitudes. We have got to prevent this—I am sick of just putting bigger plasters on cuts. We have got to work very closely on prevention and on perpetrator work to prevent those who are already showing signs from escalating, and we will absolutely do that.
To answer the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, Operation Soteria, having been rolled out, goes into a new phase in January where police forces have to tell us how exactly they are going to be doing it. There is no proposed end to Operation Soteria. I continue to see its benefits and work closely with the academics and police forces that undertook the work on it.
On the point about measurements, the overarching measurements we will seek to use will be just one thing. I refuse to make a target and miss a point. It is quite easy to juke stats anyway, isn’t it? Many different metrics sit underneath the overarching measure. The exercise on exactly what that measure will be is currently ongoing. The measure currently used in this instance is the crime survey of England and Wales. But we have to look at many other metrics, whether they are attitudinal, about femicide, or about issues with delivery in schools. It is not just the Home Office working on that; every Department is currently busily working on what their metrics might be. When the measurements are properly announced, I am determined to make sure that they do not just hit a target and miss a point.
On the flexible fund program, I am not going to commit to any funding anybody has asked me about today. I literally cannot, as that process is currently ongoing. However, I have seen the value of the flee fund over the years.
The pornography review is due, I think, very early next year. It was started by the previous Government and we will be working on it. As the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford said, the Online Safety Act only goes so far. I do not know how apocryphal this is, so I apologise if I am misleading the House, but I saw in a news article that Pornhub had said it had found some sort of workaround to the Online Safety Act. It was somehow going to make out like it was not a pornography site, so I assume we will all be going on Pornhub later to buy books. Is it that what they are offering? The use of graphic pornography in society has caused many of the things people have talked about today.
I am meant to have said all these things the Government are going to do and are currently doing. I think I have said most of them in answer to the questions. I will finish by saying that I wanted to cry today when I was with the police force in south London and the first domestic abuse protection order, something we had waited so long for, was handed out. The police officer was so delighted, and I felt like a new dawn was coming.
Apsana Begum
I thank the Minister for her comments today and her ongoing work in this area, and reiterate my commitment to work with her constructively in the interests of survivors everywhere. I am most grateful for all 20 contributions on a range of topics. They have provided insight from all over the UK, including Northern Ireland, mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and emphasised the scale of the problem and its wide-ranging impacts. This week and next, as we raise awareness through events in Parliament, events in our constituencies and debates such as this one, it is important that we do so with a sense of sadness at the loss and tragedy and anger at the injustice, but I hope we also have resolve and hope for the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of tackling violence against women and girls.
Rail Connectivity: Oxfordshire
(2 months 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 Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
I will call Charlie Maynard to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up. Interventions, however, are permitted. I call Charlie Maynard.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered railway connectivity between Witney, Carterton, Eynsham and Oxford.
I am here to argue the case for bringing back the railway that connected Oxford, Eynsham, Witney and Carterton, but was torn up 50 years ago. That would cut journey times by 70%, connecting Oxford with Eynsham in roughly 11 minutes, with Witney in 16 minutes and with Carterton in 22 minutes. I have worked for the last four years with many parties, and I am deeply grateful to them all for their help. They include Oxfordshire county council; the district council in West Oxfordshire; town councils in Witney and Carterton; parish councils in Eynsham; the RAF; various landowners and developers, including Grosvenor at Salt Cross garden village; and England’s Economic Heartland—the list goes on and on.
The reason why I put so much blood, sweat, tears and toil into the issue is that we have two huge problems in West Oxfordshire—there are probably others as well, but the two big ones are transport and housing. They are two sides of the same coin. In transport we have the A40 corridor, which links Oxford and points east with Cheltenham and Gloucester and points west. Oxford city is at the centre of that web; it is one of the strongest growing cities in the country and is putting enormous pressure on Oxfordshire. To the west is some of the worst-served infrastructure in the whole county. There is no major railway station apart from Hanborough, which is very small with one train an hour, and there are just a few miles of dual carriageway—yet enormous housing is coming into the district.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he agree with me that the misery experienced by my constituents in Eynsham and Cassington as they travel on the A40 each day will only be made worse by the new housing developments, unless we find a way of alleviating that pressure? The railway on which he has done so much to campaign is one important solution, along with improving the road, that will make those journeys much easier and open up opportunities to the west of Oxford.
Charlie Maynard
I very much concur.
I want to quantify the housing and the scale of what is going on now. Since 2000, the population of Oxfordshire has increased by a quarter. In the 2018 local plan we were signed up for 16,000 homes over the period through to 2031, increasing our housing stock by a quarter in just 10 years. On top of that, as per the new national planning policy framework, there is a 62% increase on our current local plan.
I move on to transport. Our road is under very severe pressure. Some hon. Members might have spent time on the A40; probably more than they would have liked. It is an extremely constrained corridor, which, according to AECOM’s 2021 study, is going to be 30 minutes slower by 2031, which is seven years away—30 minutes slower between Witney and Oxford by 2031. That assumes that the disastrous bus lane project will have been completed, although that is not going to happen because there is not sufficient money. That was something that the previous Conservative Administration signed up for: £180 million for four miles of bus lane, which has turned into two miles of bus lane and a park and ride —not a good investment.
We need a long-term transport policy, which will deliver a number of things: journey times cut by up to 70% and a plan for housing. Many constituencies, including mine, support housing. We all recognise that people need somewhere to live. We want to be grown-ups at the table coming up with a solution, rather than scattering houses willy-nilly around the district with no coherent plan. There is no plan without a transport solution.
We support putting the houses that we will have to take anyway around the railway stations. Just as our Victorian forebears did many decades ago, we will use those houses to fund the railway. That would solve housing; then it would solve the economy. Our economy in West Oxfordshire really suffers. One would think that lots of good employers would come to West Oxfordshire, because we are only 10 miles west of Oxford, but they do not. There are some good employers, but very few now come in, because they know that the transport is completely unsustainable.
The concept is logical: Oxford is at one end with the best universities in the world, and at the other are places such as Witney and Carterton with excellent skills, particularly in the aerospace and aviation sectors because of RAF Brize Norton. Connecting those places with a fast, reliable transport corridor would allow businesses to locate in West Oxfordshire. That would mean less need to commute and jam up our roads. That is a big opportunity.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Railway connectivity is also fundamental to my constituency. Heathrow is a rarity among international airports: large parts of its catchment simply do not have any direct rail access. We need a western rail link to Heathrow. That would reduce carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to 30 million fewer road miles every year. Does my hon. Friend agree that rail is crucial for decarbonisation?
Charlie Maynard
Well said—I very much agree. Following on from that, transport is one of the hardest nuts to crack in that decarbonisation agenda. Without a large-scale mass public transport solution, we are not going to get there. That is at the core of Oxfordshire county council’s strategy and this would help to deliver it, just as my hon. Friend’s project would in his constituency.
I have two more points. Vast numbers of people living in West Oxfordshire have to get to hospitals in Oxford for secondary and tertiary care. The unreliability of the road puts enormous stress on their lives; they—including members of my family, as it happens—often have to go backwards and forwards a number of times a week. People have to leave home for a 10-mile journey sometimes two or three hours in advance, because they are scared about missing their appointment. That is only set to get worse on current plans.
Finally, on defence, RAF Brize Norton is the biggest RAF base both in the country and internationally, with 7,500 people working there. It was built there because it had a railway connection, but that connection was ripped up 50 years ago. We must bring back that railway connection now. In times of peace, the lack of the connection is bad news, but in times of war it is truly terrible. Is that really how we want to run our country? The biggest airbase in the country, which runs all our international transport, does not have even have a railway connection. That is a disaster.
What has been going on to date? I give real thanks to the Witney Oxford Transport Group, which really took the charge on this issue in 2014, before I showed up. I am immensely grateful for its having made me chair in 2020. Since 2020, we have conducted a number of technical studies, particularly on defining a route that goes not only from Oxford to Carterton but through the Salt Cross garden village. Those studies gave the county council enough comfort to commission a feasibility study, which was published last November, and this year Lichfields is carrying out an economic analysis. That is all working towards the new local plan for West Oxfordshire, which is being worked up now. As a district councillor, I am working closely with my district council colleagues, as well as Sasha White—the planning and land use silk of the year; many thanks, Sasha—to work the railway line into our local plan. If the line is in there, we have a real chance of getting this railway built.
I used to work in business and I understand that there is really one thing that counts here: money. A key part of our work has been on the funding, and shaking a tin at the Treasury and waiting 50 years is not what we have in mind. Who have we been working with? It has been E-Rail so far, which has just funded 30% of the Ashington-to-Blyth line by going up to landowners and developers along that track and saying, “If you want to bring back a passenger rail line here, sign some voluntary, legally-binding contribution agreements, which will allow you to build houses around those future railway stations. Bluntly, the reason why you should do so is that you will make more money.” They will make more money for three reasons. First, the local plan will allow them to have houses sited around that railway station that would not otherwise exist. Secondly, they can build at higher density around a railway station. Thirdly, each of those houses is worth more because it is next to a railway station.
That might sound radical, but it is what our Victorian forebears did 150 years ago. It is what Japan, Korea and Hong Kong do, and what much of northern Europe does. That is how they fund their public infrastructure, and I would argue that case. Labour sometimes mentions land value, and I really hope that it looks into the issue because it is a way of using private and public funding to get things moving quickly—as opposed to just sticking it to the taxpayer, which is what we have had to do up to now. I really ask for the Minister’s help in exploring that. That would fund about 50% of the railway line, and the other half would come from Homes England. We would be delivering on our side of the bargain by getting all those houses into West Oxfordshire in a coherent and sensible way. Without a railway line, we will not have that solution and we will have an unsustainable, long-term problem.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Mark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) on securing this debate on railway connectivity between Witney, Carterton, Eynsham and Oxford. It is clear that he has been a passionate advocate for restoring the rail link, and I thank him for the important points that he has made and other hon. Members for their contributions.
The Government recognise the significance of Oxfordshire and the wider Oxford economic region. It is a global centre for research, learning and healthcare, and one of the most productive economic regions in the UK, so continuing to invest in the region and work with those who represent it is vital. Its transport network is clearly important for providing the connectivity to support economic development, as well as planned housing and employment growth. That is why significant investments are being made in road, rail and sustainable transport improvements. As the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) made clear, housing and transport connectivity must go hand in hand. It is vital that the local transport authority, which knows its local area, can develop and prioritise transport investment projects that support those aspirations.
The Government’s housing infrastructure fund has approved £126 million to Oxfordshire county council for its A40 smart corridor scheme, which will provide infrastructure for better bus travel, and safer walking and cycling along the A40 route between Eynsham park and ride and Oxford. That kind of multimodal approach will be really important. In addition, since 2014, £118.4 million from the Government’s local growth fund has been used by the Oxfordshire local enterprise partnership to invest in the transport network. That included £35 million to deliver the second phase of the A40 Oxford science transit scheme, demonstrating Government’s commitment to investing in this key corridor. I agree that public transport has a vital role to play in improving connectivity and relieving congestion on our road network, and the hon. Member for Witney quite rightly points out future projections and the importance of thinking for the long term to ensure we can cope with rising population in the area, and with the demand for more housing and more growth.
A strategic vision for rail investment in the county was set out in the Oxfordshire rail corridor study report, which was published in 2021. It brought together the views of local stakeholders and the rail industry to assess the impacts of planned growth in Oxfordshire, and identified key investments in the rail network to deliver economic growth and meet the changing needs of the county. An early output from the rail corridor study has been the Oxford station project, which will undertake a series of investments to support new rail services into Oxford, and enable faster passenger and freight journeys.
An early deliverable of the project is to widen the rail bridge over Botley Road, which has been closed since 2023 to enable a series of utilities diversions. I expect that hon. Members will be aware that Network Rail has experienced significant difficulties in delivering those works, which have had an unacceptable impact on the residents and businesses in the area—and on Members’ constituents who commute into the city, no doubt. I can only offer my sincere apologies to those affected. Network Rail has been tasked with developing a plan that enables the reopening of Botley Road, and the Rail Minister, Lord Hendy, will be meeting stakeholders and local representatives to discuss that in due course.
The Oxfordshire area also benefits from connectivity through the East West Rail programme, although I appreciate that that is to the east of the city rather than to the west. At the autumn Budget, the Chancellor committed Government support to accelerate works on the Marston Vale line to deliver services between Oxford and Bedford from 2030.
Let me turn to the specific subject of today’s debate: a reopening of the line linking Carterton, Witney and Eynsham to Oxford. I welcome Oxfordshire county council’s recent publication of the feasibility study into reopening the line, and recognise the local and regional benefits it sets out. It is a really good example of why this Government’s approach to how transport projects can be funded is based on local leaders and local transport authorities knowing best which projects to pursue; these bodies are best placed to decide on and take forward transport schemes that will most benefit their local areas.
There are a number of significant challenges associated with the proposed reopening, the most significant of which is funding the estimated costs of £700 million to £900 million. I appreciate that the proposed scheme is described as a long-term project, but it is dependent on other projects that have not yet been funded or delivered; given the associated costs, other options for increasing connectivity in the area may present better value for money. I am sure that the hon. Member is in conversation with the county council about thinking in that way.
Charlie Maynard
Just one small correction: from Oxford to Carterton North is £600 million only—we do not need to build out to Carterton West necessarily; that would just be a nice-to-have—and, of that, land value capture would allow something like £300 million. That is the broader scheme of it.
Lilian Greenwood
I thank the hon. Member for that clarification. However, he will appreciate that £600 million —even with a significant private sector contribution —is not an insignificant amount. I understand that delivering the scheme would require funding from central Government—I guess that is the purpose of his debate—but he will also know that, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in her speech to the House on 29 July, the Government have been forced to look again at the economic inheritance left by the last Government.
The Secretary of State has announced her intention to conduct a thorough review—indeed, it is ongoing—of the previous Government’s transport plans, to ensure that our transport infrastructure portfolio drives economic growth and delivers value for money for taxpayers. We are having to look at a number of schemes that are closer to deliverability within that portfolio. Decisions about individual projects will be informed by the review process and confirmed in due course.
I encourage the hon. Member for Witney to continue to work with his local authorities and stakeholders to develop the proposal further. I commend his work to pursue alternative funding sources and to think in the round about how best to meet the aspirations that his constituents rightly have to improve connectivity.
I again thank the hon. Member for securing this debate on rail connectivity between Witney, Carterton, Eynsham and Oxford. I fully acknowledge and appreciate the importance of the matter to him, to his constituency and his many constituents, and to those in the wider West Oxfordshire area; this Government recognise the requirement for connectivity in the region, and we stand ready to work with them to meet their aspirations. I hope that I have been able to provide some clarity on the Government’s position on being able to fund the development of such proposals currently, but I am sure we stand ready to have further discussions in the months and years ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
World AIDS Day
(2 months 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
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered World AIDS Day.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I am proud to have been elected on a manifesto commitment to end new cases of HIV in this country. Indeed, that goal, which crosses political divides, was a clear commitment from the last Government too. Only 20 years ago, that ambitious target would have been completely unthinkable. It has the power to change countless lives.
That such a goal is even possible is a testament to the long, hard work of thousands of activists and researchers, going back over 40 years. We are living in an era when HIV is no longer a death sentence, transmissions can be prevented and people with HIV live long, happy and healthy lives. We all stand on their shoulders.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I apologise for intervening so early. Quite rightly, there will be many important policy asks in this debate, but on the point that my hon. Friend raises, can we take a moment to pay tribute to the grassroots campaigners who have been part of the history of the fight against HIV and AIDS? I am hugely privileged to have Martyn Butler, the co-founder of the Terrence Higgins Trust, as a constituent. He used his own home phone line as the first helpline for AIDS. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, we should pay tribute to those people.
Danny Beales
I definitely pay tribute to Martyn Butler and to everyone like him who has tirelessly campaigned for change. It is the perfect example of progress being made through the sheer determination of those affected by HIV and of their loved ones—those who unfortunately they left behind. My hon. Friend and I have had the pleasure of meeting many tireless campaigners and fantastic organisations such as THT.
Before entering Parliament, I worked for the National AIDS Trust, another fantastic organisation in the sector, campaigning to end new transmissions of HIV and improve the lives of those who are already living with HIV. That included working on a campaign for equal fertility rights for people living with HIV. I was delighted that just last month the law was finally changed to allow equal access to fertility treatment. That life-changing development means that people I met during that campaign can now have a family. It is not often that we can say that children will be born because of a statutory instrument, but in this case it is true. I thank the Minister for his swift leadership and action on the issue and every single person who campaigned to make that possible—thank you.
The first project that I worked on at the National AIDS Trust was a collaboration with the Elton John AIDS Foundation and the Terrence Higgins Trust: the independent HIV Commission. It heard from experts and from those with lived experience and toured the country to look at good practice. Its recommendations laid out a framework for turning into a reality the goal of ending new HIV cases in England by 2030. One of the independent commissioners was a little-known, shy and retiring Back-Bench Labour MP who is now my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). He went on to somewhat bigger and better things in the world of healthcare.
A lot has changed since 2021 when the report was launched. Unfortunately, when it comes to progress on ending transmissions, a lot has not. To their credit, the last Government should be proud of the investment that they made in piloting opt-out HIV and hepatitis testing in emergency departments in London, Manchester and Brighton—the one key action in the last HIV action plan that was delivered on. That investment has changed many, many lives. In my constituency, opt-out testing at Hillingdon hospital has picked up 15 new cases of HIV, 28 of hepatitis C and 140 of hepatitis B. Those are people whose lives have been changed and who now have access to vital treatment. The story is the same across all the hospitals delivering that amazing programme.
The programme is working, but it is facing a funding cliff edge. I welcome the commitment to expand the programme further to other towns and cities, but I hope that the Government will commit to continuing the pilot where it is already in place and working.
We now know for certain that opt-out testing works. We cannot find everyone with undiagnosed HIV if we rely only on a system of people thinking that they may be at risk and then actively seeking out a test, navigating the complex system and overcoming the stigma of HIV to ask for a test. Instead, we must test, test, test. We need an opt-out testing programme that goes right across the health service and into primary care.
Unfortunately, the reality is that despite the success of the testing programme, overall progress towards ending HIV transmissions has been far too slow. Recent figures suggest that this year we are potentially moving backwards. Recent data showed an increase in cases; we have seen poor outcomes around late diagnosis; and the disproportionate outcomes for women and people from black and Asian backgrounds continue. The gap has not closed.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is quite right: a disproportionate number of black, Asian and minority ethnic individuals are becoming infected with HIV. Does my hon. Friend think that it is right to raise awareness of things like PrEP in communities that may be disproportionately affected, so that we can put them in the same position as the majority of the country, whose infection rates are declining?
Danny Beales
I thank my hon. Friend for that vital point. HIV is a condition that knows no boundaries. It does not affect any one type of person: there is no one community that is alone affected by HIV. It knows no boundaries; it affects everyone.
After 14 difficult years for the health service, we are not on track to reach the 2030 goal. At every single stage of the HIV treatment process, we are missing critical opportunities to get people on PrEP, test for HIV and ensure that everyone living with HIV has the support that they need.
Pre-exposure prophylaxis—we can see why it is called PrEP for short—is an incredible advance in HIV prevention. It is a simple daily pill, now in generic form and therefore incredibly cheap, that prevents HIV completely if taken correctly. I have spoken before about how life-changing a drug it is in removing the fear and stigma of HIV. As a gay man who grew up in the 90s and noughties, the legacy of HIV has always weighed on me and, I am sure, on many others like me. Our sense of self, our sexuality and our relationships were always intertwined with the stigma and presence of HIV. Being able to take PrEP is game-changing, and not just for the individual and their wellbeing: it has a massive public health benefit. It has driven the significant falls in new transmissions, particularly among gay men, who have largely been the people who have accessed the drug to date.
It is unacceptable that the drug is not being accessed by everyone who could benefit. The average wait list for this preventive medicine is 12 weeks. We know from research that people have acquired HIV while waiting to access the drug. That is a significant failure that I hope the new HIV action plan will address, as well as turbocharging access outside sexual health services—the only place where it can currently be accessed. It is entirely wrong that NHS silos are holding back access to PrEP in primary care, including in pharmacy and other settings.
It is also unacceptable that people cannot get a postal test for HIV and sexually transmitted infections in 30% of rural England. It makes no sense that my borough of Hillingdon—not so rural, but on the edge of London—has a completely different postal testing system from the 30 other London boroughs that have their own system. Far too often, the patient is left to navigate complex systems. What test they get will vary depending on where they live. In vast swathes of the country, there is no option to test at home, although sexual health services are often inaccessible and chronically overwhelmed. Far too often, the individual has to fight for an appointment, and only those with the sharpest elbows, or persistence, get access to the sexual health services that they need.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for making such an eloquent speech. The point he makes is really important: in rural and coastal communities, testing services and public health awareness can often feel particularly remote. Looking at how we use primary care, particularly community hospitals and GP surgeries, will be essential to improving testing and public awareness. Does my hon. Friend agree that pushing this out into communities is essential to ensuring that take-up is just as good in a rural or coastal community as it is in a big town or city?
Danny Beales
I completely associate myself with my hon. Friend’s comments. Particularly in rural settings, if getting to a sexual health service means travelling for miles and sometimes for hours, a lot of people, especially on the lowest incomes, will put off getting the test until another day. Unfortunately, we are seeing persistent rates of late diagnosis and of undiagnosed HIV outside major cities. I completely agree with my hon. Friend.
What about those who make it through the complex online systems—the 8 am call queues, only on a Thursday—and actively go out and seek a test, or those who are fortunately now being found in our amazing opt-out testing pilot? If they are diagnosed with HIV, they are not always getting the support that they need to access HIV treatment in the long term.
We have some of the best—if not the best—HIV treatment and specialists in the world. HIV is now a treatable long-term health condition. “U = U. Undetectable = untransmittable.” We need to say that over and over again. In simple terms, it means that when someone is on HIV treatment, they cannot pass HIV on. That is a powerful and life-changing message. Despite the advances, 14,000 people living with HIV in England are essentially lost to the health system. They have been diagnosed with HIV but are not being seen by their clinic because of stigma, poverty and other barriers that are holding them back from getting that life-changing treatment.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for calling this debate and for his powerful speech. Does he share my concern that the communities that we need to come forward are the very same communities that are not accessing treatment because of that stigma? Organisations like the Fast-Track Cities network, Sophia Forum and One Voice Network are doing fantastic work reaching black women and other black and minority ethnic groups.
Danny Beales
I thank my hon. Friend for that comment and for her leadership on the all-party parliamentary group on HIV, AIDS and sexual health, on which I know she has been championing that issue and many others; I think she helped to host the important meeting and discussion about the recent report on disproportionality by the One Voice Network and the National AIDS Trust. If we look at the figures, the disproportionality of HIV is stark. We have made so much progress, including in access to PrEP, testing or treatment, but not all communities are benefiting in the same way. Particularly among black African and Caribbean communities in the UK, the rate of late diagnosis is far too high and the rate of accessing PrEP is far too low. It is completely unacceptable. We have to take on that disproportionality, those inequalities and the stigma that persists in holding people and communities back from accessing those vital measures.
From a public health perspective, the people who are not accessing successful treatment are potentially also passing on HIV and are at risk of getting seriously ill. Many already are. The rates of people not in treatment and not going to their clinic appointments have increased through the covid period. I hope that the future action plan will fill in the gaps in the last plan. One major omission was action on that very challenge.
There are already lots of examples of successful local projects that we can learn from, such as amazing outreach services with nurses going out to find patients lost to care. The value of consistent peer support comes through, time and again, from people living with HIV. We must ensure that every HIV team is proactively finding everyone lost to care and supporting them in a holistic way to overcome the barriers to continue with HIV treatment.
All of this, it must be said, takes place against the backdrop of a wider crisis in our national health service, which is putting historic strain on health services and affecting outcomes across the board. Our task is an immense challenge, but it is not insurmountable. Although we are not on track, it is still possible to end the epidemic in this country by 2030. We already have all the tools we need. This week, my old colleagues at the National AIDS Trust released a report with THT and the Elton John AIDS Foundation with some clear recommendations for the new HIV action plan in England. I am pleased that the Minister has already engaged with them, welcomed them and attended the report launch, which I am sure was much appreciated. It is a clear sign of leadership on the issue.
None of this is rocket science. We are talking about simple, deliverable actions. First, there should be a nationwide, year-round online HIV and STI postal testing service, which would be cheaper than the current patchwork of services that vary from place to place. Secondly, opt-out testing in all emergency departments should be expanded to other health settings, such as GP practices and termination-of-pregnancy services, and elsewhere so that we can find everyone living undiagnosed with HIV. Thirdly, we should broaden access to PrEP beyond sexual health services, starting with a digital service to ensure that those on long-term prescriptions get timely access to the medication. That will then reduce demand on sexual health services for appointments. Fourthly, we need an NHS England programme to find everyone already living with HIV and support them back into care, with proper care co-ordination, peer support and appropriately trained staff. None of this is unprecedented: it is happening or being piloted somewhere. We have all the tools we need; we must now implement them everywhere consistently.
I emphasise that it would be an incredible achievement to meet our 2030 goal and become the first country in the world to end new HIV cases. Of course, that achievement would occur in the context of a deeply concerning global picture—with 1.3 million new cases in 2023 and 650,000 deaths from what is now a treatable long-term condition, as has been said. Much more work clearly needs to be done on the international front, so international development funding is vital.
Ending new cases in England would make a remarkable contribution to the global effort to eradicate HIV by providing a replicable road map to prevent transmission elsewhere—learnings that can be exported and shared. It would also simply show that it is possible. Britain has historically been a world leader on HIV treatment and sexual health. Now let us be a world leader on this too.
One of this Government’s key missions is to rebuild our NHS so it is there for everyone when they need it. Fixing HIV care and ending new transmissions must be an integral part of that vision. I am pleased that the public health Minister is already working on a new HIV action plan. I have seen at first hand the passion and determination of those working to make this happen—from campaigners to clinicians and MPs across the House. We now need that same determination from the new Government. The Government have a unique opportunity to make history, and I hope that they will seize it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. May I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate? I also noticed that one or two Members arrived after the first speech had already begun, so they will not be allowed to speak. I think that those who want to speak will end up with about two minutes each, so I would be grateful if Members did not go on beyond two minutes and if they could desist from interventions, otherwise not everyone who wants to will be able to speak.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This is the second time that I have been called first in a debate in one day, so thank you very much for that, Sir Mark—I will pick my six numbers for Saturday night now.
It is a pleasure to be here. I commend the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for leading today’s debate and for bringing his knowledge to the Chamber. Every new MP brings their own knowledge and particular interests, and I thank him for sharing his. It is also good to acknowledge these issues to help us support and promote positive living for those suffering with HIV and AIDS.
There were 6,008 new HIV diagnoses in England, which is a 51% increase—a really worrying trend. I ask the Minister—it is lovely to see him in his place, as always—what can be done to reduce that figure? Whether people are more reluctant to go for tests or whether it is about the lifestyle that they are leading, it is clear that something needs to be done. The Government committed to achieving zero new transmissions of HIV in England by 2030, but if the number of new diagnoses continues to rise, that target will not be met.
I want to refer to Northern Ireland’s only HIV charity, Positive Life, which has been instrumental in making a difference to the quality of people’s lives for over 25 years, after beginning as the AIDS telephone helpline in 1986. As a city centre facility, it now has a range of services that extend across Northern Ireland. In addition, it helps to prevent the increase in the number of in HIV infections through training, education and raising awareness, as well as campaigning and lobbying.
In Northern Ireland, about 1,000 people were living with HIV in 2016. The figure is now up to 1,325, so there is still a need to address that and the 30% increase in eight years. The latest figures show that the rate of HIV diagnosis in Northern Ireland is falling, but there are more HIV diagnoses among people of a heterosexual orientation.
This World AIDS Day, let us do more to remember those lost to HIV-related illnesses. Steps are being taken through the Government’s HIV action plan so that more can be done to end new HIV transmissions in England and across the whole United Kingdom. I ask the Minister: will he commit to ensuring that the devolved nations can play their part in ending new HIV transmissions by 2030? I know the Minister is committed to that, but I ask him again for the record.
Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for securing this debate ahead of World AIDS Day on 1 December. With his background as the head of policy for the National AIDS Trust, he brings a wealth of knowledge and expertise to this debate. In the short time since his election to this House, he has made a powerful difference on this issue. I also thank the public health Minister for being here and the swift leadership that he has shown since the general election.
With 105,000 people across the UK and more than 38 million people worldwide living with HIV, it is important that we take this moment to celebrate our successes in fighting the virus, but also to recognise the challenge that lies ahead. It is important to understand that constant action is required or we will fall back in our battle against HIV and AIDS. I agreed to become the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV, AIDS and sexual health, because this is a fight that we can and must win. At this point, I place on record my thanks to my fellow co-chairs on the APPG: my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), and Baroness Barker for their leadership on this issue.
AIDS is no longer an unrelenting reality that we have to endure, but a consequence of our collective failure to share the necessary knowledge, protection and medication with everyone who needs it. That some 38 million people are living with AIDS worldwide is a policy failure, not an inevitability. We can see the impact of sustained intervention over time. Since 2014 in the UK, there has been a 68% drop in new cases among gay men and a 12% drop in new cases among black African people, and there has been a 40% increase in the number of people on PrEP since 2021. In total, since the peak in 2014, there has been a 36% decrease in new cases, but we cannot and should not rest easy. The fight against HIV and AIDS is ongoing.
There is good news in the data, but there are warnings too. More than 42 million people around the world have died from AIDS-related illnesses since the start of the epidemic. In 2022 the number of new diagnoses increased for the first time, predominantly driven by an increase in cases among heterosexual women—the highest number of cases ever in my constituency of Gedling. We must seek to understand why and tackle the root causes immediately because one life affected by HIV and AIDS is one too many. But we should recognise that the life with AIDS that people suffered through the 1980s is no longer an inevitability; the fear that came from the unknown can and should be expelled. Treatments have improved and now people can live a long life with an undetectable and untransmittable HIV diagnosis.
We have reached this point because of the hard work of so many who came before us. I pay tribute to Terrence Higgins, one of the first people in the UK to die from AIDS. His legacy is the success that we see today. Sir Elton John led the way in breaking the stigma around AIDS, publicly stating that his sex life put him at risk and raising millions for AIDS charities. I also pay tribute to the scientists who worked to make drugs such as PrEP a reality and the activists who campaigned to keep AIDS on the agenda through the ’80s, ’90s and 2000s. We stand on their shoulders today. I hope we can do justice to their legacy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. I ask Members to please try to keep to two minutes if they can.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Thank you, Sir Mark. I will simply agree with what both the previous speakers have said. I commend the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for securing this debate and for his work with the National AIDS Trust. I positively support its report, along with the Terrence Higgins Trust and the Elton John AIDS Foundation, “Getting on track”, and I am pleased that the Minister has engaged with that report already. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV, AIDS and sexual health, I will focus on the global issues. We have already heard that there were 1.3 million new transmissions last year, and in sub-Saharan Africa, 62% of those infections were among women and girls.
I have three asks of the UK Government. First, I ask that they continue to be a major contributor to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Since 2002, the UK has committed over £5.4 billion, making it one of the largest donors, and it is extremely important that it continues to do so. Secondly, the UK needs to focus on expanding access to antiretroviral therapy—ART—for people living with HIV. ART is a lifesaving treatment that not only improves the health and quality of life of individuals but reduces the risk of HIV transmission.
Thirdly, the UK needs to be a leader in confronting anti-LGBT+ legislation globally. We know that the risk of arrest and criminality leads people to hide their sexuality, avoid testing and eschew treatment, because they are evidence of so-called subversive or criminal behaviours. Such laws are an impediment to progress and undermine the efforts of the UK to assist health systems. We must stand up against them, and I hope the Minister will confirm that.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for bringing forward this crucial debate. I will start by commending campaigners and activists who have worked tirelessly to ensure that we have international awareness of HIV and AIDS.
The legacy of racism surrounding the AIDS pandemic casts a long and enduring shadow for communities such as mine in Lambeth, and indeed across Africa and the Caribbean. Although the impact of the virus and our understanding of it has evolved, the legacy of racist attitudes towards AIDS continues to have consequences for black communities in the healthcare system. HIV-related racism and stigma increases vulnerability to infection in black communities, and those who are HIV-positive are less likely to come forward to be tested or to access treatment and health services.
Last year, more than one in three HIV diagnoses in Lambeth was classified as late, meaning that the immune system had already suffered damage. Across England, 44% of diagnoses are late and women are 51% more likely to receive such delayed diagnoses. Early detection saves lives, offering effective treatment that ensures that those living with HIV can lead long and healthy lives and not pass on the virus once it is suppressed.
People who are not infected are still at high risk because HIV stigma can prevent them from accessing information and education. Cultural taboos linked to sex and sexually transmitted diseases in black communities can also have an impact on people’s access to HIV prevention and education, which directly increases the vulnerability of those who are not infected.
Racist assumptions around HIV and AIDS have also had consequences in other areas of the healthcare system. As recently as 2021, the NHS had a discriminatory blood donation ban on black donors due to flawed science around HIV. The ban had a direct impact on sufferers of sickle cell, an illness that predominantly affects black communities. Treatment is dependent on blood transfusions, particularly for a rare blood group such as Ro, which is common in black people.
The legacy of those rules has resulted in a reluctance among the black community to come forward and donate blood. That is why I commend the work done by organisations such as the Terrence Higgins Trust, which makes a concerted effort to combat outdated and discriminatory policies and all the damage that they cause. I could not allow this opportunity to pass without mentioning the new Brixton blood donation centre in my constituency, which is opening in a few weeks. I extend an invitation to the Minister, and all Members, to come and visit the new clinic and to open their veins and donate. It is so important that we challenge the misgivings around blood donation and encourage people to donate.
Ending new HIV cases is not just a medical issue; it is a social justice issue. We have to challenge the racism and discrimination that prevents individuals from accessing care, education and support.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales). I wish to speak about the 1980s in Britain to reflect a perspective that may be more common in this place since the general election. I recently asked the Library what was the average age of Labour MPs first elected in 2024, and the answer is 43 years—it was quite a relief to hear I was below that.
For so many of us in this place, the 1980s made us who we are. For those of us who are gay, either we or the gay people we knew grew up with the legacy of stigma and a deficit of self-acceptance. Thankfully, where we lacked a political language, there were ways to weave together the grief, fear, shame, anger and regret that was forced upon gay people by homophobia, some of which was on the part of the state, some of society, and some of the tabloid press in the era defined by Margaret Thatcher’s premiership. Too often the response of gay men was:
“Run away, turn away, run away, turn away”
because
“the answers you seek will never be found at home
The love that you need will never be found at home.”
For many young gay men, they were the smalltown boys who Jimmy Somerville sang about, and they ran away to places such as London, Manchester or Bournemouth.
One man who left for Bournemouth was John Eaddie. Until very recently, we have known very little about John. We know he was gay. We know he ran a guest hotel that was a haven to meet and drink in the late ’70s and early ’80s. We know he was charming and friendly. We know he was not the kind of guy to throw himself in front of the camera—in fact, he would be the one taking photographs. We know it was not in a big city but by the seaside where John presented doctors with the first signs of a mystery illness in 1981. We know he quickly deteriorated and ended up in hospital. We know that his carers in Bournemouth, baffled, sent him to the Royal Brompton in London, where his immune system was rapidly collapsing. And we know that he died in his tenth hospital day on October 29 1981. His cause of death, at the age of 49, was recorded as “pneumonia”.
John’s death is in fact the first recorded AIDS death in Britain. His story remained a mystery for 40 years, and we only know now because of a research team, which involved Paul Brand, Nathan Lee and Mark Jordan wading through thousands of death records. I want to thank that remarkable research team, as well as Paul Brand for his help with parts of this speech. As the Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East, I am honoured to put the name of John Eaddie, a former Bournemouth resident, into the official parliamentary record. No longer, I hope, will he be known as “Patient Zero” or the “Brompton Patient”. As a gay man whose generation was being born as John’s was being devastated, I am honoured to remember John and his story, and to help alongside others to contribute to the eradication of the stigma of HIV and AIDS.
Many of those who died of AIDS did not have children, and their older relatives are dying, so before this period passes into the past, we must tell their story. We must hold it here, thank the doctors and nurses in the LGBT community and allies who went far beyond every call of duty to care, and honour everyone who suffered and died, or anybody who lived in shame and died in secrecy. No longer will the last record of John Eaddie be in The Lancet medical journal, where even in that record there was no mention of AIDS as his cause of death, because it had not been invented as a term at that point. Known for much of my lifetime as “Patient Zero”, I believe we can now finally honour the man by his real name: John Eaddie. May he rest in peace.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) on securing this debate to mark World AIDS Day. Colleagues have made important points about the huge progress, both medically and socially, that we have made as a nation over recent years, but of course there is always more to do. In 2023, there were 132 people in Exeter diagnosed with HIV and accessing HIV care. It is estimated that around 5% of all people living with HIV in England are undiagnosed, so there will inevitably be people in Exeter living undiagnosed today. I therefore welcome the continued roll-out of opt-out testing to identify and support those people.
I want to touch briefly on two points. First, on the international picture, addressing inequalities in global health requires a country-led approach that puts grassroots communities in the driving seat. It is important, however, that such an approach includes an unflinching commitment to defending and extending human rights. The global HIV pandemic has demonstrated the importance of addressing human rights violations as a central tenet of driving down HIV rates. Today, UNAIDS releases its report into human rights and HIV/AIDS. The report, which includes a foreword by Sir Elton John, demonstrates that the world is not on track to end the HIV crisis, neither is it on track to meet the UN’s targets for societal enablers, which aim to reduce the social and legal impediments that limit access to lifesaving HIV services.
LGBT human rights are increasingly under attack from authoritarian Governments and otherwise democratic Governments whose elected leaders choose to vilify minority groups for political gain. That is becoming a central tenet in the playbook of extremist forces, which makes it all the more important for the UK Government to take a global lead in advocating for human rights if we want to reach our commitments on eradicating HIV transmissions.
Secondly, and very briefly, I want to use this opportunity to thank the many volunteers and activists across our country and around the world who have worked so hard to get us to the position we are in now. From caring for friends and relatives to protesting and setting up activist organisations, the fight against HIV and AIDS has always been led by committed individuals.
In particular, I want to recognise the work of Nick Perry, a much-loved and admired resident of Hackney who sadly and suddenly died recently. Nick was a polymath, an expert amateur historian, a keen advocate for good planning and place, a volunteer for London Pride and, importantly, an HIV education advocate who volunteered with the Terrence Higgins Trust. I recommend to everyone his comedy stand-up segment at Nerd Nite London, available on YouTube, which tackles HIV issues and sexual health in a very accessible way. He was incredibly generous with his time and was a great mentor to me and many others, and will be very much missed by everyone he met. My condolences remain with his husband, Andrew Grace.
People like Nick and many others in this country and around the world will always be the key to our collective ambition to end all new HIV transmissions. We must do everything we can as a Government to support them.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for securing this important debate. All the words we have heard today have been poignant and impactful.
I want to speak about the impact of AIDS on women. In the UK, women make up a third of people living with HIV and just over a third of new HIV diagnoses. It is crucial that any strategy for AIDS does not forget women and their unique experiences of this disease. Often, women with HIV are some of the most disadvantaged members of society. The Terrence Higgins Trust estimates that almost half of women living with HIV in the UK live below the poverty line. It also estimates that over half of women living with HIV have experienced violence because of their HIV status. I spoke earlier today in a debate on tackling violence against women and girls, and this is yet another opportunity to highlight the actions we need to be taking to ensure that women in the UK do not have to live in fear.
I also want to raise the importance of women getting tested for HIV, as it can often feel like there are too many barriers in place. We have made great strides in the treatment of the disease; it is vital that women can also access those treatments.
It is also important to raise the fact that often, black, Asian and ethnic minority women face worse outcomes and experiences in our healthcare services than white women. That will no doubt also be seen in how those women access HIV care.
I will finish by saying that we must strive so that all those living with HIV are able to do so with freedom from HIV secrecy, knowing that they are accepted and that HIV is not a label, and are free to pursue their dreams, faith and relationships free from stigma and discrimination.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
I thank hon. Members for their brief contributions and for giving time for the Front Bench speakers.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Mark, and indeed to represent the Liberal Democrats for World AIDS Day. I thank the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for his excellent introduction to this topic and for securing the debate. There have been so many brilliant contributions. I want to leave plenty of time for the other Front Benchers to speak, so I will not go through them all, but I am very impressed that in such a short time we have covered so much ground, and so eloquently. I particularly want to pick up on the speech by the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), who powerfully told us the story of John Eaddie, and thank him for that contribution.
AIDS is one of the globe’s biggest killers, as we all know, despite being entirely preventable and treatable. In 2023, nearly 40 million people across the globe were living with HIV, 1.3 million of whom became newly infected within that year. Given that it is entirely preventable and treatable, we can aspire to bring that number right down to zero.
In the United Kingdom the fight has been serious and ongoing since the 1980s, and yet since 2021 the numbers diagnosed have been increasing, while the numbers tested have been decreasing. We absolutely have to ensure that that is turned around rapidly. Testing is still 4% lower than pre-covid levels, and that has been driven by a drop among heterosexual men, where the testing rates are 22% lower than pre-covid. The most recent UK-wide estimates have about 5,000 people as undiagnosed and not aware that they are living with HIV. Again, that shows that the importance of testing—I entirely support the call for opt-out testing—is paramount to bring such people into the healthcare that they need and deserve, and to prevent the disease spreading.
Internationally, good progress has been made, but the picture is still extremely concerning. I want to pick up on the inequality in that picture. Every week, globally, 4,000 adolescent girls—young women aged between 15 and 24 years—become infected with HIV; in 2023, 3,100 of those infections occurred in sub-Saharan Africa. Poverty and displacement drive those higher rates of infection, and there is a worrying link between conflict, sexual violence and HIV. That is something we need to address.
I want to be brief, so to summarise the policy ask, the Liberal Democrats are keen to ensure universal access to HIV prevention, such as PrEP, and treatment. I have mentioned the importance of opt-out testing. We still need to work to eliminate the stigma and the discrimination linked to HIV, especially the racist element highlighted so carefully earlier. We press on the Government the importance of restoring the public health grant, which the Conservatives have cut by a fifth since 2015, to deliver better access to sexual health services. On helping globally, it is important that we restore, or at least set out the path to restoring, the 0.7% of gross domestic product for international aid, to enable issues such as AIDS to be prioritised in accordance with our requirements. With that, I will leave time for the other Front Benchers.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark.
As we mark World AIDS Day, we are called to reflect on the progress that we have made, on the challenges that remain and on the road ahead in our collective fight against HIV and the stigma so often associated with it, especially in the past. The UK has much to be proud of in that effort. Through the introduction of an HIV action plan, we set ambitious goals, such as an 80% reduction in new HIV infections by 2025. Remarkably, we achieved the UNAIDS 95-95-95 target back in 2020: 95% of individuals were living with HIV diagnosed, or presumed to be living with it diagnosed; 99% of them were on treatment; and 97% were achieving good viral suppression. Those figures reflect the dedication of our healthcare professionals and the effectiveness of our public health strategies. When diagnosed early, people with HIV in the UK can now expect a relatively normal life expectancy. The disease is no longer the death sentence it once was. The hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) spoke about that.
Sadly, that is not the case worldwide. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) highlighted the starkness of the global picture. Last year, AIDS-related illnesses claimed as many lives as did the sum total of all wars, homicides and natural disasters that ravaged our planet. In parts of southern Africa, in countries such as Botswana and Zimbabwe, more than one fifth of the adult population live with HIV. Such figures remind us that the global fight against AIDS is far from over.
Troublingly, within our own borders, we are starting to witness a reversal of hard-won gains. A long and steady decline of HIV rates in the UK has suddenly and sharply risen in recent years. HIV diagnoses in England doubled from roughly 3,000 to a little more than 6,000 between 2020 and 2023, unfortunately reversing more than a decade of progress and throwing the Government’s goal to end HIV transmission by 2030 into some jeopardy.
We must focus on what is driving that resurgence. One key factor is a worrying trend identified by the World Health Organisation: a decline in condom use, especially in younger populations. Between 2014 and 2022, a survey of nearly 250,000 adolescents across Europe found that only 61% of sexually active young men and 48% of young women in England reported using a condom during their last sexual encounter.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip talked about the success of PrEP, its greater availability and how it is an important tool in preventing HIV infections. It has undoubtedly saved lives. The Minister therefore has a complex challenge in how he will continue to promote lifesaving interventions such as PrEP while reinforcing the importance of safe practices such as the use of condoms. I am interested in the Minister’s plans to achieve that.
Another part of the answer is an effective testing strategy. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip said—to quote more of his speech—it is about testing, testing, testing. I know that the Labour party like to have the same word three times in a row. Successive Governments have been working very hard to reduce stigma and normalise HIV testing through campaigns such as the “I Test” programme, which helped to normalise HIV testing as something routine and beneficial, both for the individual concerned and wider society. Such campaigns have largely been targeted at communities with a higher HIV presence.
The Conservative Government introduced opt-out testing, which has had a significant impact and is now available in 34 emergency departments across the country. It has identified hundreds of people who were previously undiagnosed or had been lost and followed up with treatment of HIV and hepatitis B and C. The identification of those cases helps the individual concerned and also helps to reduce transmission among the wider population.
What plans do the Government have to expand the testing into more areas of the country and into A&Es across the country so that we can find out what other undiagnosed cases might be out there? Between 2019 and 2021, the estimated number of undiagnosed cases in England declined, but opt-out testing has suggested that there are more cases than we realise. Does the Minister have plans to re-estimate the number of cases of undiagnosed HIV that may be out in the community waiting to be treated?
When one studies the statistics of new HIV diagnoses, it is clear that there has been a rise driven more recently by the migration of individuals who are HIV positive. I wonder what considerations the Minister has given to HIV testing for this population, and what plans he has to target measures to reduce HIV within that group.
Finally, I want to talk about education, which has been and remains a key pillar in protecting young people from HIV and AIDS and reducing the stigma associated with testing and living with HIV. We must recognise the extent to which the pandemic disrupted health outreach programmes and traditional learning, leaving many young people without access to vital information. It is important that young people feel comfortable seeking advice and accessing resources. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the tireless work of organisations such as the Terrence Higgins Trust, the National AIDS Trust and local sexual health clinics, who have continued to provide lifesaving services under incredibly difficult circumstances. However, those organisations cannot tackle the crisis alone. Indeed, with the Government’s new Budget, they face high charges for national insurance contributions. The Terrence Higgins Trust employs more than 200 people. What conversations has the Minister had with the Treasury about exempting such charities from paying national insurance on their employees so that they can continue their good and lifesaving work, rather than just paying more tax into this Government?
We need to ensure that those charities have the funding and resources to expand their outreach, particularly in underserved and high-risk communities. On this World AIDS Day, let us reaffirm our commitment to ending this epidemic. Let us celebrate the progress we have made while recognising that there is still much work to be done. Let us ensure that future generations can live in a world that is free from the shadow of AIDS.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I am extremely honoured to have the opportunity to speak today at the first dedicated debate on HIV and AIDS in this Parliament. I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for securing the debate on a topic that is close not only to both of our hearts but to the heart of this Government.
We are a Government who are committed to ending new HIV transmissions in England by 2030. With World AIDS Day fast approaching on 1 December, the debate is a welcome opportunity to highlight the importance of our new HIV action plan, which we aim to publish in summer of next year. Achieving that goal demands collaboration and that is why dialogue and engagement with every part of the system will be crucial as we progress with the development of the new plan.
I am delighted to have the continuing support of colleagues from across the House, and like many speakers today I commend the engagement of fantastic charities and organisations such as the Terrence Higgins Trust, the National AIDS Trust and the Elton John AIDS Foundation, among many others. I also pay tribute to all Members who have contributed to the debate. I assure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that, as the Minister responsible for public health in England, I will liaise closely with my counterparts in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to ensure that we are all on track to end new cases of HIV in our respective jurisdictions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Michael Payne) spoke powerfully, and the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) both raised the issues of global inequality, stigma and the pervasive legislation that still exists in far too many parts of the world. I assure them and the whole House that this new Government will continue to be a major contributor to the Global Fund. Our obligations on the international stage are clear: we are not just about tackling HIV in this country, but around the globe. On human rights and anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, this Government and this country will always stand for equality, human rights and justice across the world, as well as at home.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) spoke specifically about issues within black and minority ethnic communities. I would love to come and visit the new clinic she mentioned; consider it a date.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) made a lovely and loving contribution to the debate. On behalf of the British Government, I thank him for putting the name of John Eaddie on the record. John is no longer just a statistic; he is a human being who happened to die of AIDS. We pay tribute to John and to those who died after him, ahead of all the drugs, treatments and advances in technology that we now have. However, their death was not in vain, because we remember them and the sacrifices of their friends and families to support them in really difficult times so that we have a better world ahead of us today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) and the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, also contributed to the debate. I assure the hon. Lady that this Government are committed to public health and prevention and although I cannot circumnavigate the Budget process, we will do all we can to restore the public health grant across this Parliament and into the future, because public health and prevention matter. They are a priority for us all.
On Monday, I had the pleasure of attending the launch of the voluntary and community sector report produced jointly by the Terrence Higgins Trust, the National AIDS Trust and the Elton John AIDS Foundation, where I offered my reflections on its valuable recommendations. I welcome the report and its recommendations, and I look forward to developing the HIV action plan alongside such a vital sector. We remain committed to hearing from those whose frontline expertise, grassroots connections and powerful voices will ensure that our plan is not only ambitious but grounded in the lived experiences of those it seeks to support.
Let me be clear: getting to zero new transmissions means smashing stigma. World AIDS Day is a stark reminder of how far we have come since the 1980s, but this year’s theme of tackling stigma starkly shows how far we have to go. It calls on all of us, not just as lawmakers but as members of our communities to reflect on the prejudice that people living with HIV have faced through not only a life-threatening illness but alienation, misinformation and discrimination. I have been thrilled to see the innovation and effectiveness of stigma-reduction strategies across the country. I am keen to build on that knowledge and work closely with the UK Health Security Agency as it continues to monitor stigma data through the “Positive Voices” survey report, to ensure that addressing stigma is a key priority for our new HIV action plan.
The experiences of the 1980s should remind all of us that stigma thrives in ignorance and silence. That is why we are determined to address it head-on, as part of honouring the legacy and work of so many others who went before. For the avoidance of doubt, we will not be satisfied until the number of transmissions reaches zero, yet there remain differences in the rate of diagnoses between demographics.
As the numbers move towards zero, we must work together to reach those communities that have not been captured thus far. That means including and empowering those voices, not essentialising them. It means cultural competence, innovation and collaboration. That is why we are hosting engagement sessions and roundtables in parallel with external stakeholders, including people with lived experience, the voluntary and community sector, professional bodies, local partners and others. We are working alongside UKHSA, NHS England and a broad range of system partners to inform the development of the new action plan, which will build on the progress made on the existing plan and guarantee that it is robust, inclusive and evidence-based.
Central to that effort is the importance of testing. That is a message we cannot repeat enough. I apologise to the shadow Minister, but I am going to repeat it: test, test, test. Testing is the gateway to prevention, treatment and ultimately ending new HIV transmission. We know that HIV opt-out testing works well. Over the past 27 months, more than 2 million HIV tests have been conducted, reaching those who do not typically engage with sexual health services.
Tomorrow, UKHSA will publish its opt-out testing report, providing us with the latest data. That will inform the next steps for the expansion of opt-out testing. We will also use that as a foundation to explore how our action plan can build on those successes—successes such as the national HIV testing week, yet we know that lower levels of testing persist among black African and heterosexual groups. We have seen that trend intersect with women, too. That requires tailoring our approach to reach those people living with undiagnosed HIV, who have been overlooked.
PrEP plays a vital role in the combination approach. Breakthroughs in science and medicine mean that, with the right treatment, people living with HIV can now lead long, healthy lives. The PrEP road map was published by the HIV action plan implementation steering group in February this year, identifying barriers to access for under-represented groups. That road map will guide our efforts to improve access, uptake and the use of PrEP among those most at risk of HIV.
In closing, I want to say that we are determined to reach zero HIV transmissions. On World AIDS day, let us honour those we have lost by recommitting ourselves to a future free from fear, misinformation and discrimination. The “Don’t die of ignorance” slogan is sadly as relevant today as it was on release. Together with science, compassion and unity we can achieve a future of zero new HIV transmissions, with stigma consigned to history.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. In the 20 seconds we have left, I leave it to Mr Beales to say a few words.
Danny Beales
Thank you, Sir Mark. I will be brief, because I have to be. I thank the Minister and everyone who contributed. It is clear there is cross-party support for this action. The Minister will have our full backing in taking this plan forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered World AIDS Day.
Written Statements
Statutory Gambling Levy and Online Slots Stake Limit
(2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by my noble Friend the Minister for Gambling, Baroness Twycross:
I wish to inform the House that His Majesty’s Government have today published their response to the public consultation entitled “Consultation on the structure, distribution and governance of the statutory levy on gambling operators”.
The current funding system for research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harms reliant on voluntary donations from industry is no longer fit for purpose. While the industry’s significant uplift in the level of donations in recent years is welcome, we recognise that the quantum of funding is not the only requirement for an effective and equitable system.
That is why we are taking the decision to introduce a statutory levy as a priority, in line with our manifesto commitment to reduce gambling harms. The levy will be paid by operators and collected and administered by the Gambling Commission under the strategic direction of the Government. Today’s publication represents a significant change to funding and commissioning arrangements. It will deliver increased and trusted investment directed where it is needed most. This will further strengthen the evidence base to inform policy, and build an effective prevention and treatment system across the country. We want the public to be better aware of the risks of gambling, and for anyone suffering from gambling harms to access timely and effective support when and where they need it.
The Government will implement the statutory levy as follows:
The structure of the levy
The levy will be charged at a set rate for all holders of a Gambling Commission operating licence, depending on the sector. In recognition of the higher rates of problem gambling associated with products online compared to most land-based products, as well as the higher operating costs in the land-based sector, the levy will see online operators pay more towards research, prevention and treatment. The levy will be introduced via secondary legislation and ensure critical funding is flowing to priority projects and services in the next financial year.
We have had clear commitments from industry that operators will maintain their voluntary financial contributions to research, prevention and treatment under the current regime, especially to support the National Gambling Support Network, until the levy is in force. This consultation response should provide sufficient notice to licensees of our approach and ultimately delivers simplicity for all parts of the new system.
The distribution of the levy
The levy will be collected by the Gambling Commission, as above. To maximise the input of world-leading expertise and authority across our public bodies in the future system, the Gambling Commission will allocate funding to a commissioning lead for each of the research, prevention and treatment pillars:
Research will be allocated 20% of levy funding, and will be overseen by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) to deliver a bespoke Research Programme on Gambling, and to the Gambling Commission to direct further research in line with the licensing objectives;
Prevention will be allocated 30% of levy funding to develop a comprehensive approach to prevention and early intervention with the lead organisation as yet to be decided. However, further consideration of the evidence is needed in order to appoint a lead commissioning body in this crucial and novel area for the Government’s approach to tackling gambling-related harm.
Treatment will be allocated 50% of levy funding and be overseen by NHS England, and appropriate bodies in Scotland and Wales, to commission the full treatment pathway, from referral and triage through to aftercare.
I recognise that many of those interested in this area have been expecting the Government’s final decisions on all aspects of the design of the future levy system, especially regarding prevention on which we consulted broadly. Ultimately, prevention is a crucial part of the Government’s efforts to further reduce gambling-related harm and it is important we take the time to get this right.
However, the statutory instrument introducing the levy is silent on the distribution of levy funding, and our overriding priority is to meet our commitment to having the levy in place by the summer.
That is why we are seeking to publish this initial response and progress the legislative process. We will continue to work at pace to finalise our decisions on prevention soon. Our aim is to publish a further response document in the coming months and I will update the House in due course.
The governance of the levy
A Gambling Levy Programme Board will be established to be the central oversight mechanism for the Government. This will bring together key Government Departments, including the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, HM Treasury, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. It will also include representatives from the Scottish and Welsh Governments to ensure the levy is making an impact on the ground.
Alongside the board, a Gambling Levy Advisory Group will be established to provide expert advice on funding priorities and emerging issues in support of commissioning bodies’ efforts to deliver on the Government’s objectives. We will conduct a formal review of the levy system within five years, where the structure and health of the levy system will be assessed and adjustments can be made to ensure we are achieving our aims.
Policy impact
While we expect the statutory levy will have some financial impact on gambling operators, we think these are necessary and proportionate. The levy will increase the independence of spending and Government oversight regarding commissioning decisions. It will play an important part in the Government’s wider aim to have a better informed and protected public when it comes to gambling-related harms. This investment will also ensure the Government and the Gambling Commission have the robust evidence needed to strike the right balance between freedom and protection as new challenges arise.
The publication today is further evidence of the Government’s continued commitment to tackling gambling-related harm. We want to ensure that people across our country can access trusted and quality information, support and treatment when it comes to gambling-related harms. We believe that the introduction of the statutory levy is a crucial step in meeting these aims. I will place a copy of the response to the consultation in the Libraries of both Houses.
Stake limits for online slots
Online slots are a higher-risk gambling product, associated with large losses, long sessions, and binge play. However, unlike land-based gaming machines which offer broadly similar games, they have no statutory stake limits. The Gambling Act Review White Paper, published on 27 April 2023 under the previous Government, committed to addressing the risk posed to players by these theoretically limitless online slots stakes. I wish to inform the House that His Majesty’s Government intend to proceed with the introduction of stake limits for online slots through a statutory instrument.
A consultation was run from 26 July to 4 October 2023 that invited views on a stake limit for online slots games of £2, £5, £10 or £15 per spin. It also outlined options for additional protections for those aged 18 to 24 through a £2 limit, a £4 limit, or specific protections on a case-by-case basis. Ministers have considered the consultation and available evidence and the Government have decided to introduce stake limits of £5 per spin for adults aged 25 and over. We will also introduce a statutory maximum limit of £2 per spin for young adults aged 18 to 24 years old, whom the evidence suggests can be particularly vulnerable to harms associated with high stakes play.
These stake limits will be subject to an implementation period. This means that, following debates in Parliament, operators will have six weeks from the day the statutory instrument is made by the Minister to implement the £5 limit and a further six weeks to implement the £2 limit.
The introduction of these stake limits is proportionate and is a key step in achieving the Government’s objective of reducing gambling-related harms. Importantly, these changes bring online slot games in line with existing restrictions on slot machines in casinos. These limits are also aligned with the recommendation made by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s second report of Session 2023-24, “Gambling regulation”, published in December 2023.
[HCWS253]
Breakfast Club Early Adopters
(2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
This Government believe that every child deserves access to a brilliant education, including the opportunity to have a supportive start to the school day. That is why the Government made a manifesto commitment to introduce free breakfast clubs for primary school children, breaking down barriers to opportunity and setting every child up to achieve.
As a first step towards this commitment, from today, schools can apply to become one of up to 750 early adopter schools, providing free breakfast clubs from April 2025, as part of a test-and-learn phase. These schools will be funded to provide access to a free, universal breakfast club lasting at least 30 minutes that includes food. New breakfast clubs, once rolled out nationally, will be available to every state-funded school with primary aged children.
Breakfast clubs help make sure that children are ready to start the school day. They support children’s attendance and attainment. Breakfast clubs offer much more than just food; they can serve as a welcoming space for children, providing valuable opportunities for them to play, learn, and socialise at the beginning of the school day. Breakfast clubs also give families more choices in childcare and support with the cost of living. We want every school, every child, and every family to benefit, which is why the Chancellor tripled the investment in breakfast clubs in the autumn 2024 Budget to over £30 million in the 2025-26 financial year.
Full details on the early adopter scheme, including how schools can apply to take part, will be available on gov.uk.
[HCWS256]
Epigenetics
(2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Patient Safety, Women’s Health and Mental Health (Baroness Merron) has made the following written statement:
Today I am announcing the launch of a new research collaboration between the Government, UK Biobank and Oxford Nanopore Technologies. The new generation of nanopore-based molecular sensing technology created by this leading UK-headquartered, life science company will be used to conduct detailed genetic sequencing of 50,000 samples in the UK Biobank, the UK’s primary biomedical database.
This represents a significant expansion of Oxford Nanopore’s collaboration with UK Biobank which started with a 5,000-genome pilot. This new collaboration will create the world’s first comprehensive dataset of epigenetic modifications in the human genome and demonstrate the UK’s continued leadership in the field of genetics. Further exploration of epigenetics—the emerging study of how DNA and its expression is affected by modifications that do not change the underlying DNA sequence—could unlock a deeper understanding of the causes of diseases such as cancer and neurological conditions. This could pave the way for new diagnostic and targeted treatments, improving patient care and giving hope to the millions of people who live with conditions like these.
This expansion of the epigenetics programme is an early example of collaboration between Oxford Nanopore and HMG, building on the plans to form a strategic partnership announced on 5 November. I will provide further updates to the House on this collaboration as it develops.
[HCWS257]
Domestic Abuse Protection Notices and Orders
(2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and I are today pleased to announce the launch of a pilot for the new domestic abuse protection notice (DAPN) and domestic abuse protection order (DAPO). DAPNs and DAPOs will be launching in Greater Manchester Police, three London boroughs with the Metropolitan Police Service—Croydon, Bromley and Sutton—and the British Transport Police. A further two sites, North Wales Police and Cleveland Police, will be onboarded in early 2025.
The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 legislated for the new DAPN and DAPO with the aim to bring together the strongest elements of the existing protective order regime into a single, comprehensive, flexible order.
The roll-out of these new protections is a key part of the Government’s safer streets mission and the unprecedented aim to halve violence against women and girls (VAWG) in a decade. Domestic abuse is the most prevalent form of VAWG, with 2.2 million people estimated to have experienced domestic abuse in the year ending June 2024 [1]. Taking action to tackle domestic abuse and improve the justice system response to this abhorrent abuse is therefore central to achieving this Government’s ambition. The previous Government failed to roll out these new protections.
The new DAPN and DAPO will provide protection from all forms of domestic abuse, including controlling or coercive behaviour and will give the police and courts powers to impose tougher restrictions on perpetrators of domestic abuse, including mandatory notification requirements, attendance at a behaviour change programme and electronic monitoring. Breach of any requirement imposed by the DAPO will be a criminal offence punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. The DAPO will also be the first cross-jurisdictional order available in the family, civil and criminal courts meaning police, victims and third parties can apply.
In accordance with section 50 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, I am publishing police statutory guidance on DAPNs and DAPOs and the consultation response. A public consultation was undertaken for eight weeks in February 2024 on the draft statutory guidance and this updated statutory guidance reflects the feedback from the consultation. The guidance aims to provide police forces with information to support the effective use of DAPNs and DAPOs. These will be published on www.gov.uk today.
We would like to thank all the partners who have worked so hard to reach this point. This is an important step in strengthening the police and criminal justice response to domestic abuse and keeping victims safe.
[1] Crime Survey for England and Wales, respondents aged over 16 in England and Wales.
[HCWS254]
Veterans’ Access to Social Housing
(2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
As we set out in our manifesto and the Prime Minister reiterated in his conference speech on 24 September, this Government are committed to supporting our armed forces communities and ensuring veterans have access to the housing support they need.
To honour that commitment and facilitate access to social housing for veterans, I am today laying regulations to exempt all former members of the regular armed forces from any local connection tests for social housing applied by local councils in England.
Having a connection to an area should not be a barrier to housing for those who put their lives on the line for our country.
The regulations laid today will ensure that no veteran of the regular armed forces will need to meet a local connection test for social housing regardless of when they last served.
The Deputy Prime Minister has already written to local councils to remind them of the guidance and flexibilities to facilitate access of veterans to social housing.
Statutory guidance will be updated to reflect these changes. This includes specific guidance on improving access to social housing for members of the armed forces with examples of ways in which councils can ensure that service personnel and their families are given appropriate priority for social housing. We know that councils use the flexibilities available to them, but we must ensure that no veteran is unfairly penalised.
In addition to these measures, the Government have committed a further £3.5 million to the reducing veteran homelessness programme. This includes Op FORTITUDE, the single referral pathway for veterans at risk of, or experiencing, homelessness.
We will continue to work with the sector to deliver affordable homes to meet the needs of veterans as part of our broader commitment to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, and in the development of our long-term housing strategy.
Veterans represent the very best of our country. The Government are committed to honouring their sacrifices and ensuring homes will be there for heroes across the UK.
[HCWS255]
Grand Committee
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]
Wednesday 27th November 2024
(2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 18-III Third marshalled list for Grand Committee - (26 Nov 2024)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bell rings and resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 2: Product requirements
Amendment 23
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to ensure regulated marketplaces co-operate with emergency services (where appropriate) to protect consumers from unsafe products.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, much of this Bill, as we know, is underpinned by secondary legislation, which has yet to be set out. That, of course, includes online marketplaces. To support the development of effective regulation, the Government, I hope, will set out their timetable for developing such secondary legislation as soon as possible. They should also provide clarification on who those referred to in the Bill as the “relevant authorities” are, particularly in relation to online marketplaces, which have to co-operate with others in Clause 2.
The UK’s fire and rescue services provide front-line response when dangerous products are sold in an online marketplace and catch fire or set fire to other properties and cause terrible burns to anyone who happens to be nearby. The London Fire Brigade, to which I am most grateful for the information it has given me, has seen a stark rise in e-bike and e-scooter fires in recent years. It responds to an incident about every 48 hours now. In this year alone, there were 131 fires from January to September. Given the role of the fire and rescue services, it would be helpful to set it out and recognise it in regulations. That is the reason for my Amendment 23, which is the lead amendment in this group, and Amendment 105, which goes with it.
Amendment 23 would ensure that regulated marketplaces co-operate with emergency services where appropriate to protect consumers from unsafe products and allow fire and rescue services to respond to fire safety concerns about known products. Some online marketplaces already co-operate with fire and rescue services. One of those—which I will not name because I do not think it appropriate to provide advertising—is a major online supplier that does include safety advice from the London Fire Brigade, but unfortunately, not all sites do.
The Bill is a welcome step to protect consumers from harmful products. It has very wide scope, but it needs to cover the online marketplaces that facilitate the sale or giving away of products through private individuals from one to another, as well as those sold as new. That includes the likes of some of the trading websites—again, I will not name them because I do not want to advertise them. From investigations by the London Fire Brigade, we know that products sought from second-hand online marketplaces include e-bikes, chargers and batteries, which have the potential to cause great harm. It has seen examples of incidents such as the Sutton railway station fire in March, when fire crews were called to the station during rush hour as commuters were on their way home. A bike owner had bought an e-bike from an online marketplace four months beforehand and had had no issues with the purchase. The station commander has confirmed that the fire was ferocious, happened extremely quickly and would have been devastating if things had worked out differently. He said that he hates to think of the tragic consequences that could have occurred. It was, in a way, just fortunate that it happened where it did and that no one was injured, but it serves to highlight the dangers when products are purchased or given away for free from one individual to another.
I know that Amendment 32 has already been debated, and I apologise to the Committee that I was unable to be here; I was on an aeroplane, because the railway lines were flooded. But I read Hansard, and the comments there are all relevant to the stark rise in e-bike fires in the capital.
Turning to Amendment 105 and Clause 7, the proposals would give the regulator the power to require companies subject to the regulation to provide information on the products being sold. As drafted, this clause would give the regulator only the power to require the provision of information and does not give them a responsibility to share this with bodies that have a statutory duty or responsibility for public safety, including fire and rescue services. The role of the data from the London Fire Brigade has been really important and has shown us the scale of the problem. Ensuring that emergency services have access to all the data will be welcome going forward in monitoring safety and spotting things—perhaps products that we currently cannot even imagine, which may come on to the marketplace and subsequently prove to be unsafe.
The change to Clause 7 in my Amendment 105 would ensure that regulations make provision for sharing information about unsafe products with the emergency services, including fire and rescue services, and that they have the information they need to respond to these emerging risks. They also run prevention campaigns and can provide accurate safety messaging, which can all be supportive of public safety, so that the Bill can meet its overall and much-needed aims. I beg to move.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I rise briefly to support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness. I also draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that when I moved Amendments 2 and 27 in an earlier group, on the issue of installation, I pointed out that in respect of the potentially very dangerous lithium-ion batteries used in EV charging-point systems, for example, and solar panel array storage batteries, there is currently no requirement on the competent person scheme individual who is installing those systems to notify relevant authorities of the installing of those batteries.
I pointed out at the time that lithium-ion batteries, about which we will no doubt speak a great deal when we come to group 5, can create huge fires at high temperatures and very toxic gases; I also pointed out that, crucially, they cannot be put out by the use of water. That is why it is so important that the relevant authorities, particularly the emergency services, are aware of the current location of such devices. The current arrangements require the individual house owner to make such a notification. My amendment argued that it should be the responsibility of the installer not only to check on the safety of the entire system but to make that notification. For that reason, I am particularly supportive of the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, had I been a little shrewder on the grouping, I would have included in this group Amendment 106, which we will debate in the antepenultimate group of the Bill, as it also addresses Clause 7 and goes after the same objective of information sharing. Whether it is lithium-ion batteries or some other danger, it is important that we learn from the problems that are established and that the right people can get that information, so that learning process can start.
I suggest that, whether it is the process set down by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which we support, or something like my Amendment 106, or something that the drafters sitting behind the Minister can do much better than we can, there needs to be a point in this Bill about a process of information sharing, whether it is set out in detail, as in my amendment, which talks about who or what those bodies are, or whether it is a more general duty, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has set out. We support these proposals, and I hope that we can have a debate next time. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the need to understand dangers, learn from them and move to be able to prevent them.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her important amendments. I, too, am looking forward to exploring the meaning of “relevant authorities” in the next group. If this is really about product safety, of course we have to have regard to unsafe products, and of course that information ought to be shared with the emergency services, so I have absolutely no problem in supporting all those amendments.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this interesting debate. Obviously, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, speaks with great experience in this area, on the higher risk of the online second-hand marketplace and the relationship between that, the information and the emergency services, as she so rightly says. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, which we will debate later on. I have also noted Amendment 106 from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which seeks to ensure that the information-sharing provisions apply to more bodies, including medical examiners and coroners. In fact, he has put an extensive list in that amendment.
On the issue of secondary legislation, I cannot as yet commit to a detailed timetable. Clearly, this Bill is starting in your Lordships’ House, so we do not know when it is going to get through and, I hope, receive Royal Assent. Then work will obviously take place in relation to secondary legislation, but my understanding is that, in the meantime, we are continuing to work with stakeholders to make sure that we can do this as quickly as possible.
We are coming on to the issue of relevant authorities but, as we see it, it is restricted under Clauses 3(2) and 6(2) to those authorities fulfilling a public function, such as local authorities and sectoral regulators. We think that any further specification would limit our ability to ensure that enforcement authorities can be equipped with necessary powers to enforce their areas of responsibility. Relevant authority and inspector functions are outlined in Clauses 3(3), 6(3), 3(4) and 6(4) respectively, but I suspect that we will come back to this in relation to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, later on.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster, mentioned lithium batteries. We know that he is making a very important point—we very much acknowledge that. We think that the powers in the Bill will allow us to determine what changes and updates to our regulations may be needed to ensure the best protections for consumers and support for reputable retailers, including those related to installation.
On data sharing, which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has raised, I have worked with the noble Baroness in the past on CO2 safety issues, where again the issue of data being shared is very important. That also relates to death certification, in getting accurate information. I well understand that. The draft provisions already allow regulations to make provision for information sharing and co-operation with emergency services. Existing legislation that seeks to facilitate information exchange does not always cover the type of data needed to help protect consumers from unsafe products. We believe that the Bill aims to improve data exchange on product safety among public authorities, emergency services and consumers. Powers in the Bill will allow for regulations to enable extending data-sharing agreements to include public agencies such as emergency services. Sharing information is clearly an important feature in the work of relevant authorities; their ability to obtain and share information enables them to undertake their activities effectively and efficiently. As Clause 7(5) makes clear, any information-sharing regulations must not contravene existing data protection legislation, which covers personal data.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I am most grateful to the Minister for having such an open door in discussing these issues. I may be wrong, but I understood from the London Fire Brigade that, although its collection of data is comprehensive, other fire brigades around the country do not feed in in the same way. We also have the issue of devolved responsibilities in the devolved nations. Therefore, there is a need to clarify data sharing. I wonder whether we might need to go over this in order to be clear in regulation that some incidents are notifiable.
In responding, the Minister referred to carbon monoxide, which is a colourless gas that does not smell but that can, at high levels, kill you in three minutes. Carbon monoxide deaths are still occurring in this country because of faulty boilers, gas cookers and so on; they are also caused by faulty vehicles when exhaust fumes leak. I understand that we cannot have regulation that includes notifying absolutely everything, but we need further debate on where to draw the line in terms of what becomes notifiable and what is not. It is about an assessment of risk of harm, perhaps.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
On carbon monoxide, one of the issues concerns medical certificates and cause of death; there is a big problem because, often, carbon monoxide poisoning is not mentioned. The argument is that there is nothing in this legislation that precludes taking action in the way the noble Baroness wants us to take action. The question is whether the noble Baroness’s amendment is proportionate; we can have a further discussion about that.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I completely accept that it is about what is and is not included. I recall having learned, on many occasions, the danger of having lists in legislation, because there is always something that has not been included, which becomes a tension. I look forward to further discussion. I am most grateful to others for supporting these amendments and recognising their importance. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 23.
Lord Lucas
“(l) the withdrawal from sale of products of a type concerning which Trading Standards have raised concerns, until such time as the seller has satisfied Trading Standards that those concerns are unfounded.”
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, the market we have at the moment is such that, if there is, say, an orange teddy bear on the market, it may appear in a hundred or more different guises from ostensibly different sellers. Perhaps it has a different label or name attached, but it is, in essence, the same product. If we insist on trading standards proving that each of these instances is dangerous, we will find ourselves unable to enforce this legislation properly.
Amendment 29 suggests reversing the process so that, when trading standards become aware that, say, an orange teddy bear of a particular description appears to be dangerous, they can stop them being sold and put the onus on the sellers to prove that they are safe. In that way, we can achieve the protection of the public quickly and simply, without overwhelming trading standards. I beg to move.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 31, 85, 97, 98 and 109, all on enforcement issues. Amendment 31 in my name and Amendment 98 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, deal with the subject of fulfilment houses. Yes, it sounds like a slightly dodgy building, does it not? Anyway, I have been educated.
Amendment 31 addresses Clause 2. At the end of line 14 of page 3, it would insert
“a person who controls fulfilment houses in the United Kingdom”.
This amendment adds to the list of persons in Clause 2 on whom product regulations may impose product requirements. I thank the Chartered Trading Standards Institute for its advice on this issue.
Fulfilment houses or centres store, pack and ship products for other companies, which are third-party sellers, often from overseas. Without clear rules, these products easily skip safety checks, creating risk for consumers. It is important to aim for compliant products only to enter the market, and these fulfilment houses should play a critical role in ensuring that.
There is presently a lack of clarity regarding the specific obligations of fulfilment houses, as their operations may not fall directly under the role of traditional retailers or manufacturers. This amendment makes it clear that fulfilment houses must meet safety standards, just as regular shops must, and are accountable if they are storing and passing on products for delivery that are unsafe or dangerous.
Amendment 98 aims to close a critical gap in the supply chain and protect consumers from non-compliant goods from third-party sellers. The amendment seeks to define “fulfilment houses” because at present the Bill does not. This is needed as these houses are, as I said, a key loophole for unsafe products entering the UK market. The amendment also outlines how fulfilment houses will have to keep records showing that the products they store meet all necessary product safety requirements. These houses are also to work with enforcement officers if that is needed. Although fulfilment houses already register for tax due diligence, this extension to product safety is a necessary logical next step towards ensuring safe consumer products across the board.
Amendment 85 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, is on enforcement of metrology regulations. This amendment, advised by trading standards officers, makes it the duty of weights and measures authorities in Great Britain and a similar body in Northern Ireland to ensure that products are accurately measured and to add to the list in Clause 6 on page 6, line 30.
Although the Bill currently includes rules about measurement units and product quantities, it does not, according to weights and measurements officers on the ground, fully cover the checking of equipment used to make these measurements. Accurate measuring equipment is essential for ensuring fair trade, so expanding the regulations to include equipment testing, as our amendment suggests, would help authorities to enforce those rules more effectively. There are also concerns that the Bill may allow people other than trading standards officers to carry out enforcement, even though trading standards officers are already trained and authorised to do this work.
This amendment clarifies who is responsible for enforcement, helping build consumer trust in fair measurements, which affects consumers UK-wide. It will also ensure that local authorities will be responsible for regularly checking products to ensure accurate measurements, investigating complaints and taking action if they find issues. This will mean that all sellers follow the same standards so that consumers can trust the quantities they are buying—whether groceries, petrol or other goods—and that they are measured fairly.
I shall now speak to Amendment 97 in my name and those of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. The explanatory statement says:
“This amendment inserts safeguards to ensure non-regression from existing legal protections, as well as providing for the due consideration of the precautionary principle when scientific evidence about a possible risk may not yet be fully available but there is a need to be cautious given the potentially serious consequences for the safety of individuals”.
In current legislation, Regulation 10(5) of the General Product Safety Regulations 2005, for example, includes the duty that
“An enforcement authority … take due account of the precautionary principle”.
That point was relied on by the organisation Which? in its campaign to persuade the Government in 2019 to take action and require Whirlpool to recall dangerous tumble dryers that were responsible for starting hundreds of fires. When the scientific evidence was not fully available, the precautionary principle kicked in. At that point, scientific evidence is not completely collated but, when there are hundreds of fires, something needs to be done.
The Bill provides the Government with the opportunity to introduce new regulations that will upgrade consumer rights, but we believe there needs to be a more encompassing principle to keep consumers safe and underpin all future regulation with key consumer protections. With this amendment, we are seeking to ensure that the primacy of a high level of consumer protection is built into the Bill.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, these amendments deal with a range of issues concerning enforcement. As the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, said, I have signed and fully support the numerous amendments she has tabled, and I do not intend, other than very briefly, to touch on those at all.
I said at Second Reading that improved safety will come about through this legislation only if there is effective enforcement of the various regulations that are going to be laid. As I understand it, the thrust of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, which he will describe in more detail later on, is that they seek clarification on who is going to be responsible for enforcement and what their responsibilities will be.
My noble friend Lady Brinton, who is unable to be with us today, has an amendment that in part suggests that trading standards officers should be the ones responsible since, frankly, they have the expertise and skills and are best placed to take on the role. Indeed, I am pretty sure—although obviously, we will have to wait until we hear the Minister’s response—that trading standards officers are going to play a crucial role in enforcing the Bill and, much more significantly, the as yet unknown contents of regulations arising from it.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which I fully support, assumes that trading standards will be the ones who will have the key responsibility, but my noble friend’s amendments and my own Amendment 64 seek to ensure that whoever does the enforcement also has the necessary resources, including financial, to carry out the work.
When I raised this issue at Second Reading, the Minister talked about improved enforcement capability, which he said would come through the more efficient use of time, better notices, better data-sharing opportunities and the support that will be offered, such as support on technical queries from the OPSS—but not a whiff of a promise of additional funding.
At the very helpful meeting then organised by the Minister, I asked how the new burdens principle fitted into all this, whereby the Government will be expected to fund costs arising from new burdens placed on other bodies. The Minister promised to write to us, and indeed he did. He stated:
“No new burdens are being imposed”
by the Bill. He went on:
“The principal enforcement activities currently undertaken by local authorities and delivered by trading standards are not changing”.
Clearly, that is not the case, if we take into account all the regulations that will flow from this skeleton Bill. In fairness, to some extent the Minister acknowledged that. He said that there is a “potential”—an odd choice of word since we know it will happen—for the regulations to bring new burdens. He promised to continue dialogue with a new burdens team, and he pointed to the cost- recovery powers in Clause 8, clarification of which has rightly been sought by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, in her Amendment 109.
However, we should surely be acutely aware of the current position faced by trading standards officers around the country. Frankly, they do an excellent job. Over the last year, 2023-24, trading standards prevented more than £905 million of consumer detriment in England and Wales, equating to £8.39 saved for every £1 spent. But despite that really good value for money, over the last decade, spending on trading standards has been cut by more than 50%. Over the same period, staffing levels in local authorities have fallen by between 30% and 50%. Frankly, many local authorities no longer have sufficient resources to enforce all the consumer protection legislation for which they are responsible. Therefore, without additional resources, they certainly will not have the capability to cope with more, which might—or rather, will—come as a result of this Bill.
Whoever takes on the enforcement responsibility will need additional resources to do the job, and that will not be achieved by things such as better data sharing and support on technical queries by the OPSS. I hope the Minister can give us far more assurances than he has so far that the Government are alert to this issue. I hope that he will provide us with assurances that extra resources will be made available, as proposed by my noble friend’s amendments and my own.
I have a couple of other amendments to touch on briefly. In a sense, my Amendment 70 builds on Amendment 98, which I have signed, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. When buying a product online, the buyer is often aware who the seller is. Amendment 98 would place a duty on the fulfilment houses that store all this stuff before it goes out to the consumer to ensure that appropriate safety legislation has been taken into account. Other amendments suggest that there should be a responsibility on online market- places to ensure that appropriate safety regulations have been met by all the products available on their platform. My Amendment 70 goes a little further and suggests that we should therefore give the consumer the right to bring a claim against the online marketplace, regardless of who the original provider of the product was, if this has not happened and they suffer as a result of the product not having met the appropriate standards.
Finally, Amendments 63 and 87 seek to expand enforcement powers by giving the relevant authority or an inspector the power to require a person to attend an interview to answer questions, a power usually known as an interview notice. In similar legislation, authorities including regulators have that power. In the Data (Use and Access) Bill that is currently before your Lordships’ House, the Government seek to give the Information Commissioner that power to give interview notices. The Government are also seeking to give the Security Industry Authority that power in the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, and the new independent football regulator, in the Football Governance Bill currently before your Lordships’ House, will be given the same power. Yet it is omitted, bizarrely, from this Bill. That means that, on the one hand, the relevant authority would have the power to enter and search premises and seize items but, on the other hand, it would not have the power to question persons about the related entry, search and seizure of those products. I find that particularly bizarre. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge this point and either accept the amendment or offer his own way forward.
I began by saying that the Bill and the regulations that flow from it will, frankly, be pretty meaningless without proper enforcement, so we need clarity about who will be responsible for that enforcement, we need to be assured of what those responsibilities will be and we need assurances that they will be properly resourced to carry out those responsibilities. On all counts, we are at present unaware of any answers to those questions, so we hope that the Minister will shed some light on this when he winds up.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I found the introduction to these amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the clarification from the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, very revealing. It is a reminder that you can have a product made somewhere that comes into this country and then gets badged by lots of different people, but it is the same basic product with the same problems. The two examples that come to mind are the tumble dryers, when there was a fault in how they were constructed, and magnetic toys, which eventually got withdrawn. Several children ended up inhaling or swallowing small magnets that were in those toys, which were marketed under lots of different guises—but the basic product that came in included these little magnetic particles.
It has been a really interesting debate, because you can see that there is a point at which the trading standards people have the powers to intervene. I hope that, in responding, the Minister will able to describe to us how the powers are strong enough at the point of entry, rather than the trading standards people having to go after one label, then another and then another. That will be very heavy on workload and will not deal with the problem of an unsafe product being produced elsewhere and brought into the country.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, I support most of the amendments in this group, but I particularly want to support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley—namely, Amendments 31, 85, 97, 98 and 109. Some of those are also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. I declare an interest as president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute. My predecessor in that role, of course, was the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, hence our common approach to the issues raised.
In relation to Amendments 31 and 98, dealing with fulfilment houses, those houses play a critical role in the distribution chain, especially for products from overseas retailers. These amendments would ensure that they were accountable for product safety, thereby reducing the risk of non-compliant goods reaching consumers. Amendment 98 also addresses gaps in the supply chain. The fulfilment houses play a critical role in the distribution chain for overseas sellers and the amendment would ensure that they were accountable for product safety, reducing the risk of non-compliant goods reaching consumers, but would also require fulfilment houses to maintain compliance records and facilitate inspections. The amendment would increase traceability and accountability for the products that they handle. Furthermore, Amendment 98 aligns fulfilment houses with current due diligence obligations. While they already register for tax due diligence, this extension to product safety is a logical step towards ensuring safe consumer products across the board.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I wish to address the Committee on Amendments 60 to 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe; I thank him for his amendments on enforcement regulations in this Bill.
As has already been pointed out, the Bill fails to provide clarity about who will be the relevant authority, how that authority will be appointed and what criteria will be used to determine this. In setting out these points, I merely echo concerns already raised by your Lordships’ Committee. The concern is that a dangerous precedent is created, particularly where such broad powers are granted for enforcing product regulations—including sanctions—and for carrying out investigations.
To illustrate the risks of these broad and as yet undefined powers, we need look only to the Horizon scandal. In that case, as the Committee and indeed the whole House is aware, sub-postmasters were wrongly prosecuted based on flawed evidence and poor decision-making by the responsible authorities—a private prosecutor in England and Wales. The lack of proper scrutiny and oversight in that situation resulted in innocent people facing wrongful charges. Lives were ruined; indeed, lives were lost. The situation was greeted with mounting horror across our House, as it was across the country at large, as details began to emerge.
The Horizon case highlighted the dangers of unchecked power or power in the hands of those lacking the professional cultures to exercise such power responsibly. Our concern is that this could easily be replicated under the Bill if we do not ensure that the powers of the relevant authority are defined carefully and according to strict standards of accountability. We submit that the Government must provide clear criteria for the appointment of a relevant authority and establish rigorous oversight in order to ensure that the powers given under the Bill are used fairly and transparently. The Bill should ensure that those granted authority are highly qualified, possess relevant experience and are subject to ongoing monitoring in order to prevent misuse of power.
These clauses are considered skeleton legislation by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The House has collectively expressed its concern as to the dangers of skeleton legislation in other contexts, where vague provisions allow the Executive to bypass parliamentary scrutiny; indeed, the dangers and undesirability of such skeleton legislation were touched on yesterday in a take-note debate on the rule of law. Bypassing Parliament on such a critical matter—especially with the ability to bring solemn criminal charges on indictment, not just at summary level—creates risk and sets a dangerous precedent. We are by no means claiming that the Government are consciously seeking to set up a situation and a system of abuse of power, and we recognise the importance of effective regulation for consumer protection; our concern is that a lack of clarity in the Bill threatens to create an environment ripe for the misuse of power, at a time when our consciousness, and of the country at large, of those risks has never been sharper.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 60, 61, 62, 66, 67, 83, 84, 86, 88 and 89 standing in my name.
Before I get on to that, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I have not heard very much that I have disagreed with, and in particular I welcome the specialised and clearly considerable expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and my noble friend Lord Lindsay in this area. I also thank my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Dirleton, who brought a valuable legal perspective to my Amendments 60, 61 and 62. If I may say so, the Committee should also thank him, because that has relieved me of the duty of mentioning the delegated powers in the Bill.
To probe, starting with my Amendment 60, what is a relevant authority? My amendments as a group seek clarity. There is far too little of it, and I will explain why. There may be a case for a degree of generalisation on product safety laws, which we have discussed in previous Committee days, but when it comes to the enforcement of the law, as my noble and learned friend has just outlined, the Government should not be this vague. The clause that this amendment seeks to remove grants wide discretion in designating one or more persons as the relevant authority, without defining criteria or scope. Businesses need to know who they are engaging with when it comes to compliance and enforcement. The uncertainty in the Bill creates a challenging situation for businesses, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, which may lack the resources to navigate unclear or fragmented enforcement mechanisms.
Without clearly defined enforcement roles, companies face potential delays and additional costs due to duplicative enforcement efforts, all of which could hamper innovation, productivity and growth. This clause effectively hands unchecked power to Ministers, allowing them to designate any person or organisation as a relevant authority without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. But it fails to address critical questions, such as what qualifications or expertise the designated authority will require. How will conflicts of interest be avoided? Will there be oversight mechanisms to ensure that these authorities are held accountable for their enforcement activities?
The Government have repeatedly claimed that one of the goals of the Bill is innovation, and that they wish to be a leader on trade, yet unclear enforcement mechanisms may send the wrong message to trading partners and investors. Inconsistent enforcement practices could harm the perceived reliability of the UK’s regulatory regime, potentially complicating cross-border trade agreements and deterring foreign investment.
The Government’s Explanatory Notes suggest that the relevant authority could include the Secretary of State or
“other bodies exercising public functions”.
But nowhere in the Bill or the Explanatory Notes is there any mention of specialised bodies—including those represented by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and my noble friend Lord Lindsay—which have clear expertise in product enforcement, safety and standards. We think this omission is striking. Will product safety specialists such as trading standards and accredited safety bodies be considered? Will enforcement fall to entities with deep technical knowledge and understanding of the complexities of product regulation?
The Bill uses the phrase
“other bodies exercising public functions”,
a catch-all term that could encompass almost anyone who engages in some form of public work. In practice, this could mean highly skilled and knowledgeable experts, but it could also mean organisations or individuals with no background in product safety. Could a local administrative body or other government-adjacent organisation whose primary function is entirely unrelated end up being designated as a relevant authority? Despite the Government’s claims of promoting clarity and higher standards, the wording here does the exact opposite.
This is not a trivial matter. The enforcement authority will determine how the rules are applied and the standards by which businesses are judged. Without explicit safeguards, this clause risks allowing enforcement to be carried out by ill-equipped individuals or bodies, potentially damaging the entire framework of product safety. I appreciate that I have ranged far and wide here, but unfortunately, the way the Bill is drafted invites all these questions, so I look forward to the Minister’s responses.
Turning to Amendment 61, also in my name, we of course recognise the importance of ensuring compliance with product regulations, but the manner in which these powers are drafted raises serious concerns about vagueness, overreach and potential misuse. This subsection includes functions such as monitoring compliance, investigating suspected non-compliance and even mitigating the effects of non-compliance. While monitoring compliance and addressing breaches are legitimate, the concept of suspected non-compliance is especially problematic. What constitutes suspicion? Will it be based on clearly defined criteria, or could it arise from arbitrary interpretations by an as yet to be defined relevant authority?
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, very briefly, and complying with time constraints, I warned your Lordships and the Government when speaking to another group that the skeletal nature of the Bill allows everybody to superimpose all their worst suppositions on it. We have just heard a thorough example of that from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe.
I am of course here to help. In considering previous Bills, it helped when the Government published their draft code of practice between Committee and Report, so that we could get an inkling of their thinking. Doing so will not change our need to address the skeletal nature of the Bill, but it might allay some of our worst fears about the intention, and guide us in wording the amendments we could table on Report to help tie things down a little more, along the lines of the fears outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. Can the Minister say whether a code of practice is planned, and undertake to show us a draft of it between now and Report?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their detailed consideration of the Bill, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his thorough exposition of his amendments, based on his experience at the Home Office and previously as an enforcement officer. He obviously knows a lot about the various amendments he has tabled.
I hope to clarify the Government’s position and explain the reasons behind the approach we have taken. First, I will address the use of delegated powers in the Bill, noting the concerns of the Committee.
Product regulation must legislate for innumerable kinds of products, ranging from heavy machinery to children’s toys. This is best done through regulation, due to the amount of very technical and scientific detail required. In some cases, sectors can be covered by general requirements. However, often they require specific tailored regulations that recognise their individual requirements. For example, a penalty for failure to properly mark a product “harm suffered” is likely be different when comparing a highly sensitive product in a nuclear energy installation versus a lower-risk product.
To proportionately reflect the dangers of a sector, requirements, enforcement powers, offences and penalties must be tailored. This is how the regulators operate at the moment, with over 2,500 pages of technical product safety regulation on the statute book. Alongside reviewing this existing legislation, we will need to consider on an ongoing basis whether there are emerging products or hazards that would benefit from specific rules.
Product regulation is a regulatory area that we have seen go through significant disruptive change with the growth of e-commerce, and this looks set to continue with AI and 3D printing. The activities conducted by different kinds of businesses have changed as well. The spine of the existing system was codified in primary legislation based on bricks-and-mortar businesses, and that led to uncertainties and gaps in duties, penalties and enforcement powers.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but Amendment 60 asks who the relevant authorities are. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 tell us in statute, as things stand, who the domestic enforcement authorities are. That is not in subordinate legislation—it is in primary legislation. The Minister appears to be taking a list that is in primary legislation, which is amendable by regulation, and turning it into something that is a power to specify by subordinate legislation. What was wrong with retaining the enforcement authority list in Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act and adding to or subtracting from it as necessary?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that point. As I said earlier, as it stands the relevant authorities are exercising public functions—that is, the Secretary of State or the Health and Safety Executive, in the examples that I gave earlier. However, because of the evolving and changing nature of the new products on the market, we may need more people with specific technical knowledge. We do not want this Bill to straitjacket us so that, every time we need to appoint somebody, we have to come back with new primary legislation.
Lord Lansley (Con)
But can the Minister tell us why the list in primary legislation under Schedule 5 of that Act, which has been amended from time to time since 2015 by regulation, is not a suitable basis for proceeding in future? What is wrong with using that list?
Lord Leong (Lab)
Personally, I do not see why there is anything wrong with it—but in this Bill itself, I am trying to say that we need the flexibility. I just have to continue.
Further clarification of powers and functions would restrict the ability for enforcement regulations to provide powers needed to enforce new product and metrology regulations. We must enable flexibility so that we do not create gaps in enforcement powers now or in the future. We intend to plug the gap in enforcement by making regulation applicable at the border, so that enforcement can take place before unsafe or non-compliant products are sold.
I understand the good intentions behind these amendments but, equally, I hope that I have resolved the concerns that led to them. The Bill provides simple, flexible powers that will help enforcement authorities to fulfil their roles. I submit that we have balanced parliamentary scrutiny with the necessary flexibility in a way that best serves the rule of law. It is for these reasons that I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Fox (LD)
I asked a specific question about publishing the code of practice in advance. Can I have an answer, please?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that. We would expect regulators and authorities to carry out enforcement in line with the regulators’ code, which I am happy to share with noble Lords.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, the debate ranged a long way beyond my amendment, and I shall not attempt to summarise it. I suspect that I shall be listening to many of the arguments again at Report, specifically those from my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom and perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, too. In his reply to my amendment, I felt that the Minister rather missed the point, which is that, no, they do not have the powers at the moment. That is why this amendment has been tabled, because they are saying that they do not have the powers. Yes, you can name a product and have it taken off, but if it appears in 100-plus different guises, which all claim to be different but are actually the same, you are stuffed. That is what I am trying to get at. I shall come back to this at Report, after taking further advice.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord for reminding us of how overregulated our nuclear industry has become and that allowing it to continue to be the subject of such a ridiculous free for all—resulting in us paying five times more than it costs the Koreans to build a nuclear power plant—is not something that should be waved away in the breadth of the powers that we have in this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(d) the licensing of voluntarily committed standard essential patents which protect technology essential for implementing technical standards;(e) limiting the remedies available when a patent mentioned in paragraph (d) is enforced.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that essential software for regulated products which relies on standard-essential patents (SEPs) is shielded from unfair legal abuse.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I also support Amendment 35 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. As opposed to the last group, which focused on a large number of slightly different issues, these two amendments focus on one area and, given that they are only in the names of the noble Lord and myself, you can be sure that they will be technical in content.
I am sure the Minister has often wondered why his mobile phone can operate on Bluetooth in any country of the world, and why the automated vacuum cleaner that my noble friend Lord Foster so ably described in the last session can pick up wireless instructions no matter where it is working. The answer is that sitting underneath all of those are things called standard essential patents, or SEPs. They are patents that are necessary to the implementation of a collectively-agreed technical standard—5G, wifi, Bluetooth and so on. Standardisation across communications technologies makes it possible for devices to work with one another wherever they are.
Connectivity is increasingly a part of the products that the Bill seeks to regulate, as we have heard. UK industry is at the forefront of developing connected products that aim to address some of the biggest issues that we face, including healthcare and climate change. The Bill is about ensuring product compliance with technical standards. Compliance or conformance with the technical standard can often be premised on the implementation of a particular technology; as I have said, wifi is an example. For a product to use the wifi logo and technology, its technical performance with the chip set has to be tested and certified. Bluetooth and other wireless technologies used for power management in the context of electric vehicle chargers and smart metering are all examples of where the technical standards of operation are underpinned by these SEPs.
I realise that the Bill is not about intellectual property, but it is about regulating the properties of things. Unless the situation of SEPs is fixed, those properties can be in a state of flux. SEPs should be treated differently from other patents, which is why we are introducing them into this debate.
Of necessity, as a result of a dominant market position, the SEP holders have to voluntarily commit to license their technologies on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. The licensing of SEPs is important in ensuring that UK businesses are able to use the most modern and effective versions of these technical standards. In practice, SEP holders often evade their voluntary commitments to license their patents fairly because of a lack of clarity over what constitutes fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory, caused by weaknesses in the UK’s legal framework. SEP holders can abuse their position as gatekeepers of these technical standards by using the threat of costly court action and injunctions to force potential licensees to accept excessive royalty demands or quit the market. That can effectively prevent smaller companies from entering into, and being able to operate in, a market. In the previous group, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked whether the Bill was pro-innovation or anti-innovation. Unless we round up this issue on SEPs, I have to say that it is absolutely stifling innovation.
In most cases, SEP holders are well resourced and aggressive, while many licensees, especially SMEs, lack the knowledge and resources to defend their rightful position in court or push back against the mere threat of litigation. Increasingly, there is a third sector of people who buy up the rights to these patents and treat them as a revenue stream, whereby they go after and literally squeeze the people who have to use these SEPs. In essence, it becomes a secondary market for these things, without the necessary protections.
There are two issues. First, the availability of injunctions to the UK’s current SEP framework means that both small and large technical innovators who operate downstream of the primarily foreign SEP holders can be forced to accept excessive SEP licensing fees because they want to use this technology. The second problem is the lack of transparency: they quite simply do not know who holds these patents until they get an injunction through the mail. That is the problem. With the threat of injunctions and lack of transparency, UK manufacturers are frequently faced with a no-win situation. They have to either pay these fees or get out of the market, because they cannot afford to defend them at an injunction. This is in spite of the SEP holders making a voluntary commitment to license the SEPs on fair terms as part of the standard-setting process. So there is a problem.
The situation creates significant cost and uncertainty for some of the most innovative UK firms, it stifles innovation and, importantly, in the context of this Bill, it challenges the efficiency and effectiveness of products that rely on SEPs and are regulated by this legislation. That is why it is appropriate to have this discussion here today. The UK IPO is aware of issues concerning the licensing of such technology but to date has done nothing, or has insufficiently acted, to protect UK businesses that must use these technologies. This amendment is an opportunity for the Minister to commit to legislative action on SEPs to address the critical issues of products being threatened with exclusion from the people who need them, the imposition of unfair royalties and SEP licences being refused to companies that need them. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for explaining so expertly what standard essential patents—SEPs—are and how important they are to the use of legislation in specifying product requirements, which of course are directly linked to the standards that we will go on to talk about. We have previously talked about the importance of standard-setting, but there is no point in setting standards if they cannot be fulfilled, turned into product requirements and brought to the market—that is what we are talking about. In particular, the noble Lord was absolutely right to stress that we should be thinking in this legislation about how we can promote innovation. Addressing this issue is one of the central ways in which we can do that.
Our two amendments serve the same purpose. The only distinction is that I was trying to suggest, in this particular instance, the importance of taking a power and not attempting in the primary legislation at this point to specify precisely how that power should be structured, because it is necessary for there to be a full consultation about the changes that would need to be made—not least, probably, to the Patents Act itself. When we come back on Report, if we go down this path there may be a need to have a power to amend the Patents Act as well.
The point here is that, as the Intellectual Property Office itself said, SEPs will be
“of growing importance to the UK economy”.
This is not a small matter, and it is becoming more important because of connectivity, the internet of things and the multiple range of SEPs associated with many of these standards. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, is absolutely right about the problems that can emerge for companies, particularly SMEs, in understanding the visibility of SEPs and who holds them—and, for that matter, in being absolutely clear about which ones are essential and which are asserted to be so, but which are not in fact essential to the standard.
I shall not delay the Committee now, but I want to focus on the question of why we need a power. First, the Intellectual Property Office is trying to do its best within the powers available to it. In July, Ministers announced the establishment of the resource hub, which gives guidance in relation to SEPs and enables companies to understand the SEP ecosystem. However, that does not change some of the fundamental issues to which the noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred. There are licence holders who are delaying access to their patents, and who are using that as a mechanism to get terms that are not fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. SMEs are finding it very difficult to know what FRAND terms look like in relation to many of these products.
There is another issue: not only the individual royalties that must be paid in relation to these licences, but the global royalties that need to be available. Although there is case law that can be looked at, it is very difficult for SMEs in particular to understand how that may be applied to them. Of course, there are global royalties being established through large cases, which delay access to this intellectual property for some of those who need to use it; they are therefore unable to know how viable their product may be.
These issues have been addressed in the European Union. At present, there is a regulation agreed between the European Commission’s proposal and the European Parliament, and it is awaiting the conclusions of the Council of Ministers. Let us just focus on that for two seconds. What does it do? It sets out that there needs to be transparency, a mandatory register, and the ability for an official body to undertake a reality check asking, in essence, whether something is actually essential to a standard. It facilitates fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. It also delays for nine months the point at which any licence holder could go to court to secure an injunction for these purposes while there is a requirement for a negotiated process; indeed, it entertains the possibility that, under the regulation, this may relate not only to individual royalties for licences but to the aggregate of those royalties for licences. So there is a legal structure in the European Union for these purposes, in order to overcome what is otherwise, for SMEs in particular, an extremely difficult set of circumstances arising from case law for them to understand and interpret.
This is not a small problem for some SMEs. For example, I have been talking to Tunstall Healthcare, which I know well from its role in providing connectivity, particularly for people who require care at home; it looks after more than 100,000 of them. In order to access licences for 4G and wifi connectivity, it needs to negotiate many licences and to identify where they exist. A company called Bullet was trying to develop and market highly resilient smartphones, but it ceased trading, owing millions of pounds to SEP holders, which contributed to its inability to continue trading. So I think we need to act.
The IPO has said that it will respond to the consultation at the end of 2024—so any minute now. I am told, however, that that will not now happen in 2024. What I really want to hear from the Minister is, first, that this is a suitable Bill and a suitable opportunity to take a power—without specifying all the details of that power—to make provision in relation to SEPs. Secondly, I want to hear that the IPO and Ministers will undertake to respond to the consultation in the early part of next year, putting forward proposals for how the new power is to be used and inviting responses.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will be very brief indeed. I have learned a lot from this brief debate and thank both noble Lords for their expert explanations. As a novice in this subject, I cannot think of a single possible objection, frankly, to either of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and my noble friend Lord Lansley. I hope the Government will welcome these as an example of well-informed common sense and give due consideration to some sort of amendment along these lines. I believe the Government to be sincere in their intention to promote growth and innovation, and it seems to me that both these amendments would, in some form or another, help to deliver that. If the Government do that, we will be supportive.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Lansley, for their Amendments 34 and 35. When I saw the first amendment, I had to go and check what SEPs means. Now, after speaking to officials, I think I know a little bit and I welcome the opportunity to address the issues raised regarding software products that rely on standard essential patents, or SEPs.
These amendments go far beyond the intended focus of this legislation by expanding the scope of regulatory powers. Due to their complexity, the regulation of SEPs should not be reduced to a short provision in a Bill that was not drafted with the intention of regulating in this sphere. Any policy measures need to achieve a balance between rights holders being able to appropriately protect and enforce their rights, and users’ ability to access such technologies and innovations through fair and appropriate licensing forms.
However, I agree with the noble Lords that this is an important issue. The Intellectual Property Office has already engaged extensively with industry and business to determine whether any change to the framework for SEPs is necessary in order to ensure that businesses can license SEPs effectively and fairly. This engagement has included a call for evidence and views, and a questionnaire has been sent out to small and medium-sized enterprises. In response, the IPO has already launched a SEPs resource hub—an information resource that helps to address the very problem the noble Lords have identified. The IPO is also considering whether to consult formally next year on measures, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and further to improve transparency in the SEPs ecosystem and enable more efficient dispute resolution. Any such consultation would be subject to ministerial decision, and we are currently working on that. In the meantime, I assure noble Lords that the IPO is continuing informal engagement with industry on both this matter and the SEPs ecosystem more generally. I hope that is reassuring to the Committee.
While I agree that this is an important issue, this Bill is not the right avenue to address the problems that the noble Lords raise. I therefore ask that they withdraw or do not press their amendments.
Lord Fox (LD)
I sort of thank the Minister for his response, but not much, because I think he could have acknowledged that this is a problem, rather than that SEPs exist, because it is a problem. Whether or not the Bill is the solution to it, the Department for Business and Trade should have an interest in solving that problem, but it did not seem that there was much appetite for that. Perhaps the Minister could disabuse me of that by acceding to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, to have a meaningful round table with the right people for us to further this discussion. If this is not the avenue to deal with it, we need something else, because it is a real and present problem that needs a meaningful solution.
While the efforts of the IPO are clear, the point of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—I should call him my noble friend in this case—is that the IPO needs more power and something needs to be done. If it is not this, it needs to be something else.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I want to be very clear that the Department for Business and Trade wants to support businesses of all types and sizes, but we have to be fair as well, so as not to burden too many SMEs with regulations and financial costs. This area is being led by the IPO but, at the same time, there is a way that the Department for Business and Trade can engage with the IPO. I am than happy to arrange a meeting between the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Lansley, and officials from the IPO and the Department for Business and Trade.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister for that offer, which I am sure we will take him up on. If the Government wish to unburden small and medium-sized businesses, solving this problem would be a slam dunk. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 34.
Lord Lansley
“(7A) Provision made in reliance on subsection (1) may (among other things) identify product requirements by reference to international agreements or standards relating to the marketing or use of products, including agreements or standards as they have effect from time to time.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would enable product requirements to by met by reference to international standards.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, there was a substantial debate on a previous day and earlier group on whether product requirements should, from time to time, be set by reference to the European Union standards to which they should be aligned dynamically or, as my noble friends Lord Frost, Lady Lawlor and Lord Jackson of Peterborough argued, set by reference to standards in other jurisdictions. “Relevant foreign law” was the term that they used.
I think that we should lift our eyes beyond that debate and say that we want not simply to arrive at a point where we set our standards by reference to those determined in other jurisdictions, but that we should maximise the opportunity for international standards to be the basis on which standards and product requirements are set in all these jurisdictions. I say this not least because in June, before the election, when regulations were going through for the temporary effect to which this Bill gives a permanent basis, there was some legitimate concern about whether the competencies inside our standards-making organisations would be retained in this country if the UK conformity assessment is little used relative to other conformity assessment processes.
I have two amendments in this group by which I want to do two things. First, I want to be clear in the Bill that product requirements may refer directly to international standards. Secondly, I want to promote through a new clause a strategy, which I am asking the Office for Product Safety and Standards to lead, for the United Kingdom to lead in the further establishment of international standards.
I mentioned in some detail at Second Reading how I do not think we are doing this in any way contrary to the thrust of thinking in other jurisdictions. The European Union strategy for standardisation in 2022 pointed directly towards the importance of the greater use of international standards:
“Traditionally, the EU has been a strong leader in international standardisation activities but needs to take account of a changed geopolitical situation, as other countries start to approach international standardisation more strategically”.
So, the European Union is working in that direction. Mario Draghi’s report to the European Commission emphasised the importance of international standards as a means of promoting regulatory harmonisation and reducing trade friction and said that the European Union should lead in framing international standards. We are not alone in this process.
On Monday, my noble friend Lady Lawlor referred to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Article 8.5 states:
“The Parties recognise the important role that international standards, guides, and recommendations can play in supporting greater regulatory alignment, good regulatory practice, and reducing unnecessary barriers to trade”.
I hope that with the Ministers and the Government I am pushing at an open door and that international standards are at the heart of how we want to proceed. I have been given an estimate that something like 80% of standards in some form or to some extent derive from international standards. That would be the case, not least if one includes many that are part of a process in which they are incorporated into existing European Union standards. It is not that this is something we do not presently do; it is something we do at present, but we want to do more and to make it a clear priority.
Why do we need it in this legislation? One expert to whom I talked said that the Secretary of State has the power to designate standards and that it is frequently used in relation to international standards. That is fine, but let us remember what this Bill does. Later on, the Bill contains the power to repeal Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act. Unless I am missing something, it is Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that gives the Secretary of State the power to designate standards in that way, so we do not know how the Government intend to use the powers that the Minister has explained are going to be taken and used flexibly in relation to Section 11. How is that power going to be used in future? If it is to be effectively recreated under this legislation, it is important for this legislation to state that the power should reference international standards wherever appropriate and effective.
I am supported in that view in that, in 2021, Ministers—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, was a participant in those Committee and Report debates—took medical devices out of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act and put them into the Medicines and Medical Devices Act and created a power to regulate medical devices in the same way as this Bill creates a power to regulate many other products. In the Medicines and Medical Devices Act particular language was used, which is the language that is reproduced for the purposes of this Bill in Amendment 38:
“Provision … may (among other things) identify product requirements by reference to international agreements or standards relating to the marketing or use of products, including agreements or standards as they have effect from time to time”.
I have not invented that language. It is the same as is in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021. If we do not include that language in the Bill, people will wonder why, when making similar new legislation, we did not use the language in relation to other products and standards setting that was used in 2021 in relation to medical devices. I think it is best that we use the same language.
Secondly, for the reasons I have just explained, I do not know whether the power to designate standards by reference to international standards might be diminished in some way by the future repeal of the Consumer Protection Act. I want to make sure that, in so far as new powers are used, they are used to deliver a strategy of using international standards wherever appropriate and effective. I beg to move.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I will be brief. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has made a fairly persuasive case for this. I would hope that to a large extent what he is looking for is already happening fairly systematically as part of good practice in any regulatory authority. Given that it is likely that a large amount of our regulation will probably continue to be broadly in alignment with the EU, it would make a lot of sense for our respective regulatory authorities to be in pretty close contact to make sure that they have, to the extent that it is sensible, the same view and understanding and the same breadth in scanning the different international regulations so that, essentially, they are talking the same language. That would be extremely helpful.
In principle, this is a very good idea. However, it is fine for us, as legislators, to talk theoretically or in detail about statutes and subsections, but the proof is the view business takes of what we are discussing. If business regards this as entirely sensible and something that should be done anyway as a matter of doing regulation well, that is well and good. If it has concerns that this will complicate things further, slow things down and lead to slightly arcane arguments about relative international standards from goodness knows where in the world, I suspect it will not be quite so keen.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for introducing his amendments so incredibly clearly and expertly. It is obvious that international standards are vital for facilitating global trade. Products that adhere to international standards are more easily accepted across borders. They reduce trade barriers, open new markets for UK business and so on. They ensure that UK products can continue to compete internationally and maintain their high reputation for quality and reliability.
Aligning product requirements with international standards ensures that UK consumers also benefit from high levels of safety. This alignment builds consumer trust, as consumers know that the products they are buying meet rigorous global benchmarks. Amendment 43 specifies that this requires consultation. It is vital that consultation takes place with experts. In principle, we absolutely support the spirit and intent of these amendments.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for tabling Amendments 38 and 43. I know from when I was on the Opposition Benches that he brings great expertise to this House, debating legislation as varied as the Trade Act 2021, the Procurement Act 2023 and the Bill before us today. His amendments raise important points about the role that international standards can play in domestic product regulation and in ensuring a strategic approach to their delivery and implementation.
Regarding Amendment 38, I reassure the noble Lord that Clause 2(6) enables product regulations to continue to reference international standards to support regulatory compliance, as is the case for medical devices. Provision is already made in current product regulations for the ability to designate a standard adopted by an international standardising body.
We work closely with all departments, including the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and will continue to work with them to ensure the supply of safe and compliant products. However, each responsible department must individually consider the best approach for its own area.
Before the Secretary of State designates the standard for products regulated under the Bill it is assessed by government. The standard may be designated fully, with restrictions or not at all, depending on how far the standard ensures the relevant product requirements. Therefore Clause 2(6) sufficiently addresses the noble Lord’s concern. There is also no need to specifically reference the ability to designate international standards because that provision is already covered in product safety sector-specific legislation already on the statute book.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Which legislation is the Minister referring to? Is it not Part 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, which is able to be repealed by this legislation?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I have been told by officials that it is a specific product regulation.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Where is the power? Is it in the Consumer Protection Act?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I will write to the noble Lord on that.
On Amendment 43, the Government published a memorandum of understanding with the British Standards Institution on 16 September, of which there are copies here available to noble Lords. This sets out in respect of its activities as the UK’s national standards body its role in supporting government policy and acting in the UK’s national interest in the international standards-setting arena. This includes supporting UK policy to strengthen the global approach to standardisation and maximise UK influence.
Within the international standards system the UK already occupies a strong leadership position through the BSI’s membership of international and non-EU private sector European regional standards organisations. The BSI also manages a significant number of important committees in those organisations. In its role, the BSI systematically adopts international and European standards that representatives of UK stakeholders have influenced and withdraws standards that are no longer relevant. This includes internationally agreed standards designed to support regulatory compliance to UK product legislation.
In Articles 2 and 3 of the memorandum of understanding, the Government and BSI agree on the primacy of international consensus and that the two parties will co-operate with each other on international standards policy, while Article 4 ensures that the BSI provides the necessary standards the Government require for UK regulations. The Government are in the process of finalising a document entitled “The UK Government’s Public Policy Interest in Standardisation”, which is referenced in the MoU with the BSI, that explains why standards are a key factor in support of a number of government policies. It also reinforces the policy of influencing international standards and the importance of maintaining a constructive relationship with the BSI.
Given the close collaboration and the mechanisms in place, I believe that the objectives of Amendment 43 are already being met on the points I have just outlined. I hope that I have been able to provide sufficient reassurance to the noble Lord that what he seeks to achieve is not only already possible through the Bill, but also common practice across a range of sectors. If helpful, I will ask my officials, following Committee, to provide further information on the important role that international standards play in the UK system. With that in mind, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment .
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He has obviously taken some trouble to think about it quite carefully.
First, I do not dispute that current powers enable international standards to occupy a central role in our standards-setting process, and I share the Minister’s admiration of the British Standards Institution as our national standards body in doing that, although I note that many of its experts are now in Amsterdam. Let us leave that on one side as noble Lords know which side I was on in that argument and that it was not the same side as my noble friend Lord Frost.
However, not least with the way the European Union is moving and the commitments we are entering into with the new ratification of the CPTPP, would it not be useful to take language such as where Article 8.9 of the CPTPP says the parties should seek
“greater alignment of national standards with relevant international standards, except where inappropriate or ineffective”?
There is language of that kind to which we are party, which in my view it is suitable to incorporate into legislation where we are setting out new legislation that is intended to say how powers should be used in future. That is the point I make. I am not arguing in any sense in a way that is at odds with the intentions of the Government, but I think they have to look and say, “Well, legislation sometimes must be very clear about how people should think and act in the future”. I hope Ministers might think more about this before Report. However, on the basis of the discussion we have had, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Foster of Bath
“Regulations relating to lithium-ion batteries(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statutory instrument containing regulations relating to lithium-ion batteries within six months of the passing of this Act.(2) Before laying the statutory instrument referred to in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult with the relevant statutory consultees including the fire services, and with relevant consumer, industry, manufacturing and trade bodies.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment seeks to clarify the issues relating to the regulation of lithium-ion batteries, including the increasing numbers of fires, deaths and injuries as a result of lithium-ion batteries.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
Amendment 41 was tabled by my noble friend Lady Brinton but, as I have explained, she is unable to be with us today. Her amendment and others in this group, including my own and those of my noble friend Lord Redesdale, seek to address an issue that I have frequently raised in your Lordships’ House: safety issues in connection with lithium-ion batteries. Indeed, I have already done so on a number of occasions in earlier groups, particularly in the previous group, where I used lithium-ion batteries as an example of why we need specific regulations regarding high-risk products.
Whenever I have discussed these issues, I have always recognised the vital importance of lithium-ion batteries. They currently provide a crucial role in our drive towards low carbon or zero carbon. After all, they can store more energy than any other commercially available battery at present. However, they have their dangers.
If incorrectly constructed—an issue that is picked up by Amendment 46 from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, which I support—or if they are damaged or misused, not least through incorrect charging, there can be a thermal runaway, reaching enormously high temperatures of many hundreds of degrees. These fires give off toxic and dangerous gases and, as I pointed out in an earlier discussion, they cannot be put out by using water.
Amendment 44 recognises that this is a framework Bill and new regulations are going to come at a later stage, but it argues that the particular urgency relating to the dangers, especially of fire and explosion, of unregulated lithium batteries, which are often purchased from abroad, requires urgent action from the Government. It therefore proposes that the Secretary of State must lay regulations relating to lithium-ion batteries within six months of the passing of this Act, and that in the period prior to doing so the Secretary of State will have consulted all the statutory consultees, including the fire service and relevant consumer industry bodies and manufacturing and trade bodies. My Amendment 49 seeks to place a duty on online marketplaces to take all reasonable steps to ensure that products containing lithium-ion batteries sold on their platforms comply with the UK safety standards that will be developed.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 55 and 56 in my name. I start by commending my noble friend on the work he has done, over many years, in dealing with fire safety and issues around lithium-ion batteries; indeed, he had a Private Member’s Bill on lithium-ion batteries, but I beat him to it and got one in myself. From discussions with the Minister, I know that the Government are taking this issue forward, so I will not speak specifically on the dangers of chargers of lithium-ion batteries. However, I will mention my Amendment 56, which is the Minister’s own fault: in his bringing forth of this Bill, I raised this issue, and it has now taken on a life of its own.
I will speak first to my Amendment 55, which is about bikes and stopping their theft. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will be open to my debate here because we often park our bikes outside the front of this building. I am happy to say that I do not have to lock that bike—not because I believe that people passing through the building are inherently honest; it is more that, if somebody can get past two guys with machine guns, they can have my bike. But I am lucky; not everybody in the capital has that joy, obviously.
To go back to the serious point, an estimated 200,000 bikes are stolen each year in London—and that is just the tip of the iceberg because many bikes are stolen but not reported to the police. It is possible that only stolen bikes that can be claimed on insurance are reported to the police, as I have myself experienced in the past. This is a real issue going forward because the cost is not only to the individual but to the insurance companies, the environment and the way in which we structure a transport strategy. If people have their bikes stolen on a regular basis, they will move away from cycling as an option.
So I have come up with a simple solution. The Minister will ask, “Why should I introduce it in this Bill?” The answer is simple: as I say to people, lobbying is 90% hard work and 10% luck. If you do not have the 10% luck, where you can squeeze something in, you might as well give up. This Bill talks about online regulation; it is difficult to get Bills that deal with online regulation through because of some of the inherent difficulties associated with it.
My concept is that there a simple solution to bike theft, which has been proven in the work of Merseyside Police: making sure that bikes have a security marking. If a bike has a security marking, which can be done cost-effectively and cheaply, and it is put on a register, which does not involve any new bureaucracy, you end up with a situation where it is very difficult for those stealing bikes to sell them on online platforms; this is proven to be the case. I have been talking to the Metropolitan Police lead on bike theft. His view is that thieves will not sell bikes in this way—this is the major way in which people sell bikes—because they would be sitting on stolen goods and could be clearly identified with the stolen object.
The Minister is going to say that, obviously, this should be outside the Bill because it does not talk about safety. However, I would argue that, for those who are buying a stolen bike, the theft of the bike will have probably damaged the bike and that it is not in the interest of whoever stole it to look after its maintenance and repair. Bikes on roads can be extremely dangerous. There are two types of dangerous bikes—those that are poorly maintained and those Lime bikes that people drive around—but that is a separate argument.
This would be a very simple measure to take forward. If the Minister is minded not to put it in this part of the Bill, I very much hope that he will agree to a discussion with the lead police authorities, because this would cut crime. In fact, it would not only cut crime but increase confidence in the police because 90% of bikes stolen in London are never recovered, with their thefts never solved. I hope that the Minister will agree to a meeting to look at whether this measure could be included in the Bill; I would argue that the Bill is so wide in its parameters that this could be added, which would be a way forward. Can he also discuss which other legislation we could add this to?
Amendment 56 came out of the arguments that we were having about lithium-ion batteries. I came up with an interesting solution: I plan to bribe the Government by saying that, if they agree to measures to take this forward or discuss it, I will remove my lithium-ion Private Member’s Bill and so free up a Friday morning. Actually, I am not sure that is bribery; it may be coercion.
This is a very simple look at how to remove lithium-ion batteries from the waste stream. My noble friend has talked about how lithium-ion charging and bikes are a danger but, with the advent of throwaway vapes, even if the batteries are removable, you still have the problem with small lithium-ion batteries ending up in the waste stream because people just throw them away. A large number of fires are taking place, at massive cost to local authorities and insurers, because batteries being thrown away in the waste streams are crushed or get water in them and then cause fire. The best thing would be to remove them from the waste stream in the first place.
I am developing this argument—I will come back to it at a later stage with a more refined amendment—but this amendment would allow online retailers to provide buckets so that people could put batteries in them and take them away. I have talked with all elements of the industry. There is no reason why this should not happen. There is no hazardous waste; it falls under the hazardous waste directive, so Defra could not complain about it. It would be a quick and easy way of recycling batteries, which I know are not meant to be thrown into the waste stream; they have a sign on them saying “Do not bin” but, of course, loads of people do. How many people have a bag of used batteries, lithium-ion or otherwise, in a drawer? My argument is that, if they are dangerous in the waste stream, they are dangerous in people’s homes, so removing them from people’s homes is important.
People might say that you can take them to supermarkets or recycling centres. My argument is that, yes, they must be recycled from supermarkets because there is a duty on the supermarket to provide that facility. The problem is that online retailers often get around this by saying, “We don’t have a premise”. My argument is that that really does not fly any more. Amazon provides its own batteries so it should take them back. I do not think that it can rely on saying, “Take it to someone else’s supermarket”; it has a responsibility to take them back. Of course, the point at which it should take it back is from the delivery: if you cannot go to a shop, because Amazon does not have shops, the only point you have is the delivery driver. Amazon may make the point that it does not own the vehicle but it still has the obligation. In talking to the industry, I have shown it—I could not bring it in here, obviously—a small plastic bucket to be taken along. Not every delivery would end up with people providing batteries; it would be a small amount because, once you got rid of the batteries once a year, you would probably then collect.
I have been talking to people from Duracell about this. They believe that, over a year, you could probably recycle about 1 billion batteries through that method; that is an enormous amount. This would take the lithium-ion or other batteries out of the waste stream and make sure that they could be recycled. It would also allow us to build up the waste streams in this country in order to make the development of recycling facilities here profitable. I do not think that the buyback scheme everyone suggests would work because one Duracell AAA battery is worth 0.0002p in recycling, if I have got the noughts right, so that is not worth while; however, once it is recycled, it has a value in the recycling scheme.
Could I meet the Minister and his officials to discuss whether this regulation could be put forward? Could we get direction from the Government, in our debate on the next amendment, saying that this is something that could be taken forward? Online retailers already have an obligation but it has not been pushed at the moment because people have gone back to the default position of, “We do this in shops”. If that is the case then, after the discussion at the next stage, the Minister could just stand up and say, “This is an obligation”, at which point we could make sure that the buckets went out and that this process started. The whole battery industry is keen on making sure that this happens.
I have put forward these amendments. I very much hope that the Minister can give me some assurance that we can meet.
Lord Fox (LD)
Briefly, I of course support these four amendments from my noble friends, but I will say a few words on Amendment 56. In a previous group, amendments tabled by me and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on the circular economy and disposal, also touched on these issues and it would be worth while looking at those in conjunction with the amendments from my noble friend Lord Redesdale.
To give a bit of advice to my noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, made some interesting points about it being fulfilment centres rather than the actual online marketplace. In some cases, the supplier is foreign but the fulfilment centre is local. Perhaps there is some advice to take from the thoughts of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on that, as they seemed a way of bridging the issue of the supplier being a long way away in a different country, whereas the people dispatching the item are most definitely here. With those provisos, I reiterate my support for all four amendments.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will be very brief. I found that a most interesting explanation of lithium-ion batteries and their various aspects. I confess to not being an expert at all, so it is very clear that I—and, I imagine, the general public—need to be better informed on this. I imagine that regulations will form an essential component of becoming better informed.
It was interesting how the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said that he was worried about the scope of the Bill. This Bill will take pretty much anything you like—it is enormous—so I would not have too many concerns about that. I ended up, funnily enough, with a couple of questions, which we can perhaps discuss later. I am curious to know how much of the safety of these batteries is contingent on the way that they are stored, used and maintained. That would be an interesting subject to explore further.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, it is worth mentioning because we have raised the issue and it is picked up whenever we discuss the danger. The actual danger of good batteries is extremely low. The problem is in the waste stream when they are hit by water or crushed. That is the issue that local authorities have.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Again, I think that my ignorance probably suggests that the public ought to be slightly better informed about that. Maybe they are; maybe it is solely me being ignorant. I do not know.
The other thing that struck me, while I again say to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that I like his Amendment 56, is that surely we need to be a little bit careful about exploding Amazon trucks if they are this unstable. I will leave that thought with him.
There is, finally, a third subset of safety issues that I thought about when the noble Lord was talking about bikes. It is about those, Lime bikes in particular, that are left lying in the middle of the road unexpectedly as you go round a corner—he said, speaking from personal experience.
All these amendments have considerable merit. I am very interested to follow them and will consider supporting them.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have spoken, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for speaking on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. The issue of lithium-ion battery safety is rightly getting a lot of attention and I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss it. I also mention the work of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who has tabled a Private Member’s Bill on this same topic and with whom I have had valuable discussions during the passage of this legislation.
The Government have already taken significant steps to protect people from the dangers posed by products containing lithium-ion batteries. The Office for Product Safety and Standards has been working with colleagues across government and industry to identify the root causes of safety issues associated with lithium-ion batteries and to ensure that steps are taken to protect consumers and remove dangerous products from the market. We are also working with UK businesses to ensure that they comply with regulations. In addition, we have collaborated with fire and rescue services to identify products involved in incidents and have taken the appropriate action when unsafe products are identified.
Since 2022, efforts have resulted in 20 separate product recalls and 22 other enforcement actions for unsafe or non-compliant e-bikes or e-scooters. The OPSS has issued 26 withdrawal notices to eight online marketplaces, two manufacturers and 16 separate sellers to halt the sale of two dangerous e-bike battery models manufactured overseas by Unit Pack Power—UPP—that were discovered during fire and rescue investigations.
In terms of regulatory change, we need to ensure that any regulation is effective at stopping harmful products reaching the market. We also need to make sure that good businesses, which are in the majority, are not undercut by these unscrupulous traders.
The Bill is designed to provide powers across a broad range of products, including lithium-ion batteries. It does not highlight particular sectors that are in need of regulation. Noble Lords will appreciate that a very large range of products are covered by the Bill; therefore I would be hesitant to draw out lithium-ion batteries or specific measures in it. That would also limit our flexibility to work with all interested groups to identify the most effective way to tackle this issue. Today it may be lithium-ion batteries, while tomorrow it may be magnesium batteries, sodium batteries, salt or seawater—all of which may pose some safety features. So we need the flexibility to identify those new products on the marketplace.
Indeed, during Second Reading of the Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, a number of Peers highlighted that battery technology is changing. That is part of the reason why the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill works in this flexible way, as I stated earlier. It is to ensure that future regulations are able to take account of developing technologies.
We are, none the less, considering what change will make a meaningful difference to lithium-ion battery safety. My department has commissioned extensive research from the Warwick Manufacturing Group to better understand battery safety, including compatibility issues. This research is being finalised and we expect to publish it in due course. This will help us identify the root causes of battery risks and options to better protect consumers.
We want to take action about these unsafe products. We cannot commit to a timescale as we want to take the right action—but we do want to take action. One area where we have been very clear about the need for action is products sold via online marketplaces. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for his Amendment 49—and his well-informed advocacy in this area—that would require online marketplaces to take reasonable steps to ensure that products containing lithium-ion batteries sold on their platform are compliant.
In addition to the action I just mentioned, the OPSS wrote to major online marketplaces earlier this year, expressing concerns about the availability of unsafe products online. The OPSS has issued online marketplaces with legal notices that prohibit the supply of unsafe products. However, while much has already been done to keep people safe, our product safety regulations could go further.
As mentioned at Second Reading, we will use the Bill to clarify and modernise the responsibilities of online marketplaces in secondary legislation. These requirements will build on best practice to create a proportionate regulatory framework where online marketplaces take steps to prevent unsafe products from being made available to consumers. This will help prevent unsafe goods, including unsafe lithium-ion batteries, from reaching UK consumers.
The enforcement provisions in Clause 3 enable the introduction of enforcement powers for the purposes of monitoring and investigating, and securing compliance with product regulations. A requirement for the production of safety certificates that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, seeks as part of Amendment 49 could be implemented using the Bill’s powers as drafted. As I said, we are keen to continue working with noble Lords and others to identify the regulatory work that would be most effective.
Specifically on Amendments 55 and 56 on bikes, e-bikes and lithium-ion battery products sold on online marketplaces, we agree that online marketplaces should take steps to provide relevant information to consumers so that they can make well-informed purchasing decisions. This is also important to bridge the gap between the information consumers see before a purchase online, compared to the high street, where they can see the product and packaging.
In general terms, the Bill would enable us to introduce requirements on online marketplaces, including the provision of specific information, for the purpose of reducing or mitigating risks presented by products or ensuring that products operate effectively.
I thank the noble Lord for raising another important issue where consumer information can be beneficial to provide product traceability. As he discussed with me previously, this might help to deter the sale and assist the recovery of stolen bikes. The Home Office works closely with policing and academic leads to examine what more can be done to tackle the disposal market for stolen goods. We will therefore engage with the Home Office on this topic to explore whether product regulations could contribute to crime prevention. I will ask my officials to organise a meeting with the noble Lord and officials from the Home Office and other relevant authorities.
I also thank the noble Lord for his Amendment 56, which seeks to require online marketplaces to put in place a return policy for products containing lithium-ion batteries for the purpose of appropriate battery disposal. The Environment Act 2021 provides powers for the Government to introduce new requirements on online marketplaces with respect to the take-back of lithium-ion batteries and products containing lithium-ion batteries. Under the existing producer responsibility legislation, producers of industrial batteries, which include e-bike and e-scooter batteries, must take back waste products free of charge on request. Ministers are currently reviewing proposals to consult on reforms to UK batteries regulation before setting out next steps on battery disposal.
At this point, I wish to mention that I have spoken to my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at Defra. It is clear to me that noble Lords will discuss the issue of disposal of lithium-ion batteries.
I hope this assures noble Lords that the Government take the issue of lithium-ion battery safety extremely seriously. We have already taken enforcement action and are keen to work with all interested groups to ensure that further regulatory change is effective. Consequently, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Foster, to withdraw his amendment.
Before I sit down, I wish to say that my private office has sent an invitation to noble Lords who have expressed an interest in visiting the OPSS. I very much hope they will take up that offer.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Redesdale, I thank the Minister for his kind offer to him. I am sure the Minister will understand that I will want to go and put a wet towel over my head and read very carefully what he has just said in response to this group of amendments. However, I say to him that reading a list of successful examples of unsafe products coming into the UK by the OPSS is something I did myself in a previous debate. It does not indicate that we have got it right. The figures on the number of fires from lithium-ion batteries, for instance, are going up dramatically, so something is not quite right.
The problem, which the Minister touched on both in this answer and the answer he gave to a previous group when I raised the issue of high-risk products, is that the current arrangements are somewhat discretionary, and not at all clear so that we know what they are. For animal products, there is a very clear procedure: everything has to be checked for whether it is low risk, medium risk or high risk. Earlier, I proposed that we do exactly the same for all products. I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet me and other people about that.
In the light of that and the discussions we will have, for the time being I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. However, I assure the Minister that we will come back to these issues at a future stage.
The Earl of Lytton
“Construction product safety: regulations and requirements(1) Within twelve months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must, by regulations under section 1, make provision to reduce risks as defined in section 1(4) presented by construction products.(2) For the purposes of this section, construction products include, but are not limited to, any components used in the construction of buildings, such as external cladding.(3) Within twelve months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must also make provision about construction product requirements by regulations under section 2.(4) Regulations under subsection (3) must set out requirements for the production, use, marking, marketing, testing, approval and provision of information (including information about risk) of construction products.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment intends to probe whether the Secretary of State will use powers under sections 1 and 2 to regulate products used in construction.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, members of the Committee will be aware that there are concerns relating to the suitability and safety of construction products, especially in the light of the Grenfell phase 2 report, and will know my professional interest in this area.
First, I pay tribute to the clerks in the Public Bill Office for their help in drafting this amendment, although its objectives and the rationale behind it are entirely my responsibility. I consider that the amendment speaks for itself in probing the Government’s intentions and resolve in bringing construction products specifically within the Bill’s scope, although they are not excluded, either by the Long Title or by the matters listed in the Schedule. My underlying purpose is to clarify this Bill’s specific focus in the objective regulation of a construction-related product’s inherent characteristics rather the nature of its use, particularly in combination with other products. To put it another way, it is concerned with the regulation, testing, certification and marketing of products for their specific stated use and application—namely, the aims of the Bill.
The British Board of Agrément—the BBA—is one of the main industry certifying bodies for construction products. In virtually all the BBA certificates I have looked at, it is made clear that the approval is for the specific use and application as presented. This is logical because behind every approval is an assessment or test of some kind that will be specific as to the proposed use. However, we know from the Grenfell phase 2 report how things can be misrepresented. Of course, none of this prevents misuse of some sort, or abuse, but it starts to clarify responsibility as applying to those who have true agency in the specification and use of products, especially where fire safety is concerned. I hope this gives the Minister an opportunity to confirm that, so far, I have got this right.
At the meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Leong, and officials, for which I thank him, it was suggested that while the provisions of the Bill cover construction products, in all probability any regulations would be made under a different legislative provision, such as the Building Safety Act 2022—so I looked in that Act for the word “regulation”. I got 650 hits, which sounds a bit like Henry VIII on steroids, I am bound to observe. I alighted on paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 11 to that Act which states:
“For the purposes of this Schedule, “safety-critical products” means construction products which are included in a list contained in construction products regulations”.
It is getting a bit circular, I suspect. Sub-paragraph (2) states:
“A construction product may only be included in a list under sub-paragraph (1) if … in the view of the Secretary of State any failure of the product would risk causing death or serious injury to any person”.
I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that I am right in believing that this is the relevant regulation-making measure that might be used in the Building Safety Act to implement some of the provisions of this Bill, if they are not implemented directly. If so, it has to be noted that the Building Safety Act relates to critical life-safety risks to persons, first and foremost. The Bill does not use that metric, so I consider that the relationship between this Bill and the BSA, for example, needs further clarification.
It has long been my professional assessment that if a building is robust, occupant safety is likely to be assured as well, but focusing on critical fire risk which interests itself only with occupants’ risks consigning them to significant risks of an emotional and financial nature if the building lacks durability and is effectively considered expendable. In terms of human life, that is absolutely the right approach, and I get that, but in terms of mercantile practice and peace of mind, it is a philosophy with gaps, especially if the general Building Safety Act approach is one of proportionality or tolerable risk—although I question by whose objective standards those might be measured, but that is another question.
So if I am correct, even allowing for the point that a building is not “product” as a term of art, why regulate such an important matter as construction products to be used in a residential block via different standards as compared with, say, those for a fridge-freezer or a washing machine? As set out in Clause 1(4)(c), we are concerned with a product that could “reasonably be foreseen” to cause damage to property. How is that, in the case of buildings under the BSA, a proportionate or tolerable risk to life? In the Government’s view, does the latter include the former? If so, I would be delighted to get confirmation of that; it is something that I tried to get hold of right the way through the then Building Safety Bill’s time before us. If not, how does the BSA afford the implementation of product safety in construction products?
Note if you will that the assemblage of products and processes used as someone’s home represents their place of safety. It is often their largest investment; it is also often incomparably more valuable an entity than most consumer products, both to them and in market terms. So standards and regulation matter very much. I invite the Minister to enlighten the Committee on this apparent legislative inconsistency.
Had this amendment been debated earlier in the evening, I might have been tempted at this point to have a little rant about British Standards being set behind a paywall—as well as the invidious nature of that when they are also embedded in regulation; the regulation is open source but the BS is not—but I will leave that matter in part to one side for the moment. I appreciate that some of the points I have mentioned go beyond what I discussed in the meeting with the Minister so, if he is unable to answer them right now, perhaps he could write to me before the next stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
I will briefly respond to the noble Earl. He is right to raise this issue, which is clearly important; we look forward to seeing how the Government respond to it. There are serious issues that need to be addressed somewhere. As has been observed by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and others, the open nature of this Bill offers an opportunity for things like this to be properly discussed and to be, if not solved in this way, perhaps solved in another way.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it is very good to respond to this debate. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, sees that there is some advantage in the way that we have drafted the Bill.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for raising what is a really important matter. We all recognise that there are failings in the system by which construction products are tested, assured and made available for sale. The noble Earl described his amendment as probing whether the Government are prepared to use the powers in Clauses 1 and 2 to regulate products used in construction. The noble Earl has huge professional expertise. He referred to the BBA and the specific approval given but warned of the risk of misuse; I very much take that point.
The straightforward answer is that we think this issue is very important. We intend to bring forward robust regulatory reforms in order to provide confidence in the construction products regime and to ensure that only safe products are used in buildings and infrastructure. To that end, we also intend to ensure that the testing and assessment of products’ conformity must be undertaken by those who are competent, impartial and effectively held to account. We have committed to working with the sector on system-wide reform, including examining the institutions that play a key role in the construction products regime, so that businesses and, in particular, consumers can have confidence in the products and services they purchase. The proposed new clause to be inserted after Clause 2, through the noble Earl’s Amendment 46, would place a duty on the Secretary of State to use the powers and to make provision for construction products regulations within a year of Royal Assent of the Bill.
I turn now to the Building Safety Act 2022, about which the noble Earl made some interesting points. That Act already includes powers to introduce construction product requirements and regulations. We are exploring how best to use those available powers, including their sufficiency—I take his point on that—as part of considering system-wide reform. He will know that since the Grenfell tragedy in 2017 some action has been taken on construction products, but we know that more needs to be done.
In December 2018, regulations came into force that banned the use of combustible materials in and on the external walls of buildings over 18 metres. The national regulator for construction products was established in 2021 and leads on market surveillance and enforcement of construction product regulation across the UK.
The Government extended the period of recognition of CE marking for construction products in September this year to give the industry sufficient certainty to support supply chains and to allow time to address the inadequacies across the wider construction products regime, but we recognise that this action is piecemeal and does not go far enough. We have confirmed that we will respond to the Grenfell inquiry within six months. We are also committed to bringing forward proposals for system-wide reform of the construction products regulatory regime.
I have listened very carefully to the noble Earl’s analysis of the Building Safety Act and his suggestion that it is not sufficient for our purposes. We are considering this and I will write to him in some detail about the points he has raised. But to be fair to him, I have to say that this Bill does not specifically exclude construction products and that there could be an opportunity to use the Bill powers in the future should we discover that the Building Safety Act 2022 may be insufficient.
I hope that he will accept this as a positive response to the issues he has raised.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that reply and I am certainly prepared to accept what he says in relation to the Government’s intentions. I will need to consider very carefully what he has said, particularly if he is writing to me—I am grateful for that offer. I will consider things in the light of that.
Without further ado and given the hour, I simply beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead
“Product regulations: devolved administrations(1) Product regulations may not be made until the Secretary of State has consulted the devolved administrations as to their impact and effect on the marketing and use of products in the areas within the United Kingdom over which they have legislative competence.(2) The Secretary of State may by Regulations exclude the application of this Act to products to be marketed or used in areas within the United Kingdom over which the devolved administrations have legislative competence to enable effect to be given to an agreement that forms part of a common framework agreement.(3) A “common framework agreement” is a consensus between a Minister of the Crown and one or more devolved administrations as to how devolved or transferred matters previously governed by EU law are to be regulated.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that devolved administrations are consulted before regulations are made under this Part of the Bill, and that common framework agreements receive the same protection to enable them to receive effect as they have under section 10 of the UK Internal Market Act 2020.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for adding their names to this amendment in my name.
The amendment seeks to insert a new clause into the Bill with two objectives. The first is to ensure that the devolved Administrations are consulted before any regulations are made under this part of the Bill
“as to their impact and effect on the marketing and use of products in the areas … over which they have legislative competence”.
The second is to preserve agreements made under the common frameworks from being nullified by these regulations.
The first part requires very little introduction. The Bill extends to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and consumer safety standards, which is what the Bill is all about, are devolved matters in relation to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That has been acknowledged by the Government as is noted in paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Notes. Legislative consent is being sought, as one would expect, and indeed is still being sought, for the provisions that engage the legislative consent process.
That may be difficult to achieve because, while the Bill makes provision about what is to happen in each of the jurisdictions within the United Kingdom, it does not contain any provisions that require the consent of, or at least consultation with, the devolved Administrations before the wide-ranging powers to make regulations under Clauses 1 and 4 are exercised.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have been informed that we are not going to take the last group, and the Minister is confirming that. If anyone is waiting just for the last group, they should not, and they can go.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, it is an enormous privilege to have been in a position to add my name to these two amendments and to have listened to the elegant description of the way in which they are meant to work, as explained by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead.
I come to them from a slightly different perspective. The new Government have brought into being a desire to make the union work as a union by co-operation between the Governments in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. Looking particularly to Cardiff, one would have hoped that this is an ambition capable of easy realisation. These clauses give one an opportunity to mark that stated aim in very clear terms. It seems to me that if one looks at what the two clauses have brought about, which my noble and learned friend has so elegantly explained, one sees that they touch on areas of devolved competence, without any doubt at all, and there are legislative consent Motions before the respective devolved legislatures.
There are two areas, as my noble and learned friend has explained. One is consultation. I have never understood why across the board in areas such as this consultation is not mandatory. The previous Government were not very good at that; they did not uphold it properly, I regret to say. I hope they will now see a changed way through, and I very much hope this Government will accept the first amendment on consultation. I can see no argument whatever for not accepting that change.
The second area, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hope, explained, is common frameworks. He has explained how it is necessary to make the amendment, but I hope there is also something to the amendment that will breathe life back to common frameworks. It is fairly useful to go back to what was said in the communique issued after the heads of Government meeting in 2017:
“As the UK leaves the European Union, the Government of the United Kingdom and the devolved administrations agree to work together to establish common approaches in some areas that are currently governed by EU law, but that are otherwise within areas of competence of the devolved administrations or legislatures. A framework will set out a common UK, or GB, approach and how it will be operated and governed. This may consist of common goals, minimum or maximum standards, harmonisation, limits on action, or mutual recognition, depending on the policy area and the objectives being pursued. Frameworks may be implemented by legislation, by executive action, by memorandums of understanding, or by other means depending on the context in which the framework is intended to operate”.
Those were lofty ambitions. Regrettably, and it is not the occasion to go into it now, those ambitions were not properly realised. I pay especial tribute to what my noble and learned friend Lord Hope did when the United Kingdom Internal Market Act was promulgated in obtaining the clauses to which he has referred. It was only by his skill, diligence and considerable persistence—I say with respect—that we got these amendments through. Unfortunately, if there is not the spirit of co-operation—I regret that such spirit was not there for a lot of the past two or three years, although it came back towards the end, particularly under Mr Sunak’s Government—we cannot begin to hope for the lofty ambitions of a union where the Governments work together being realised again.
I hope that, because we have referred to common frameworks in this legislation, we will see them coming back. Much has been said about the need for co-operation and working together, but I think these two amendments are important because it is often said that men are judged not merely by words but by deeds—one could put it in a more colloquial phrase. It seems that these two amendments, drafted in the Government’s words, are and ought to be the deeds by which the Government show that they really mean to go ahead and operate on the basis of a union where, in these areas of devolved competence, there is co-operation but within a framework that permits divergence. Therefore, I very much hope that the principle of these amendments will be accepted, because it is so important to the future of the union.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Foster will speak to his Amendment 102 in a few minutes, but it makes sense to follow the noble and learned Lords with my comments on Amendment 47 and the two amendments in my name, Amendments 93 and 96.
It is an enormous pleasure and something of a responsibility to follow two absolutely fantastic speeches on this subject, and I am afraid that my mind did go back to the long nights of the internal market Bill and the tenacity—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, set out—of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in bringing his amendments forward, because a really important thing was eventually done there.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, referred to the danger of impinging on the devolved authorities. I will give just one practical example and this is not theoretical, because it is already something that the Welsh Government have raised. In their response, the Welsh Government concluded that
“there are relevant provisions in the Bill which, for the purposes of Standing Order 29, are within the legislative competence of the Senedd and therefore a Legislative Consent Memorandum (LCM) is required”.
I do not think that is disputed by the Government.
For example, the power within Clause 1(1)(a) could be used to reduce or mitigate risks presented by products that endanger the health of a person, distinct and separate from any risks to a person’s safety. The use of “health” in Clause 1(4) broadens the scope of how power could be exercised beyond simple product safety, which is a reserved matter, and enables provision to be made for public health purposes, which is an area within the Senedd’s legislative competence. This is just one example.
In their response document, the Welsh Government raise issues covering product regulations, product requirements, emergencies, information sharing, cost recovery, consequential amendment of certain Acts, interpretation, and the Schedule. Happily, the Welsh Government seem okay with Clauses 5 and 6, but the rest of the Bill forms a grey area around competence and responsibility.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, it is an enormous pleasure to follow my noble friend and the two noble and learned Lords, and I am certain that I will not be anywhere near as eloquent in speaking to Amendment 102 as any of them were. Their amendments all deal with the operation of the Bill in the context of the different Administrations that make up the United Kingdom. My probing amendment—it is just that—aims to seek to understand how the Bill will operate in terms of its applicability and its jurisdiction beyond the borders of the United Kingdom. I thought that it might be helpful to noble Lords if I gave an example not of a product but of the issue that particularly drew me to consider this problem, as I see it.
I am the chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform and I have done a lot of work on the issue of gambling. Some time ago, my attention was drawn to an online image which was very clearly identified as coming from Paddy Power. When I looked at this image, I came to the conclusion that it was in breach of our code of conduct in relation to advertising, set by the so-called CAP. I therefore drew it to the attention of the Advertising Standards Authority and asked it to investigate whether this particular image was in breach of the CAP code. It took very many months and several follow-up letters from me before it eventually came back to me and told me that it was somewhat uncertain as to whether it had the jurisdiction to act in respect of that particular image. In the end, it came to the conclusion that it did not have the ability to act—it was something beyond the territorial powers that it had.
When it comes to this Bill, I have to ask myself the question: if somebody acts outside the United Kingdom, what powers do we have for the appropriate body to be able to investigate the activities of that individual or organisation? Will we be able to call for documents or evidence or require it to come for interviews so that an investigation can take place? I appreciate that in many cases we have a situation where we have an internet provider providing this service, and internet service is at the basis of all this. When I look at the Online Safety Act, I notice that that Act defines the internet service in such a way that it has extraterritorial application. Given that an online marketplace is making use of an internet service, one has to ask whether this Bill has extraterritorial powers. In the case of the Paddy Power image, a solution was found because it turns out that we have reciprocal arrangements with the equivalent ASA body in Ireland and it is now going to look into that case—even though the image used pound signs rather than euros, so it was quite clearly intended for a UK audience.
I have suggested an amendment to ensure that there are extraterritorial powers for the various measures in the Bill. I have no idea whether that is the Government’s intention, but I hope it is because so many of the products come from abroad and so many of the services that enable us to purchase those products are based abroad, even though the firms concerned may well have offices within the United Kingdom. It is a probing amendment and I hope that when the Minister replies to the important issues that have been raised by the three preceding speakers, he will also help me understand more clearly what the Bill has in respect of these issues outside our borders.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all four noble Lords for their remarks, which I found absolutely fascinating. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, deals with parliamentary matters with considerable skill, diligence and persistence. It is always a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord. I am very grateful for the reference to the Constitution Committee, a subject I have laboured on at some length. It is important that we continue to return to the fact that the Government need to heed the comments of both the committees that opined on this Bill.
Before I go on, I say that I perhaps take a slightly different view of the previous Government’s interactions with the devolved Administrations than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and gently remind him, colloquially, that it takes two to tango. When there is a hard-left Government in Wales and a nationalist Government in Scotland they are perhaps not warmly disposed to being enthusiastic interlocutors with a Conservative and Unionist Government.
The first three amendments in this group have a similar theme, so I shall speak mostly to Amendment 96 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which would require the Secretary of State to have regard to Part 1 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. We are very proud of our record in helping businesses by reducing barriers for them through that Act, and I pay due tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for his work on it. The Internal Market Act guarantees that goods, services and qualifications recognised in one part of the UK are automatically recognised across all parts. For businesses, this means certainty, simplicity and reduced administrative burdens, themes that we have explored all evening, and enables them to sell goods and provide services without encountering unnecessary barriers or conflicting regulations. It also allows qualifying Northern Ireland goods to be sold in Great Britain in reliance on the market access principles.
This amendment does not seek to rewrite the principles of the Bill. Rather, it seeks to ensure that its implementation is compatible with the vital provisions of the UK Internal Market Act. The market access principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination are central to the UK Internal Market Act, as it stops protectionist measures that might favour goods or services originating from one part of the UK over another and safeguards fair competition, fostering a level playing field across all regions.
Our views on prioritising growth and investment and adhering to the provisions of the UK Internal Market Act 2020 are well known; we believe that this measure is necessary to achieve that. I am relatively agnostic as to which of the amendments the Government would wish to look at but some amalgam would clearly be a welcome step forward, so I support the amendments.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a really interesting group of amendments on which to finish our deliberations tonight. I thank the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Thomas, for their Amendment 47; the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his Amendments 93 and 96; and the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his Amendment 102. As noble Lords have suggested, the amendments relate to the application of the Bill’s powers in the United Kingdom, particularly in terms of consultation with the devolved Governments; the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020; and the issue of the frameworks, including how they would relate to this legislation.
I can give reassurance about the general approach of the Government to their relationships with the devolved Governments and the way in which we will conduct this. However, I want to reflect on some of the points raised by both noble and learned Lords; I will perhaps come back to them between Committee and Report.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, mentioned the constitution. I am very cognisant: I know that both noble and learned Lords, in our discussions on a number of Bills in the past few years, have wanted to ensure that, in the words of the Constitution Committee, if we are to make the union work, the key words are “respect” and “co-operation”. I fully accept that. We believe that we have, in our first five months, begun to reset the relationship between ourselves and the devolved Governments. We want to work constructively with them. For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned the input from the Welsh Assembly Government. We are considering it very carefully at the moment; my noble friend has also had some fruitful discussions with Scottish Ministers. That is the way we see ourselves going forward in future.
Many of the regulations made under this Bill will concern technical areas in relation to product regulation and metrology. These matters are largely reserved but some touch on devolved areas. I can confirm, and absolutely make clear, that the UK Government will continue to discuss product regulation and metrology matters with the devolved Governments. I am confident that, through this positive engagement, we will be able to reach a position where legislative consent can be gained. We will keep noble Lords updated on progress, obviously, but they will know that these matters sometimes take time. Equally, this is a Lords starter, so we have time over the next few months to ensure that we work in conjunction with the devolved Governments; we want to do that.
On the Sewel convention and secondary legislation, I was a Whip on the Scotland Bill and I remember the discussions involving Lord Sewel. I take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, but it would certainly not be our intention that, because of the convention, we could simply put through secondary legislation without seeking the input of the devolved Governments, certainly Scotland. We would not take forward regulations without engagement with the devolved Governments.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
Does it not therefore draw attention to the vital importance of very effective enforcement taking place at our borders? That requires us to look very carefully at the funding and resources of whatever body, or bodies, will be responsible for that enforcement. Does it not also mean that we need to have much clearer arrangements for the specification of the level of risk of different products that come in, so that that enforcement can be done relatively smoothly and openly to our total satisfaction?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord always poses his questions wishing me to say “yes”. I am sympathetic to the points he raised but I cannot commit, and I cannot go further than what I said this afternoon except to say that this is a very important area and clearly something that we as a Government need to strongly reflect upon.
Having said that, I hope that I have indicated to noble Lords that I understand the important issues raised. I have given an absolute assurance from the Dispatch Box that we want to make our relationships with the devolved Governments as effective as possible. It is true that four can play but we hope that we will be able to deliver this and that we will get consent. Again, I would like to reflect some more on some of the tricky legal issues that both the noble and learned Lords raised.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response to my amendments and for his assurances on the way forward that he sees on these matters.
I would like to make two points. First, I appreciate entirely that consulting on every single regulation would be a very time-consuming process, and I have seen the extent of to-and-fro engagement that goes on behind the scenes with good will between civil servants on both sides of the border. It is obviously a matter that deserves reflection and I absolutely understand why the Minister would like to take more time to look closely at it.
Secondly, as far as common frameworks are concerned, it always struck me in dealing with this subject that it is a great misfortune that the language chosen to identify them was not as readily identifiable as “internal market”. When you talk about the internal market everybody knows at once what it means but when you talk about common frameworks nobody knows what it means.
The Minister has obviously done some homework and has reassured me he understands the point, but the particular point about common frameworks is that it is a living process. It is perfectly true that there is a list of the frameworks—some 32 of them—but the prospect of having new ones is there all the time. One of the examples is that, in Wales, they are considering diverging from elsewhere on single-use plastics. I may be wrong but our products are developing all the time and each part of the UK might have an idea that it suits them to have a particular regime that they would like to discuss and introduce.
I ask the Minister to bear in mind that it is a living process and we have to make provision for the future. That is what my amendment seeks to do. I chose the words that were indeed the Government’s words in the internal market Act, so it is a system that they were prepared to accept. I am quite prepared to discuss this with the Minister further if he would like to and welcome his promise of future engagement before Report.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, of course, I very much welcome that. It is worth just referring to Section 10 of the 2020 Act, which defines a “common framework agreement” as
“a consensus between a Minister of the Crown and one or more devolved administrations”.
I take the noble and learned Lord’s point that “common framework agreement” does not readily come off the tongue but the wording very much sets the tone of the relationship that we want to see developed.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
The Minister is right. Consensus lies at the heart of the common framework system. There will not be agreement across the various Administrations without consensus but, where consensus exists, it is a signal that they should be protected against any misfortune on legislation that is across the entire United Kingdom.
Having said all that and with gratitude to the Minister for what he said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
Northern Ireland
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Caine
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to strengthen Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, before I answer the Question, I will take a moment to share my sympathies with all those who have been affected by flooding as a result of Storm Bert over the weekend. The storm and resulting flooding are, of course, very concerning and distressing for those affected, and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Caine, for his work on the flooding experienced in Northern Ireland last year.
The Government are committed to delivering for all communities in Northern Ireland by resetting the relationship with the NI Executive and working collaboratively to transform public services and champion investment opportunities. This Government will work tirelessly to fully realise one of our greatest achievements, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and its vision for reconciliation, equality, respect for rights and parity of esteem, making Northern Ireland more prosperous, more inclusive and safer for everybody.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her kind words and I associate myself with what she said about the flooding. A key commitment in Annexe B of the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper in January is for the Government unashamedly to make the positive case for Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom. This was to be supported by papers setting out the considerable mutual benefits—political, economic, social, cultural and security—gained by Northern Ireland being an integral part of the union. Can the noble Baroness confirm that these remain firm government commitments? Can she update the House on the schedule for publication of these papers and the steps being taken to ensure their widespread circulation in order to counter the arguments of those seeking constitutional change?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, this Government believe that Northern Ireland is a core part of the United Kingdom. As regards our commitments and those made in Safeguarding the Union, we are not reneging on any of the Command Paper commitments but remain committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith and taking forward commitments in a way that best delivers for the people of Northern Ireland. I will come back to the noble Lord on the timetable for publication; we are still working.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the constitutional future of Northern Ireland will be decided by the people of the region, as laid out in the 1998 Good Friday agreement negotiated by the British and Irish Governments and the majority of parties? That agreement enshrined reconciliation, parity of esteem and respect for political difference.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend: in accordance with the Good Friday agreement and the principles of consent, Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK for as long as its people wish it to be. At present there is no clear basis to suggest that a majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to separate from the United Kingdom. For our part, the United Kingdom Government are committed to upholding the Good Friday agreement, in letter and in spirit, and in that vein to respecting all constitutional ambitions for Northern Ireland as long as they are pursued by legitimate means.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how the east-west council set up under the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper and the new Council of the Nations and Regions can be used, together and separately, to promote the benefits of the union between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom? How is that work going to be evidenced in Northern Ireland itself, and how will it be used to dismantle the current trade and other barriers within the United Kingdom that have been imposed on the people of the area?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the east-west council is one of the important structures of intergovernmental relations and institutions we will use to improve relations and collaboration on policy. The first meeting was in March 2024 and we will announce the date of the second meeting shortly. On the Council of the Nations and Regions, noble Lords will forgive me for the laugh but the Question following this one is on that council. It is a manifesto commitment and core to us resetting and normalising relations across the United Kingdom to deliver for the people of every corner of our country.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that Brexit has had a profound impact on politics in Northern Ireland, including on its relations with the rest of the United Kingdom? Young people often feel that they have been particularly negatively impacted. Does the Minister therefore not agree that reconsidering the Government’s policy on the EU youth mobility scheme would be very positively regarded by young people in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I live in a place where 73% voted to leave. This Government have been very clear on our approach to Brexit and its clear impact on Northern Ireland. We need to make Brexit work for everybody, including young people, and find the benefits of Brexit. I look forward to further discussions in due course.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, in the interests of strengthening Northern Ireland’s position in the United Kingdom and restoring trust in the rule of law, can the Minister tell us when His Majesty’s Government intend to table legislation to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles Act and to restore the rights to inquests, civil actions and the possibility of the prosecution of alleged murderers, which were removed under the Act but are enjoyed by everyone else in the United Kingdom?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for the work she has done in this area and for meeting me to discuss next steps. The Northern Ireland Office is working every day on this issue to make sure that there is genuine consultation for what will happen next. I look forward to updating the House and working with noble Lords across the House as we move forward to repeal and replace previous legislation and to make sure that, as we explore the legacy of the Troubles, we deliver for the people who were affected.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that no one in Northern Ireland had the opportunity to vote for the Labour Party—the governing party—because the Labour Party has decided that you cannot vote Labour. You can join the party, because the GMB took legal action. Can she tell me why the governing party has a sister party, the SDLP, which wants a united Ireland? How does that strengthen the union?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I am not sure that is a matter for the Government; rather, it is one for the Labour Party. I am more than happy to have a discussion with the noble Baroness outside the House.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register and, in particular, my chairmanship of InterTrade UK. The Acts of Union in 1801 were mostly predicated on trade, which is so important for Northern Ireland and, indeed, the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom. Does the noble Baroness therefore share my concern that some small businesses in GB are already saying that they are not going to trade with Northern Ireland because of the EU product safety regulations?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I look forward to working in the coming months and years with the noble Baroness in her role as chair of InterTrade UK. The updated general product safety regulation largely formalises the reality of how businesses are already operating in the UK. The Department for Business and Trade has been working closely with businesses to help them get ready, and will shortly publish more guidance to support them further. This Government—and I—will keep a close eye on this going forward and continue to help businesses trade freely across the whole United Kingdom.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the Minister referred to Brexit benefits; can she spell out for the House what those are?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
For the record, I believe I said that we will make Brexit work for everyone and find the benefits of Brexit.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Will the Government publish a checklist of the measures in the Command Paper that have now been implemented, together with an indication of when the other measures will be implemented? In view of the slight confusion that has arisen, will the Government confirm that they have completely scrapped the legal duties that had been placed on Ministers to promote an all-Ireland economy, as the Command Paper pledged?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I have the full list of where we have delivered, where we are in progress and where we are tied to EU reset and business readiness; I will speak to colleagues about making that publicly available. With regard to the all-Ireland economy, the Government are committed to protecting the UK-Ireland internal market and the Windsor Framework, including all aspects of the Northern Ireland economy. Section 10(1)(b) refers to the joint report between the UK and EU negotiators of October 2017, which refers—among other things—to the all-Ireland economy. The all-Ireland economy is a fact and is greatly to the benefit of the businesses and people of Northern Ireland, as is Northern Ireland’s trade with the UK internal market.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, we have had the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor Framework, and now we have the Safeguarding the Union document. All of those are supposed to assist with trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but we still have border checks, a border in the Irish Sea and no resolution to the veterinary medicines issue. When will the Government resolve these difficult issues for Northern Ireland?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
This is a priority for this Government and we will work at pace, especially on the veterinary medicines issue. We have established a working group, which continues to advise the Government and which met again earlier this month.
Council of the Nations and Regions
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they intend to report to Parliament on the work of the Council of the Nations and Regions.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The inaugural Council of the Nations and Regions met on 11 October in Edinburgh to discuss growth and investment. On 17 October, the UK Government published the terms of reference for the council and a communiqué summarising the discussion. A communiqué will be published following each meeting of the council.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
I thank the Minister for that excellent Answer. However, does she agree that while the council has got off to an excellent start bringing the nations and regions of the United Kingdom together, it is a pity that large areas of England were not represented. What are the Government going to do to make sure that they are represented at future meetings of the council?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister chaired the first leaders’ council on 24 October, where she vowed to forge a new relationship based on honesty and respect between central and local government, helping drive economic growth and improving lives. The leaders’ council brought together Ministers and local leaders to tackle shared problems. The Deputy Prime Minister has also written to all areas with a devolution deal to invite them to come forward with a proposal. New mayors established through this deal will be eligible to attend the Council of the Nations and Regions.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, this council appears to have rendered obsolete the Prime Minister and Heads of Devolved Governments Council. Does the Minister really feel that is an appropriate sign of respect to send to the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I assure the noble Baroness that that is not the case. Before the first full meeting on 11 October of the Council of the Nations and Regions—which, to remind the House, was a manifesto commitment—the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland and the First Ministers of all devolved Governments had a multilateral meeting with the Prime Minister, which would fulfil tier 1 of the IGR requirements. With the greatest respect to noble Lords opposite, that was the first time such a meeting had happened since 2022.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, as a former Minister for Yorkshire and the Humber and a strong supporter of regional development agencies, which the previous Government made a big mistake in abolishing, I welcome the establishment of the Council of the Nations and Regions. Can my noble friend the Minister assure me that she will encourage mayors and combined authorities to draw up strategies for the whole of each region, such as Yorkshire and the Humber, to complement their individual strategies?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her support. The Deputy Prime Minister is fully committed to empowering mayors and combined authorities, and we are working with local leaders from across England to deliver the most ambitious programme of devolution that this country has ever seen. We want to see all partners collaborating regionally, which obviously includes Yorkshire and the Humber. Our upcoming English devolution White Paper will be published in due course and will set out details.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, one of the objectives of the council is to identify
“barriers that can be unblocked”.
Does the Minister accept the belief of the Welsh Government—which was raised by the First Minister of Wales, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely—that the Barnett formula in its present form is a barrier to effective provision of public services in Wales? Will she confirm that the council has triggered an investigation into this matter? If not, why not?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the Council of the Nations and Regions is one vehicle where the Heads of Government meet, but we have regular conversations with all First Ministers, especially the First Minister of Wales. That is why we announced the largest-ever Budget settlement for Wales under devolution, including a £1.4 billion increase because of the Barnett formula. How it is spent is now a matter for the Welsh Government.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the formation of the Council of the Nations and Regions and, particularly, the forum it provides for the Prime Minister to meet the First Ministers of the devolved nations and the mayors of combined authorities. I was pleased to read the brief minutes of the first meeting on the government website. The Labour manifesto committed to set out a new memorandum of understanding outlining how the nations would work together to strengthen the Sewel convention. Has that been done? If not, what progress has been made on it?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. Work is under way. This is about how devolution works, and therefore there will not be one person who announces that. We are working with each devolved authority to make sure that any changes and updates to the MoU on the Sewel convention work for all devolved Governments and will report in due course.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the council’s activities do not duplicate existing structures or initiatives, particularly in relation to devolution agreements and inter- governmental relations? Is clear value for money therefore provided by the council for taxpayers across the United Kingdom?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I think it is fair to suggest that, for the last 14 years, there have been challenges in conversations between devolved Governments and mayors and the Government. That has not benefited economic growth in any corner of our country. This is to fix that and is therefore value for money. On the substantive question of where the Council of the Nations and Regions fits into intergovernmental relations and bodies that already exist, all those bodies exist because of conversations that have happened with the devolved Governments, so we are working with them to make sure that this structure, and future structures, will work for them to deliver for the people of every corner of our country.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester
My Lords, given that the UK Government have recognised the distinctive identity of the Cornish through the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, can the Minister say whether there are any plans to recognise that identity within the Council of the Nations and Regions, irrespective of whether they vote for a mayor? I note that the Cornish do not take kindly to being called English.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
That threw me, my Lords. I am assured that they will be recognised through their combined authority and will be able to attend future meetings. I will come back to the right reverend Prelate on the other points.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, for the last decade, the relationship between the UK Government and Edinburgh has not been—how can I put it?—the healthiest. In what way can the Council of the Nations and Regions ensure that those relationships are healthier and more productive in the next decade, not least for the people of Scotland, who have lost out because of that fractiousness between the two Governments?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
That is at the nub of the creation of the Council of the Nations and Regions. It is about making sure that we deliver for every corner of the country, that we do not just reset but normalise relationships between the UK Government and the devolved assemblies. What we saw on 11 October at the first meeting of the Council of the Nations and Regions was a meeting bringing everyone to Edinburgh to have those conversations and to talk about what priorities should be before the investment summit that occurred in the following days. That delivers real investment. We heard a great deal from the previous Government about levelling up. This is about levelling up in action and making sure that we are prioritising every corner and not just those that shout loudest.
Lord Deben (Con)
Notwithstanding that the Government gave more money to Wales in the Budget, is not the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, right that the Barnett formula, which is deeply unfair to Wales, needs to be looked at finally for the future, rather than brushed off and pushed behind a carpet?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, we have no current plans to review the Barnett formula.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that this Government are committed to a comprehensive plan for devolution in England, and that this plan will, for the first time, allow proper powers and proper money from the Treasury to be devolved to the authorities that are closest to the people and able to solve the problems?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, there will be an English devolution Bill, and I thank my noble friend for the work that he has done for decades on devolution. The White Paper is soon to be published. We are expanding devolution, devolving further powers to local leaders to drive economic growth and empower communities. It is a responsibility of this Government to make sure that we deliver for every corner of the country.
Landlords: Long-term Rentals
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornhill
To ask His Majesty’s Government what incentives they propose to introduce to encourage landlords back into the private rented sector for long-term rentals.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as a vice president of the Local Government Association.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her Question. The Government value the contribution made by responsible landlords who provide quality homes for tenants. They form a vital part of our housing market. Our Renters’ Rights Bill ensures that landlords have the confidence and support they need to continue to invest in the sector and we do not expect it to have a destabilising effect on the market. We have included provisions in the Bill to make sure that landlords cannot evict tenants simply to turn the property into a short-term let. Landlords and tenants are equally important. Landlords want good tenants. Tenants want good landlords. We hope that the Bill will make things better.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness for her reply and sincerely hope that the Government’s aspirations are met, but note that most of the actions are going to be in the future. However, I know that the Minister is only too well aware of the crisis in temporary accommodation that is actually caused by over 110,000 households unable to find any affordable accommodation in the private rented sector, where demand is demonstrably not keeping up with supply. What can be done when those landlords that are leaving the private rented sector precisely because there is a shortage can then relet the same property to their own council at a higher rent? Incredulously, this practice is fuelled by councils and the Home Office bidding against each other for the same property, at considerable cost to the taxpayer.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I did ask what the noble Baroness felt could be done about it. I asked my Question first, but my question is: surely this is bonkers and can we not work out some protocol so that councils and government offices are not outbidding each other?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, of course the noble Baroness is quite right to flag up the issue of the terrible shortage of housing. The answer in the medium to longer term is just to get more housing built, and we are straining every sinew to do just that. In terms of the way that short-term lets work, we know that they can benefit economies through visitor spend and creating employment opportunities for local people. However, we appreciate that excessive concentrations of that in some parts of the country impact availability and affordability. I know that this competition between local authorities and government departments for housing is causing a real problem. We are introducing a registration scheme for short-term lets to protect our communities, abolishing things such as the furnished holiday let tax regime, to remove the tax incentive that short-term let owners have over long-term landlords. We recognise that more needs to be done to level the playing field between short and long-term tenures. Long-term tenures are important, and they need to be affordable long-term tenures.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a landlord and a former private renter, and I apologise for jumping up a bit early previously. Does the Minister accept that removing tax incentives and reliefs on mortgages for private renters has led to a diminution, in some cases, of the number of properties supplied to the sector, and certainly acted as a disincentive? As a result of that, together with other factors, more landlords are leaving the sector rather than coming in. The question of short lets has been mentioned. Increasing numbers of landlords are moving to platforms such as Airbnb, which are four times more profitable than long lets. Surely, in order to meet the Government’s housing targets, we need more long-term lets in the sector, not fewer.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord that we need more long-term lets— I think I made that very clear—but there is no evidence of an exodus from the market. A study from the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence looked at whether regulation and tax changes over the past 25 years in the UK and internationally had affected private rented sector supply. The report concludes that there is no evidence that that has had an impact. In fact, the PRS has doubled in size since 2002 and is now the second largest housing tenure, with over 11 million people living in the private rented sector.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, rather than incentives for reluctant landlords, could the Minister say whether the Government are considering incentives to landlords who want to exit the market to sell to the social housing landlords who can modernise the properties and let them long term on a secure basis at affordable rents to people who will not be able to afford the private rented sector?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I could not agree more with the noble Lord that for some people in the housing market, the only affordable housing is social rented. The Chancellor set out in the Budget that we will make an immediate one-year cash injection of £500 million into the current affordable homes programme. I can confirm that that can be used to purchase property on the private market. That will support the delivery of up to 5,000 new social and affordable homes. In addition, at the multiyear spending review next year, we will set out details of new investment to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme. That will deliver a mix of homes for sub-market rent and home ownership, with a particular focus on delivering homes for social rent. I hope our Deputy Prime Minister’s promise to deliver a revolution in the delivery of social homes will come to fruition.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, there will always be a market for rental accommodation and, under the Conservative Governments, the number of households in the private rented sector rose from 3.1 million to 4.4 million between 2009 and 2021. How does the Minister intend to ensure that the Government’s legislative agenda does not reduce the number of properties available for private renters and risk rent increases?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
First of all, I would say that the number of people who were able to own their own properties actually fell under the last Government. I am surprised, with the record that we have heard many times in this House of the number of people who are currently on housing waiting lists and 150,000 people in temporary and emergency accommodation, that the previous Government want to stand up and question this issue in the House. The PRS has doubled in size since 2002. We will continue to do what we can to support both landlords and tenants in that sector. We are about to introduce the Renters’ Rights Bill to this House. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have already engaged on that. If there is anybody who has not yet, do get in touch with me, but I look forward to working with the House to deliver a very effective piece of renters’ rights legislation.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that two of the most profound underlying causes of children, the most reluctant tenants of all, being in temporary accommodation—150,000 of them in England alone—are forced evictions and affordability? Does she therefore, like many in this sector who care about this issue, have some cause for concern that the housing allowance has been frozen until 2026 and was not used as an opportunity in the Budget? I ask because there is very welcome legislation coming down the track—but right here, right now, tonight, for 150,000 children, what is the quick solution?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that important issue. We have looked at local housing allowance, but increasing that even slightly puts a huge pressure on the overall fiscal picture in the country. So it has not been possible to do that this time, because we had to fill the £22 billion black hole that was left to us as a legacy from the other side. We have put £500 million into delivering more affordable housing, taking us to £3.1 billion in total for affordable housing. We have also increased discretionary housing payments and have put back in the household support grant, which would have run out at the end of September because there were no government plans to meet those costs until the end of the year. That will provide some relief for the most deprived families.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a particular problem in Cornwall, where there are over 13,000 short-term lettings going on? The problem with those people who do short-term letting is that they seem not to pay much attention to the rules and orders of the accommodation where they stay. They keep people awake all night, very often, and have visitors coming whose identities are unknown. This is a security risk too. Will the Minister do something about these short-term lets?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is great to hear about Cornwall so much this afternoon. I hope that people who are in communities will get in touch with their local council, which can act against anti-social behaviour. It is a matter for those who run Airbnb and other lettings companies. Generally, they are well run, but, where they are not, it is perfectly possible for communities to get in touch with their local authority to make the necessary complaints. We have introduced powers to charge 100% council tax on second homes, and things like that, and we are taking action on second homes. I hope that this will ease the position, but I urge anybody suffering from that kind of anti-social behaviour to contact their local authority.
Drones: RAF Bases
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Stansgate
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of recent reports of drones flying over RAF bases in East Anglia.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
The Ministry of Defence is aware of these reports and is working closely with the US visiting forces, Home Office police forces and other partners to respond to recent events. We will work with the civil authorities to prosecute those responsible. We take any safety issues seriously and maintain robust measures at Ministry of Defence sites, including counter-drone capabilities. My noble friend will understand that I am unable to comment further on the specific security procedures at our sites. This remains a live criminal investigation.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the Answer that he was able to give. There have been additional sightings of unidentified drones over our aircraft carrier HMS “Queen Elizabeth”. It may be that these flights are not a coincidence. Does my noble friend agree that these are matters of potentially serious concern, given that drones are now so ubiquitous and given what we know their role is in warfare? The House will remember that Gatwick Airport was completely closed a few years ago by unidentified drones. As a result of that, the RAF has acquired new equipment, known as ORCUS, designed to deter drones. Do our Armed Forces have enough of it? Can my noble friend reassure the House that the Government are doing all they can to work with our international partners, especially the Americans, to find out what is going on and how best to protect our bases?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the question. We are working with our international partners, including the United States. Of course, we are trying to ensure that we have all the equipment that is needed to tackle any of these attacks that we face. Similarly, with respect to the aircraft carrier, I can say that a civilian drone was observed in the vicinity of HMS “Queen Elizabeth” on 22 November, but it got no closer than 250 metres. I can reassure my noble friend that we take all of this seriously, and we will work closely to ensure the safety of all our sites.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I am aware that there is a series of very effective assets which can be deployed to air defence. I do not expect the Minister to comment further on those, but I will ask him, specifically, how the ground-based air defence system is progressing.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is obviously a matter of real importance, and the defence review is looking at what we should do with respect to air defence in the round, including defence of the homeland, as the noble Baroness asks.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, this is a question not just of defence sites but of much wider national resilience. We have seen the extensive use of drones in Ukraine against non-military targets. Can the Minister reassure the House that the Government will look at this problem in that much wider context? Quite clearly, we cannot mount air defence systems around every single part of our critical national infrastructure, and we have to ensure that we have some other method of protecting them against this new threat.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for that important comment, and I will make sure that it is reflected upon within the Ministry of Defence. He makes a really important point about air defence—of course that is an important aspect of it—but there are other ways of protecting our sites and other ways of conducting warfare. Ukraine has shown us the importance of hybrid warfare, and that certainly is something that the defence review will look at. But I will take his very important comments back to the MoD.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Minister worked very closely with me and others during the passage of the National Security Act 2023. The then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, was very responsive and worked collegiately across the whole House on a cross-party basis. Section 4 of that legislation is the prohibition of drones in the vicinity of prohibited places, which include these bases. I ask the Minister to reassure the House on two things: first, that local communities are very aware of the national security legislation in these areas; and, secondly, when it comes to a national security threat, that the full elements of law and order will be deployed under national security legislation to ensure that there are no breaches.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for his question. He is quite right with respect to the National Security Act. Let us be clear, in various pieces of legislation, not just the National Security Act, it is illegal for drones to be flown over or in the vicinity of these military sites. People should be aware of that, and local communities should be reassured. In terms of national security, the same Act that he and I passed under the last Government ensures that there are penalties of up to 14 years for this sort of activity, and people should be aware of that. All agencies and parts of the state will work to ensure that we identify and do what we can with those who are conducting these acts.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I might build on the question from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, if I may—or not.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I think it is this side. I refer to my interests in the register as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. I too wanted to follow up the question from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. This is a widespread issue. Drones are comparatively cheap; they are easy to mobilise; they can be used, potentially, with an explosive or chemical or even a radiological payload; and they can be used for hostile surveillance. There are all sorts of uses, not just by hostile nations, but by criminal gangs and terrorists and so on.
This is not just a question for national defence against national defence assets, but it must be a question of the police around the country having the appropriate equipment and facilities. Can the Minister reassure us that we are going to have that country-wide, whole-of-government response to the threat from drones, which, as we have seen in other countries, can be extensive?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My noble friend makes a really important point. The defence review will address national resilience. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, has also said, of course air defence means missiles and other things in the conventional way in which we interpret that term. It also includes being able to deal with low- tech mass efficiently and cost effectively. Clearly, we will need to address that—and we will—as the hybrid threat and the low-cost, low-technology threat will be part of the warfare of the future.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
The Minister has outlined some of the challenges that we face but there is a bigger issue here. Under Article 3 of our NATO treaty, we have an obligation to deliver national resilience in the UK. It is not just about the air threat—it is about guarding critical national infrastructure, not just military bases but power stations. We have not done this en masse for a very long time, and, like other noble Lords, I simply seek reassurance that we are thinking about this in the SDR because the manpower required is significant. I declare my interest as director of the Army Reserve.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for the work he does as director of the Army Reserve. On national resilience, the threats and warfare of the future have been shown from Ukraine and elsewhere. It is not just tanks, it is not just aircraft—it is about national resilience to withstand hybrid attack, such as attacks on information and our critical national infrastructure. The ability to defend against physical and cyberattack is crucial to withstanding the threats that we will face in the future. That has to be a part of any future defence review, and it will be. Without it, we will leave our country weaker than it should be in the face of such threats.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the House will hear from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, does the deployment of Armed Forces personnel indicate that the local police forces do not have the ability to investigate drones, as required by the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The Gold Command for the sites in East Anglia is the Ministry of Defence Police. That force has the ability, knowledge and expertise to deal with some of the threats that the noble and gallant Lord has pointed out. His question demonstrates the need for the Ministry of Defence Police to work closely with Home Office police forces and other agencies to defend those sites.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
As the operator of a registered drone under the CAA, my concerns are that in this country there is a considerable and increasing number of drones being operated by people illegally. They pose a direct threat, not only to military installations and the zones around our airfields, but around civil facilities. Can the Minister comment on how much policing is going on generally, and how many prosecutions of these illegal activities are taking place?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The illegal use of drones is certainly an area of concern for us all. In terms of the numbers of prosecutions, the best thing for me to do, which would be of benefit to the noble Lord and the whole House, is for me to refer to my colleagues across government for a satisfactory answer. I shall then write to the noble Lord with the statistics he requests about what action is taking place, and put a copy of the letter in the Library.
“Get Britain Working” White Paper
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this White Paper and are very keen that it should work and deliver positive outcomes for people who are out of the labour market, people who are economically inactive, those with health problems, and young people trying to get a productive start in life. Many of the proposals contained in the White Paper are either based on or continuations of some of the work we started in government—our WorkWell pilot schemes, our youth offer with youth hubs, and the universal support schemes—but we are not quite sure about the carrying on of the fit note, so I would be grateful for some confirmation on that. It is critical that the outcomes of the White Paper proposals work and, to that end, we really want them to.
I will talk about outcomes, which are important when looking at the investment being committed to this important area of work. As many in this House will know, I spent many years working with others in this sphere, so noble Lords must forgive my passion and commitment to the subject. Let me give just a few examples. On ThinkForward, we put our advisers in schools, working with the teachers and the management team. Our job was to prevent young people becoming NEET in the first place. The outcomes were that 85% of the 14 to 16 year-olds showed significant improvement in their attendance and behaviour. Some 60% of the group achieved at least five GCSEs at grade A to C and —wait for it—96% of the 17 to 18 year-olds in further education, employment or training were still there after a year.
Then we put our advisers into doctors’ surgeries. Let me tell your Lordships about the outcomes: a 20% reduction in GP appointments, a 74% reduction in referrals to practice counsellors—not that there is anything wrong with counsellors—and a 34% reduction in antidepressant prescriptions. Some 36% of people who completed the course were in employment and 80% of the 36% were still in employment 12 months later. This was for one surgery with a cohort of 200 people, at a cost of just over £2,000 a job. The noble Baroness who was the Minister of State for Education visited the project and saw for herself how great it was.
My other point on outcomes is, as noble Lords have heard me say many times, that getting someone into a job is one thing but keeping them there is another. Will His Majesty’s Government publish a set of metrics against which we can judge the success of Get Britain Working? Will they publish quarterly performance data? This will allow us to see what is working—and, indeed, what needs to change—to make this policy more effective. There is nothing wrong with changing half way through or changing course; people who do not change their minds do not change anything. Once someone has a job, will they retain the support of their coach to help them stay in work to ensure that the return on the investment reaches its full potential?
On employers, economic activity is not a problem that the Government can solve on their own. Businesses are the engine of our economy. They create jobs. No Government can improve employment rates without creating an environment where business can thrive and grow. If people are to get off benefits and into work, there must be jobs for them to do. However, as a result of this Government’s Budget, businesses are saying that they will no longer be hiring. Some 50,000 jobs will be lost from this Budget alone, according to the OBR. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s decision to raise employer national insurance contributions has had a negative impact on the chances of finding employment? If the Minister wishes to help more 18 year- olds into work, I respectfully suggest—I was challenged on this many times here—that she might speak to the Chancellor who has made it so that from April it will cost £5,000 more for a business to employ someone.
The Minister might also take the opportunity to speak to the Business Secretary whose Employment Rights Bill will, according to the Government’s own impact assessment, make it less likely that employers will take on young people. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s policies are counterproductive and making it harder for people to get into work? Only employers create jobs—and they have a very challenging time ahead.
As much as the people we are trying to help need continued, robust support, so do employers. We will be asking them to try to integrate people with various issues into their workforce. Let me tell noble Lords about one project I was involved in. A very high-profile car company said it wanted to integrate long-term unemployed people into its workforce. We got a young girl booking the executive travel for the workforce. She turned up for work on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday but on Friday she was a no-show. Our staff went round and knocked on the door. She came down in her pyjamas. We said, “What are you up to?”. She said, “I never went to school on a Friday and nobody said anything”. That is true. We told her to get dressed and took her to work. The next week, the same thing happened. We went round, knocked on the door and took her to work. The third week, she showed up and it was not a problem. That is an example of the level of support that people need.
We on these Benches fully support the review of the apprenticeship levy. It is much needed and will be welcomed by employers. But I am disappointed that those on the Labour Benches in the other place could not recognise the significant work that came before them on apprenticeships. We have had over 5.8 million apprentices earning while they learn since 2010, 225,000 of them at degree level since degree apprenticeships were launched by the Conservative Government. Over that time, we developed 690 high-quality apprenticeship standards in partnership with 5,000 employers, 370 of those in STEM subjects, ensuring that we delivered the skills the country needs. This is a record to be proud of and I know the Minister will be keen to build on it.
I come now to the merging of jobcentres and the careers service. It is good to see the continued cross-government working between the DWP, the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care. It is really important that the Government work across departments. The merging of Jobcentre Plus and the National Careers Service is a significant move. Can the Minister tell the House what assessment and analysis has been made to result in this decision? What is the plan for the merged service to become operational and what do His Majesty’s Government forecast that the benefits will be? What is the plan for ensuring the staff have the skills to carry out their roles? What is the timetable to deliver the new service and when will it become operational?
The challenge to Get Britain Working should not be underestimated but do we really need to wait one to two years for it to gain momentum? I assure the whole House that we on these Benches want this to work; we want Britain to work. For the sake of the people, we all want to help. To quote my leader in the other place: we are here for you—let us help. I personally pledge any help I can give to making this work.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches we welcome the encouragement the Government are giving to improving apprenticeships, reforming jobcentres and investing in the health service to cut mental health and other health problems affecting labour activity rates. The long-term sickness at the end of this Parliament, projected to be 2.8 million, is clearly completely unacceptable, and the social and benefit costs of that will be dire. We need to transform our training, career and employment services. The only problem is that we have been arguing and discussing this for more than 50 years of my political life. It comes up in every generation.
In this sort of debate or Statement, we should have in front of us all the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Moyo, from the Budget debate. She said that
“if Britain were ranked against each of the 50 US states in terms of wealth, it would be last, with Britain’s GDP per capita … below America’s poorest state, Mississippi”.—[Official Report, 11/11/24; col. 1614.]
Our per capital income in this country has not grown for 10 or possibly 15 years; 25 years ago our economy was larger than China’s, and we are now 20% of the size of China. Those are the warning signals, and therefore investment in training is absolutely fundamental to the Government’s growth strategy.
I have six points, which I hope will be helpful, on aspects that I am worried about. First, as I said, we have been struggling with our training, career services and jobcentres for more than 50 years. There have been so many initiatives. Does the Minister accept that it is not going to take one year, nor five years, nor possibly even 10 years? This is a 20-year programme to get this right. It needs investment and long-term planning to achieve comprehensive reform.
Secondly, are the Government worried that there is a huge shortage of resources here? There are a number of schemes in this White Paper devolving to mayors eight trailblazers; we are going to spend £45 million next year. That is just £6 million per region. It sounds like quite a lot of money but in reality it is not, so there is just a slight worry that this is a sticking plaster trying to deal with a long-term problem. Too many of these funding projects are just for one year, when we actually need a long-term plan. The White Paper seeks to bring together the jobcentres and the National Careers Service to transform our training arrangements. This is going to involve a major culture change. Any other organisation undergoing this would be planning for the long term and understand that it is going to take a major effort to achieve it, let alone make an impact. Do the Government realise this?
Thirdly, the youth guarantee is a fine objective, but in the White Paper there is very little mention of the role of further education. This is one sector, outside universities, that has been neglected and underresourced over the last few years, but it is fundamental to all this. Are the Government going to set some objectives and produce a reform of further education?
Obviously, the one priority that the Government have set—quite rightly—is that we must clear the backlog in mental health care and in the health services, but all the evidence is that early intervention is required to get people back into work quickly. Is there a conflict between the long-term need to clear the backlog and having resources to deal with the short-term, immediate need?
Finally, reducing the backlog in the NHS, which is behind a lot of these problems, is going to require real progress in social care. I know that the Government are struggling to come up with their reforms on this, but I repeat that releasing the NHS beds that are being used for social care is absolutely fundamental to providing beds to get people back into the labour market. They cannot get the care at the moment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their very constructive responses. It is a marked difference from the other place, but plus ça change. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, both for her welcome for the White Paper and for the constructive way in which she approaches these questions. I pay tribute to the work that she has done over many years at Tomorrow’s People and looking at this. I think we will find as we go on that she and I probably share more of an interest—a commonality—in these questions. I may differ with her on some of the choices that her Government made, but we share a view that we have to do what is right to get people into work and to support them to stay there.
Let me do the formal bit first. Yesterday the Government published the Get Britain Working White Paper, bringing forward what we see as the biggest reforms to employment support in a generation. We have already heard that the UK now faces a significant challenge. We have a near-record 2.8 million people out of work due to long-term sickness or disability. Add to that that one in eight of our young people is not in education, employment or training. A stat that I had not seen before but that shocked me is that in England almost a fifth of working-age adults do not have even the equivalent of one GCSE. If we are starting from that position, how can we possibly carry on as we are and expect things not to carry on the way they have been?
Addressing challenges on that scale needs a different approach. We are determined to start a process that we know will take time but will continue to drive down economic inactivity and create opportunity. It will involve fundamental reform of the Department for Work and Pensions, focusing it firmly as a department for work. It will mean overhauling Jobcentre Plus to create, as we have heard, a new employment service, bringing it together with the National Careers Service in England.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, asked whether we would give people help to stay in work. She is so right: our aim is not just to get people into jobs. The whole point of the new service is that it will not just be for those out of work, because it will be careers as well. It is there to get people to get into a job, get on in work and then progress and develop a career. We have to turn this country from one of inactivity, low pay and low-opportunity jobs to one that can transform not just the lives of individuals but the country, so the system will be universal and do all those things.
Supporting young people has to be crucial. We will improve access to training and job opportunities and establish the youth guarantee that was mentioned, so that young people are earning or learning. As a first step, we are working with mayoral authorities to set up the eight youth guarantee trailblazers with £45 million of funding. I think there is a dialogue to be had between the two Front Benches, because one reason that we are doing trailblazers is that we need to know what works. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, is absolutely right: if we find out that something works, we do more of it; if we find out that it does not work, we do something different. That is why we need trailblazers to know what will work. How can we better get local and central government working together to give people better support when they are young and desperately need opportunity?
Local knowledge is crucial. The White Paper is based on the assumption that we want to empower local leaders to know best what is there for their community and show leadership. Every area in England will be supported to bring forward a local “Get Britain Working” plan, and there will be £125 million going out for those eight trailblazers, looking right across England and including one in Wales. Three of the English trail- blazers will also receive a share of £45 million for dedicated input from the NHS. So often, health is a barrier to getting people into work. We have to join up public services to have any chance of getting this right.
We also know that good work is good for health. We want to get the NHS and the wider health system working to improve employment outcomes, so we will target extra support on driving down waiting times. But we also have to address the key public health issues that contribute to worklessness. We will expand access to expert employment advisers as part of treatment and care pathways.
We are also committed to tackling the root causes of mental health problems. The youth guarantee will support young people to access and navigate their way through mental health services, and there will be specialist mental health support in every school and health professionals available in colleges. We have prioritised funding, despite the tough spending round, to expand NHS talking therapies and the individual placement support programme.
There is loads more going on. We have an independent “Keep Britain Working” review, in partnership with business and led by Sir Charlie Mayfield, who used to chair John Lewis. That will help us to understand the role of employers in creating and maintaining healthy jobs and healthy workplaces. We have set out the principles to reform health and disability benefits, to ensure that the system supports people who can work to start or remain in work, in a way that is fair but also fiscally sustainable. We have launched the guidance for Connect to Work, our new locally led supported employment programme.
I was asked a number of questions. I probably will not get through them all in the time, but there were a few practical ones. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, asked about fit notes. She may remember that there was a call for evidence about fit notes. That closed in July and we have received more than 1,900 responses. Those are being analysed at the moment, and the results will inform our approach going forward. On the question of work coach support, I completely relate to her comments about the Friday girl. At the heart of this is the relationship between the work coach and the people they try to support into work. If we can get that right, all kinds of things are possible.
I have long said—I think I said this to the noble Baroness when we were in opposite positions—that I have been worried for some time that the danger was that our system was still designed as though the major challenge facing the labour market was unemployed people who did not want to work. However, for quite some time it has been people who struggle to work for a range of reasons to do with health or disability, and the system has to be able to address all of that. We are trying to turn this around to focus on making sure people get the support they need, at the time they need it, in the way that works best for them, so they can get jobs and keep them.
The noble Baroness has loads of experience working with young people, and, if it is going to work, we need to make sure that work coaches have that. We will set up a work coach academy to make sure that we can drive up the skills of our work coaches. That will be at the heart of making this work.
I was also asked about GDP per capita and productivity. GDP per capita is essentially about growth and we have to get this right. If we are going to deal with growth, we have to deal with the fundamentals of the economy. I will not go through the pantomime of mentioning black holes because, hey, life is short.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
If you insist. My Lords, this Government inherited a massive black hole—
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
Oh well. The reality is that it was quite clear to us that the Government needed to take some difficult decisions to deliver long-term stability and growth. Businesses need stability, infra- structure and a health service and transport system that function, to be able to operate.
We recognise the pressures on business, and our Ministers have been out there speaking to the Federation of Small Businesses, the Chambers of Commerce and the CBI. They are very keen to work with us on this, because they know that their members have hundreds of thousands of vacancies they cannot fill. One-third of those are because of skills gaps. They know that 300,000 people every year fall out of work due to a health or disability problems. We have to support them and support the individuals dealing with that. We want our jobcentres to serve business and to be not a place you go as a last resort when you cannot hire anyone but a place of first resort where you find people and get the learning, experience and support to make your business function.
I would really defend against the challenge that the programme is too small. This is one-year funding for a reason. It is because these are trailblazers to figure out what works. We know what does not work. If what we had been doing worked, we would not have 2.8 million people who are out of work due to long-term sickness or disability. We have to test processes to make sure they work. We are going to learn from that, but we know this is a long-term process.
I should add for the record that many of the policy areas described in the White Paper are devolved in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. To be clear, in those cases, the focus on the White Paper is on the actions of the UK Government in England. But we will be working closely with the Scottish and Welsh Governments to ensure that everything we do dovetails well with existing devolved support. We are keen to understand what works well across the UK and to learn from Northern Ireland’s experience of delivering employment and career support.
I recognise that these are ambitious reforms. I know they will take time and they will need help—not just from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, but from stakeholders and experts across the economy. But we can do this. Together, we can build a labour market that gives everyone the opportunity to be the person they want to be. Also, we can be the country we all want us to be. To do that, we need to get Britain working again.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the numbers of young people we are talking about who are not in employment or education. The Minister will know that earlier this year the Public Services Committee of this House set out a report based on a study of the transitional arrangements many of these young people experience as they move from school to employment, especially those with a disability or long-term health problems.
We had the extremes in the evidence. Some were simply brushed aside as being unemployable for a lifetime. For others, services and employers at local level got together and produced some wonderful opportunities to completely change the life chances of these young people. Could the Minister assure the House that the Government will look at this report and take forward the recommendations? They were considerable and intended to achieve some of the outcomes set out in this paper.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention and also of course for his many years of experience and work in the field of social policy and social care. I very much feel that what he described is what we are trying to do, and I absolutely assure him that the report will be looked at in detail and we will go through the recommendations carefully. One challenge we have is that it is too easy to write off young people. Nowadays, they are judged: the assumption is that they are not trying very hard and the expectations are there. Actually, I do not meet young people who do not want to be out there building a life. It is just that, sometimes, the challenges feel too big. If we can find the right way to support them—if we can get proper mental health support in place and if we can help employers to know how best to work with people who have mental health challenges—we can get people into jobs and they can stay in them.
In the years that I worked with single parents, for example, one thing I learned is that if people have found it difficult to get a job, if they find one that works for them, they are the most loyal employees anyone could get, because they have found a way in and something that works, and it becomes a brilliant relationship. So I am grateful to the noble Lord for that and I will take a careful look at it.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, on Friday morning, I was in a Jobcentre Plus office with a 50 year- old woman who has always worked—but not for the last two years, following a major spinal operation and rehabilitation. She is now ready to get back into work. When we went into that office, we were told that she was not entitled to any support from a disability job coach or adviser, although she is in receipt of PIP. The reason given was that she does not claim an unemployment benefit. What does the Minister suggest I do next to help this person? Why are we discriminating against disabled people wanting to get into work, whether they are claiming a benefit or not?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am sorry to hear of the experience that the noble Baroness’s friend or family member had. What she said goes right to the heart of what we are doing. The point of the national jobs and careers service is that it is not just for people claiming benefits: it is for anybody who needs help getting into work, getting back to work or getting on in work. If we narrow it down to simply being about benefits, we will end up putting the incentives in the wrong place.
One thing that worries us about how the system has worked is that a lot of work coaches’ time is spent checking up to see whether everyone has ticked all the boxes and whether those on benefits have done all the right things. Of course, conditionality will always be a part of the system, but we want to see whether there are ways to reform that so that we can test different ways of making sure that people stay connected and work coaches can spend more time devoted to individuals —including the person that the noble Baroness described —to get them back into work if they want. There are 600,000 people out there who are long-term sick or disabled who want to work, but somehow they are not able to. We have to do something about that and we are determined to.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, there is much to welcome in these proposals for reform of employment support and their aim of better health and good work. But can my noble friend please assure me, first, that the emphasis will be more on carrots than on sticks? Secondly, can she assure me that transforming a department for welfare into a department for work will not mean further social security cuts or abandoning any attempt to repair the serious damage wreaked on the social security system over the past 14 years, at the cost of its role in addressing poverty and providing genuine security?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
Let me reassure my noble friend of two things. First, we are absolutely committed to tackling the scourge of child poverty, and the Government are completely committed to making sure that how the social security system works is part of that—so I can reassure her on that front.
Secondly, we often talk in terms of carrots and sticks, but I am not sure that that is very helpful. Most people want to get on: they want a satisfying job that will be rewarding in itself and that will also feed them and their family. People want the same things that we want for them, but lots of things get in the way. Our job is to set the system up so that it is aligned to go with that—to get barriers out of the way, to support people, to give them all the help they can get and to get them over the line.
Obviously, some people will not be able to work on grounds of severe disability or perhaps sickness, or maybe their caring responsibilities do not make that possible. The Department for Work and Pensions is there to support them, as it is to support pensioners and those who need our help. A small number of people really do not want to work and, frankly, they should. We are quite clear that we will support them and, in return, we expect them to do their bit. But, in between, surely we can design a system that is not just carrots or sticks but goes with the grain and helps people to be themselves.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the White Paper and the Minister’s comments. I know her total passion for trying to unlock the potential of young people. In that spirit, my question is about education and the links between education and skills. She mentioned one GCSE. I am concerned that the financial literacy of our young people is very poor and we need to lay particular emphasis on that. I would also welcome the support of the Government to unlock apprenticeships, with better conditions for employers to take on young people much earlier than they currently do.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, and commend her for her work in the field of financial services over many years. She makes an important point about financial literacy. It is an interesting question. To give a simple example, if I go into a supermarket, I will sometimes see an offer on four cans of tomatoes which will actually be more expensive per can than the single cans sitting next to them. If people do not have basic maths, they will not even have the life skills they need when they most need them. If people do not understand what an APR means, how are they to know whether they are getting a decent deal, never mind beginning to think about pensions? I absolutely agree about the importance of that.
I also think it is really important to get apprenticeships right. One thing we are doing is putting money into more foundation apprenticeships, to give more young people the chance to get in much earlier. If people can get a foot on the ladder, or just get in the door, they can be inspired by something: it is a chance to do something, see something, achieve something, often to just be part of a team. After that, who knows where it can go? The noble Baroness raised two important points and I thank her for them.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I have two questions. I very much support the eight trailblazers for the youth guarantee, but what is meant by “the west of England”? Will the Government take further education to be as important as higher education?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The main trailblazers are based on combined authorities and the youth trailblazers are being negotiated, so I will have to come back to the noble and learned Baroness on the boundaries of the west of England. On further education, I am absolutely supportive of that. The Government have already invested an additional £300 million of revenue funding into further education to support young people to get the skills they need, and are providing £300 million of capital investment to support colleges to maintain, improve and ensure the suitability of their estate. If she has been to one recently, she will know how much that is needed in some parts. On the apprenticeships fund, £40 million is being directed into delivering shorter and foundation apprenticeships in key sectors. We think that is a way to help people to move forward in the skills area.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, following up on the point made opposite about apprentices, does my noble friend the Minister agree that nothing less than an apprenticeship guarantee is required? If so, what steps will the Government take, working with employers, to make sure that there is an apprenticeship guarantee, so that the many young people who are leaving school and are unable to get access to an apprenticeship will in future be able to do so?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the aim of our youth guarantee is to go further than that. We want every young person to be guaranteed to get either high-quality training, an apprenticeship or a job, or the support to get into one of those places. There are many young people for whom an apprenticeship is absolutely the right thing; there are others for whom more training is necessary, and others for whom a job is the right way forward. That is what we want: at that age, that is the choice that people should have. They should be earning or learning, and a job, an apprenticeship or education is the way forward.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I welcome this White Paper, especially the emphasis on supporting young people into work and recognising that there are lots of different pathways that are suitable for people. It is difficult to distinguish what parts are relevant to Wales. There is reference in the White Paper to the trailblazer in Wales, so can the Minister clarify how this will work and where in Wales it will be?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I share this: I have a grid that tells me which bits are devolved and which are not in different parts, because I struggle to keep track of it. The noble Baroness probably knows much more about this than I do, for which I pay tribute. Essentially, in Wales, as she will know, health is devolved; employment support, including youth, skills and training, is devolved; careers are devolved; and welfare reform is reserved. We are going to work with the Welsh Government; for example, there is already a youth guarantee in Wales, as I am sure she is aware. Some of the principles in our White Paper go with the grain of work that has already begun in Wales and we will work with the Welsh Government on a Wales-based trailblazer and to figure out how best we can join up with what they are already doing, where the gaps are and how we can learn together. It will be very much a partnership question. In Scotland, it is slightly different again—not that she asked about Scotland—because different parts are devolved. In Northern Ireland, it is pretty much all transferred. We have already begun speaking to officials in all the devolved Administrations with a view to taking this forward.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, paragraph 45 refers to the fact that the economically inactive are
“more likely (than the population as a whole) to have no qualifications, and some may also face other complex disadvantages, including homelessness, drug or alcohol addiction and contact with the criminal justice system”—
I stress that final point. In many cases, especially regarding criminal convictions and paper qualifications, these factors become insuperable barriers to gaining employment, even when they have no relevance to the actual requirements of the job concerned. Given that the best way to get a job is to have a job, I ask the Minister to look critically at these discriminatory practices, which are as prevalent in the public sector as in the private sector, and are not only damaging to individuals and their families but incredibly economically inefficient as they impact on hundreds of thousands of our citizens.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank my noble friend, and I do not need persuading of this. One of the most inspiring things I have seen in the DWP—I did not start it, so I can say this—has been work with prison work coaches. They are based inside prisons, working with those who are preparing to leave, to try to make sure that we can get them into a job. I am working closely with my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, and our departments are working together to try to find the best ways in which we can ease the transition from prisons into work. When we look at the levels of recidivism, which are staggeringly high—never mind what happens in young offender institutions—we know that, if we cannot crack this, it will not only be a potentially lifelong challenge for an individual, which they will never really overcome, but a huge problem for the state, both in the loss of opportunity for that individual and their talents and in terms of future crime. My noble friend raises a really important point.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register. Black and Asian women, particularly Bangladeshi and Pakistani women, have high unemployment rates and find it very difficult to get back into work after 15 or 20 years of caring responsibilities; for example, they may not have the digital skills they need. What are the Government doing to get these women into work? Are the apprenticeship schemes aimed at returners to work reaching these groups of women?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises an important point and I pay tribute to her work with the Muslim Women’s Network and with so many in her community. There is a range of support out there and I have seen some good examples. On Employability Day, I spoke to one programme which was doing fantastic work with women from a number of minority communities who were returning to work, or maybe had never been in work, after their children had grown up. They had very particular barriers and the scheme was designed to focus on them.
One of our challenges is finding a way to get people not only into work, which is really important, but to develop in work. I am sure the noble Baroness will know this better than I do, but if you look at the distribution of people who are in jobs at national minimum wage or national living wage, there are overwhelmingly more young people and older people, but also Bangladeshi people and Pakistani people are much more likely to be in low-paid jobs. The one thing we know from the evidence is that if you start at a low pay, you stay in low pay—it is very hard to break out of it. One of the challenges in the new system, which we are determined to get right, as we develop the new national jobs and careers service, is: how do we help people, whatever their background, to have the opportunity to get in, but also to get on and have ambitions?
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, in opposition, the Labour Party said it would be the most business-friendly ever. However, since the last Budget, is the Minister aware that every single employer organisation, ranging from the CBI and the IoD to the NFU and the British Retail Consortium, have condemned the Budget as being thoroughly anti-business? Can she answer the question from the noble Baroness on the shadow Front Bench about how the Government are now going to repair relations with business? How can the Government deliver these programmes and strategies without the good will and support of business and wealth creators?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
As I said earlier, we have been very grateful that business and business organisations have made it clear that they do want to work with us on this, because there is a clear area of common interest. There are currently over 800,000 vacancies in the economy and businesses need to be able to recruit people, but they cannot do so.
On the broader point, I try not to play the political pantomime game on the Front Bench, but I have to say to the noble Lord that if we had not had the economic crash we did, we would not have to take the measures we have done. We did not want to take them, but we have to repair the economy and our public services, and get our economy growing again, and this Government will do what it takes.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, the community and voluntary sector plays a key part in getting people into work, not only offering placements but actively working with groups that are difficult to reach. Does my noble friend agree that a lot of those voluntary and community groups are pushed out of this space because they are small and cannot bid for the contracts put forward by the DWP? That is an area she could look at, to ensure that groups such as the Just for Women Centre in County Durham, which does great work, can actually get those contracts.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My noble friend knows that the way to my heart is to mention County Durham. I should probably declare an interest, although it is so old that it is not an interest. Once upon a time I contracted with the then DWP to run employment programmes for single parents. That was about 100 years ago, so it is probably too old to be there now.
In response to my noble friend’s question, he is absolutely right that it is very hard for small voluntary organisations to bid for national contracts, yet they can often reach people that central government will never be able to. We have heard examples from around the House today. One of my hopes is that the more we can localise things, the easier it will be to involve a range of partners from an area, and people will know who the good players in their area are. Furthermore, the issues are different in different areas; as the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, explained, some areas may have a large Muslim or Bangladeshi community, and in other areas there may be large numbers of young people and single parents. Under this system, each area will have a better sense of what its problems are and which partners can be worked with. The aim of the trailblazer areas is to see what difference that system can make.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I have received a message from a person in Birmingham with 20 years’ engineering experience who has been unemployed and is now a zero-hours contract worker. He says that engineering has been decimated by high energy costs and that our energy costs are more than double those of the French and four times those of the Chinese. When are the Government going to control energy costs and save skilled jobs? Over to you, Minister.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I never like to say that something is outside my range but sometimes it really is. The Government have a very clear strategy on green energy and building green jobs, and on building pathways to secure British energy. The creation of Great British Energy and the strategies around it will all make a difference. I am afraid that is the limit of my knowledge.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, not that many years ago, I had the pleasure of being chairman of the National Maritime Museum and got to know that area very well—it had a lot of unemployment. One day I was introduced to somebody who came along to the museum who was fourth generation on the dole. He said that it was not worth his while, considering the size of his house, to consider a job unless it paid somewhere near £48,000. I bring it up because everybody here, I would suggest, was born with a work ethic and was proud to get a job, but so many people now find all the ways possible to avoid doing so. I know how much this means to the Minister and my question is: how are we going to get people off the dole? There are millions of people who should not be on it at all.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
This is such a hard one. I have no doubt that there are some people out there who really do not want to work and cannot be bothered. They would not get £48,000 in benefits—they would not be able to—but I am sure there are such people out there. However, I have been around this game a long time and my experience is that most people do want to work; there are just huge problems and the figures back that up. We do not have a massive unemployment problem; we have a massive inactivity problem. We have a physical health problem, a mental health problem and a crisis of sickness, disability and an ageing population.
The challenge of years gone by may have been to make sure that everybody wanted to work. The challenge of today’s economy is to make sure that everybody is able to work, and that they are able to get the job they need to help transform our economy. If we do not do that, businesses cannot fill vacancies, the economy cannot grow and nothing can happen. We are going to do it.
Football Governance Bill [HL]
Wednesday 27th November 2024
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Football Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Football Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 41-I(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (26 Nov 2024)
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 2, 3 and 4, in the names of my noble friends Lord Hayward, Lord Moynihan and Lord Maude of Horsham. I look forward to hearing them introduce their amendments later.
I am very pleased to open this first day in Committee on the Football Governance Bill and thank all noble Lords for their evident interest in it. I repeat my thanks to the Minister for the time she has made available to me and my noble friend Lord Markham as well as to other noble Lords across the Committee. I also thank her for the letters she sent this morning following the Second Reading debate; they were greatly appreciated by all who spoke then.
It is fitting that we open this debate with perhaps the most fundamental of the issues under discussion: what will this Bill do, what are its guiding principles and what is its overarching purpose? The Bill states that it intends
“to protect and promote the sustainability of English football”.
The inclusion of the word “sustainability” in this initial purpose clause is a curious matter and the reason I tabled my Amendment 1. Why should English football be merely sustainable? Taken at face value, sustainability is a reasonable approach, and perhaps a reasonable one to take in this Bill. The Cambridge English Dictionary, which is far superior to dictionaries available from other universities, defines the word “sustainable” as being
“able to continue over a period of time”.
I would not argue against English football being able to continue long into the future—that is the reason that the Bill has been brought before your Lordships—but is that all we want from it? My Amendment 1 seeks to question and, I hope, to clarify what we are trying to achieve through the Bill. By removing the words, “the sustainability of”, from Clause 1, I am trying to highlight that the Bill should be aimed at protecting English football in toto.
As I set out at Second Reading, football has an incredibly long and rich history in this country. The Football Association was the first of its kind anywhere in the world, as was the English Football League. I spoke of the importance of heritage and how the distinct identities of each and every football club arouse the passions of so many people across the country and the globe. This strength of feeling and these passions are not best encapsulated by the limited notion of sustainability; they include something much more human and emotional, which we should have a go at capturing. Surely, through the Bill, we are also seeking to protect and promote these emotions and desires for the game.
I note that the provisions on home grounds and team colours seek to work to that effect, as do further amendments that my noble friend Lord Markham and I tabled, which we look forward to discussing later in Committee. However, if there are provisions relating to this in the Bill, why does the purpose clause at the very beginning—Clause 1—not address it? Sustainability is too limited a condition for success. If we leave it as it is, would we not condemn the regulator from the start to be inert? Would the regulator not be frozen in time and unable to look to the future and to the positive beneficial changes that could be made to the game? It is important that the regulator should have a forward-thinking attitude. It should not be merely content with the current state of football but constantly looking to drive the game forward. If it does not, this whole endeavour would be, at best, a wasted opportunity and, at worst, a failure.
That is why it is so vital to question what is meant by “sustainability” in the clause and seek to go beyond that limited and limiting definition, which risks putting the sport in a box or creating stasis. As my noble friends have pointed out through their amendments, which we will consider shortly, we could, rather than striking out words in the clause, supplement sustainability. My noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham, through his Amendments 4 and 4A, invites us to extend our focus to the success and growth of football. Those are two key goals and are important when we discuss the Bill and the game. No club would want to be frozen in time, never moving forward, eschewing new ventures or winning new glories. As has been pointed out by my noble friend Lady Brady, the many advantages of English football come from achieving the right balance between growth, competition and aspiration. Should we not look to place each of those concepts in the Bill or encapsulating them in its foundational principles? Those would give the regulator a clearer guiding path and ensure that it does not stray from the objectives that the Bill and this Parliament seek to set out.
One of the concepts that my noble friend Lord Maude mentions is growth; the Bill would stand to gain from its inclusion, focusing the regulator on moving the sport forward by growing the number of fans, the amount of revenue, the extent of viewership at home and around the world, and in other areas. I hope that this would entrench from the outset a forward-thinking vision, thereby preventing the independent football regulator from falling into the trap of other regulatory bodies, which have been blinkered in their outlook.
Like other noble Lords, I have been struck by the coverage we have seen this week from the all-party group that has looked at the work and conduct of the Financial Conduct Authority. Cross-party and cross-House concerns have been raised about the way in which the FCA has gone about its work. It is important, as we set up a new regulator, to give it clear instructions about what we want it to do and clear guard-rails about what we do not want it to do.
As I said at Second Reading, it is important that we get the Bill right. If we do not provide the regulator with the necessary tools from the outset, we would be setting it up merely to fail. That would have catastrophic consequences for the game and all those in this country who love it.
Football is, as well as a hugely enjoyed pastime, one of our largest and most popular industries. The Premier League makes up the largest share of the United Kingdom’s television exports, totalling £1.4 billion in 2019-20. Football is broadcast to over 1.5 billion people in 189 countries across the world. Through that export and shared enjoyment, it amplifies our values, spreads the best of British culture and generates hugely important economic growth for the whole nation. Football is undoubtedly a significant soft-power asset for the United Kingdom, and it is important to keep that in mind as we begin our detailed consideration of the Bill in Committee.
That is to say nothing of the millions of people who follow football here at home. To all those people in the United Kingdom and across the world, the ruination of English football would rip the heart out of communities across the length and breadth of the country. I am sure that Members of the Committee would not want that, and I hope that giving detailed thought to the purpose of the Bill and dwelling on its initial clause will be a way to lift our aspirations for it and seek a more important and meaningful goal than mere sustainability. I beg to move.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench for the eloquent way in which he moved the amendment and started the important debate on this group. It is important that we take time to consider this properly, because the Bill, if enacted in this form, will create a state regulator with an ability to impose a levy to make exactions on the football clubs that make up the football leagues. It is important that the tone of the regulator is set from the beginning.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, before I start my comments in relation to my amendment and the others in this group, I want to thank the Minister for her kind comments at the end of Second Reading, when she said she hoped she would not need to call on my refereeing skills too often. I appreciated the thought, but when she made that comment she was probably unaware that, when I qualified as a rugby referee, the laws said that the decision of the referee was correct and final. Given that breadth of my ruling, I am quite willing to use it on any number of occasions.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, drew attention to our failures at national level, but, of course, this legislation relates specifically to the league clubs. In proposing amendments to the Bill in a number of places, I am not saying that everything that exists within the leagues is perfect—it is not; what I am asking in my amendments and in my probable support for others is whether this Bill needs substantial change.
I have tabled an amendment to insert “success”. I said at Second Reading that I was disappointed that there was no reference to success at any point within the Bill. My noble friend Lord Maude just referred to project creep. Clause 1 says that the purpose of the Bill is to
“promote the sustainability of English football”,
but the Explanatory Notes refer to
“the primary aim of ensuring the long-term sustainability and resilience”.
Somebody has immediately written in another element of what the regulator’s responsibility would be. There inevitably will be creep, and it is therefore important that we include some other terminology to which any regulator needs to operate.
The world of sport is changing and changing fast. We cannot, as the noble Lord, Lord Maude, said, work on the basis that one is going to have an English Football League and a Premier League, and that is fine, and it will achieve what it achieves now without any change. We see the NFL hosting matches in this country. Why is it doing that? It is because it wants to extend its footprint and income on a worldwide basis; it wants to challenge other sports. Equally, American college football has reorganised recently. If we look at tennis, cycling and every single major sport, we see that they are reorganising because they are trying to extend their footprints to a worldwide base. The IPL is a classic example of how a sport has been changed. I agree completely with what the noble Lord, Lord Maude, said about how, with the way this Bill is phrased, football will be surrounded in aspic, it will carry on, and we will protect everything; there will be no change. What will happen then is that other sports take over on a worldwide basis in terms of viewership, income, finance and therefore attention around the world.
My amendment would insert “success” in the first clause and in one or two other places. I looked at the impact assessment—I intend to return on a number of occasions to that, because to be blunt, it is not an impact assessment. As the noble Lord, Lord Maude, suggested, the figures are interesting; I would be generous to say that I think they are interesting. My understanding is that some of the clubs that were asked to give an indication as to the costs that would be involved said they did not know. I would like the Minister to indicate what detailed figures were identified by the clubs that were consulted.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend on the Front Bench, and those spoken to by my noble friends Lord Maude and Lord Hayward. I will also offer some expression of sympathy to the Government, because it is not altogether clear what the origins of this word “sustainability” may be. I suggest that they go back to the original so-called fan-led review produced by Tracey Crouch, which I have here and which noble Lords will have read. The Bill is drawn expressly from the so-called fan-led review.
I say in parenthesis that “fan-led review” seems a strange title for it, since Dame Tracey emphasises in the report that its conclusions are hers alone. Although I pay tribute to the work she did and the consultation she undertook, she received 20,000 responses and there are some 33 million football fans, but we will leave that for a moment.
I will read the very opening of Dame Tracey’s foreword as it sets the tone for the Bill as a whole and for an element that is missing from it. She wrote in her introduction:
“For those who say that English football is world leading at club level and there is no need to change I would argue that it is possible simultaneously to celebrate the current global success of the Premier League at the same time as having deep concerns about the fragility of the wider foundations of the game. It is both true that our game is genuinely world leading and that there is a real risk of widespread failures and a potential collapse of the pyramid as we know it”.
So Dame Tracey made two points. One was about the success of the game and the other its fragility and the potential failures, but the oddity of the way the Bill is presented—my noble friends all picked this up and elucidated it in their speeches—is that the first part of the Bill refers only to the fragility of the system by using this word “sustainability”. There is nothing about success in it. I suggest to Ministers and to noble Lords that some reference to success would be a better reflection of what was originally in Tracey Crouch’s report and the balance that she gave between the fragility and the success of the game—for the two, after all, may be bound up together.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for missing Second Reading. I feel like I am coming on at half-time into this debate, but sometimes if you come on at half-time you have a little bit more energy.
I want to address the sustainability issue, because it is fundamental to what we are trying to do. I am not sure whether any other Member of this House has been in the unenviable position I was in as a leader of a borough, when the local football club came to me and said, “We’re going to go bankrupt and go bust unless you financially support us”, which I had to do at Stockport. We offered all our support, and we did it for a reason. It is more than just a football club, as other speakers have said; they are part of the fabric of society and of communities. They are economic drivers for towns. Most of these football clubs were built in town centres. They kick off at 3 pm on a Saturday because men, predominantly, used to work Saturday morning and they would go to the football in the afternoon. As we watch global football now, we see football matches at 5.30 pm, 8 pm and 10 pm. No one cares about the supporters. When Newcastle played West Ham the other night, the last train home from Newcastle left before the final whistle.
There is a bigger picture at stake here about how you regulate and control football, so my opening comment is that the sustainability bit—the bit that says a football club must be able to sustain itself—must be core to what we are trying to do. On all this saying, “The Premier League will look after itself”, I wish people would not keep bringing the Premier League in as the golden egg. It is the Championship, League One, League Two and the non-league teams—that is your pyramid. That is part of the regulator’s job: to secure their sustainability.
I say to all Members when they go through the Bill —some things in it are quite laudable and supportable—that the aim is not to get into the situation we have got into before, where the six that were going to join the European league could have collapsed the pyramid. That needs to be stopped again. Owners buy a football club like somebody buys a yacht or a hotel. That has to be stopped, as does changing the colours a team plays in and changing the ethos of a club. That is regulation, but at the heart of it is sustainability. That needs to be woven into the Bill somewhere, if not on the face of it: sustainability absolutely must be included in the regulator’s remit.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, sustainability is an insufficient word to describe what the Bill should be trying to achieve. It is necessary but not sufficient. We need football to flourish, develop and innovate and the Bill should make that extremely clear. As I mentioned at Second Reading, I have been around a long time and remember when football was highly conservative. I remember when football bitterly resisted the notion of live broadcasting, which was completely and utterly to transform and create the modern game.
The regulator must not stop football developing, and that needs to be crystal clear in the Bill. Football needs to continue to innovate, as it has done over the last 30 years. The notion for the European super league was quite wrong and rightly kicked into touch, but there are other possibilities in the modern age for having European leagues based on merit and allowing the game to develop. Live-streaming games which are not broadcast live on a subscription service for fans would be a perfectly reasonable way to allow the game to develop. Let us ask the regulator not to stand in the way of the game continuing to improve as it has done so successfully over recent decades.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I want to make a few brief comments, not least because, as I have been here rather a long time, I know what is happening when speakers use the words “word search” and “dictionary definition”. It is not exactly intended to accelerate the passage of a Bill. I will be brief even if others, perhaps, were not. I remind Members opposite that this Bill came out of an inquiry from a Conservative former Sports Minister and was a Conservative piece of legislation introduced in the other House, so it is not exactly rushed. In terms of sustainability, there are a heck of a lot of clubs that would settle for any guarantee that they had a future and that the future was more secure for them.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I have great respect for the noble Baroness, but she just made reference to comments I made in relation to word search. I believed that doing the word search emphasised the point I was trying to make in relation to the amendment that I had tabled and the comments that other people had made as well.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
That is how the noble Lord saw it, and I will say it how I saw it. What I was going to say in relation to the last contribution was that, yes, we all want the football leagues—the Premier League and everybody—to flourish and be more successful, but football will be a success only if the whole pyramid can flourish and be sustainable.
I want to say a word about Amendment 10, which is just one practical suggestion that could be considered to help clubs manage their own financial stability. One of problems we have seen in football over recent years is a degree of optimism on the part of football management about what it can achieve by minimal investment. Amendment 10, which my noble friend Lord Bassam and I have tabled, suggests that regulated clubs under the Bill should meet a financial commitment to have resources for at least six months. Many businesses are under very similar obligations. Charities have to have some financial security, so it would be worth considering whether we should actually make that kind of obligation something that the regulator should look at because, unless we get the overall funding of football clubs more sustainable, the whole pyramid will not be sustainable.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 3, and in so doing will cover a number of other amendments in the group. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, that I see this as a Bill that is almost uniquely all-party. Both Front Benches are in favour of it. One introduced it in another place, albeit for another purpose; the Prime Minister at that time talked about dropping a legislative bomb in the path of a possible breakaway super league. It has morphed quite considerably since that time to take into account many other issues.
In a sense, it is a Bill of two parts, and they have not always completely aligned. On the one hand, there is the role of the regulator with regard to the financial success or otherwise of English football. We will come to what that means in a moment, because it is fairly important. On the other hand, there are the many recommendations that came out of the fan-led review. The noble Baroness and I have both been around a long time; it is about 40 years since I started in the other place, and I have rarely seen a Bill with 340 amendments tabled from all sides of the House before we got to Committee. That is because many Members of your Lordships’ House are interested in the fan-led review; equally there are those—I echo the words that she has just said—who are concerned indeed that a regulator should not diminish or damage the success of the football league on which the waterfall payments depend. The more successful that Premier League is, the better for football and the better for everything that we are looking at.
My noble friend in sport—dare I say that?—the noble Lord, Lord Mann, looked just a moment or two ago as if he felt that spending too much time on the Bill was nearly as depressing as three minutes before the end of the Swansea-Leeds game at the weekend, and some noble Lords opposite look as though that is how they feel. However, at the weekend he was awakened by a wonderful goal that led to a 4-3 victory by Leeds, which we both celebrated.
I want to focus first on the important issue of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, because it is important that we recognise and understand clearly what it stated. It said:
“The fundamental purpose of the Bill is to ‘protect and promote the sustainability of English football.’ … One must go through a series of definitions only to find that the Bill does not, after all, provide the definition of English football. Ultimately, the meaning of ‘English football’ depends on regulations to be made in due course by the Secretary of State—albeit by the affirmative procedure”.
The report stated:
“‘English football’ means ‘all regulated clubs and specified competitions, taken together’. A regulated club means a club that operates a relevant team. A relevant team means a team that is entered into, is a member of, or participates in a specified competition. A specified competition means a competition specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State”.
That means that the meaning of English football is deliberately left unclear on the face of the Bill that we are debating in this critical Committee. The answer will emerge only after the Bill is enacted, when the Secretary of State makes regulations to fill in the definitional gap left in the meaning of “specified competition”. As a result, the remit of the new regulator is presently unclear. The report goes on to conclude with a recommendation that
“the power of the Secretary of State in clause 2 to define ‘specified competitions’ should be removed from the Bill. Government policy is clear—that the top five leagues of the men’s professional game should be regulated. This policy should appear in primary legislation, not be relegated to secondary legislation”.
My noble friend who has just spoken from the Back Benches is also aware that, as we have discussed, there is a question of hybridity about the Bill. When the Minister comes to respond to this set of amendments, I would be grateful if she could say, first, what she intends to do to give clarity to the issue of English football and what it means in the context of this legislation and, secondly, answer the question on hybridity. Until we have answers to those two questions, we have a number of challenges. I think there is widespread agreement across both sides of this House that there should not be a whole series of major decisions left to secondary legislation. They should be in the Bill and we should be considering them in detail as we progress.
On the question of sustainability, which is key to this series of amendments and the first part of this legislation on the role of the regulator, I hope that Amendment 12 in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude commands widespread agreement across the House. It provides that football needs to continue
“to be globally competitive in relation to audience and quality … to attract significant domestic and foreign investment …. to grow economically in terms of commercial revenues, domestic and international broadcasting agreements, and asset and enterprise values”
and continue
“to produce industry-led agreements on the distribution of revenues”.
Capital will travel overseas if that is not the case. Fans will benefit from ensuring that they and their clubs see success in English football, and that success is driven by a successful Premier League.
We can debate at length how much money flows through to the rest of English football but, unquestionably, the more successful the Premier League is, the better for the fans and better for the clubs that should benefit from that. The regulator is appointed in part to opine on that relationship, so it is critically important that the regulator takes into account the success of the Premier League and of English football. Indeed, the Prime Minister is very much on that page as well. He has recently pledged to get rid of regulation: his view is that he would
“do everything in my power to galvanise growth including getting rid of regulation that needlessly holds back investment”.
So we need to explore in detail the powers of the regulator and what it is going to do—and immediately, that is a highly complex area of regulation.
The regulator that we are appointing here also has to work alongside the regulations put in place by the Premier League, the EFL, UEFA and FIFA. We have already seen what happened when UEFA came forward and said, “We don’t like one of the powers that you’re giving to the regulator”. The Government immediately said, “You’ve told us to jump—how high? We’ll remove that from the Bill”. We therefore have a highly complex tapestry of regulation and are adding significant further regulation to that. I am going to look, in further deliberations of this Committee, at how we align the work of the regulator to the UEFA financial fair play regulations.
The point that the Minister made in Committee was really about the number of Premier League clubs that have been in trouble over the years. She kindly referenced and name-checked my comment in her letter, which we have very much appreciated today. She said:
“The Noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referenced there having been ‘only seven liquidations since 1945’. For the fans and communities who bore the brunt of those failures, that is seven too many. There have also been over 60 instances of professional clubs entering administration since 1992”.
Yes, I agree that there have been seven liquidations since 1945 and seven too many, but that is nothing like the number of liquidations and insolvencies we see in society at any given time. The numbers for the country at large are substantially greater and football has been highly successful. Only last year, something like 25,158 companies went into liquidation in the country at large, with 2,827 of those being compulsory liquidations.
So I think that the success of English football has been underestimated by the Minister and by those have been compiling the arguments that, in some sense, we should not on the face of the Bill recognise the importance of growth, financial success and financial sustainability, which are at the core of the amendment that I have tabled.
With those initial comments, I will just add one other very important point for the consideration of the Committee. All the indications are that in France, which has far greater regulation, and in Germany, which has much greater regulation as well, there is no evidence that that regulation has forestalled the insolvency of some of the clubs made insolvent under those two regulatory bodies. On the contrary, it is not the regulation that stops insolvency after all. I am very happy to give way to the Minister on this. If there is a club that seems to be in financial trouble, what will the regulator do about it? At what stage will he or she intervene? At what stage will they therefore state whatever steps they feel should be taken at that point?
That is not on the face of the Bill because, no doubt, it is the Minister’s view that that should be left to regulation and it is up to the regulator. But the reality is that you appoint a regulator only if you really believe there is a serious problem and you know exactly what that regulator would do in any given circumstance. That has not been the case in either France or Germany, which are the two major case studies relevant to us at this stage. So I would echo the points that have been made. We need to make sure on face of the Bill that the regulator recognises that football should be as successful financially as possible, and that nothing the regulator does should inhibit the success and growth of the financial success of football. With those comments, I am supportive of both my noble friend Lord Maude’s amendment and, clearly, my own.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in Committee on the Bill, and obviously at Second Reading as well. I put on record my thanks to the Minister for her helpful and comprehensive letter today, which also referenced my reference to Woolworths. I think she might have misunderstood what I was saying, but we will let that pass.
I will focus specifically on Clause 1, which is the centre of this Bill: it is the cause, the purpose and the raison d’être of this Bill. As I mentioned at Second Reading, if you cannot adequately identify what the problem is that you are seeking to solve, you are very unlikely to reach an efficacious solution. This Bill—this Act, assuming it gets Royal Assent at some point—will be a living document. It will be the Government, the state, via a large regulator with unique powers, intervening in what hitherto has been a very successful commercial activity—perhaps one of the most successful commercial and business activities in the whole of our country, and certainly one that is globally very well regarded.
Therefore, it is incumbent on the Government to look seriously at the excellent amendments put down by my noble friend Lord Parkinson and to take on board some of the points raised by my noble friends Lord Maude, Lord Moynihan and Lord Hayward. The odd thing is that the Bill is drafted in such a way that it ignores some of the key points made in the impact assessment. The first page of the impact assessment contains a commitment to “improve financial sustainability”, which is in my noble friend Lord Moynihan’s amendment. However, in the Bill the wording is quite opaque and that wording does not appear.
Equally, focusing narrowly on Clause 1—which is the reason the Bill is coming to this House—I note that it seems odd that the local community is not defined in primary legislation. Ministers will say, “That’s because we need the leeway to bring forward subsequent secondary legislation and statutory instruments for unusual circumstances”. That is not an ignoble or unfair interpretation, but it is a difficult proposition to put to this Committee when we have to judge what is in front of us and not what might happen in the future in a very complex market model. So that omission is still problematic, which is why I repeat it from Second Reading. The other issue is that clubs’ fans are not defined definitively in the Bill, probably for the same reason.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I am intrigued by the amendments from the Benches opposite because there is a degree of amnesia in some of this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, moves to strike out “sustainability” from Clause 1. I have a copy of the Bill that was introduced in another place at the beginning of the year. In Clause 1, “Purpose and overview”, it says:
“The purpose of this Act is to protect and promote the sustainability of English football”.
That is the same wording as is in the Bill before us. I say to noble Lords on the Benches opposite that this Clause 1 is exactly the same as the Clause 1 that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, would have brought to this House, had he still been the Minister and had the Conservative Party not lost the general election. So I am extremely puzzled by the approach of noble Lords opposite.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
Picking up that point, I think the noble Lord is trying to make it appear as if this is a partisan thing, but it is not. I would have tabled exactly the same amendments if this had been the previous Government’s Bill that he refers to. This is not a party-political matter at all; it is about a game that we are passionate about and that is a spectacular success. We do not want to see something done that damages it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
The noble Lord has the benefit of supporting Horsham FC. I have the benefit of supporting Brighton and Hove Albion, and I am absolutely passionate about my football club, which is one of the best clubs in the Premier League. I would not be party to wishing to do anything that damages the Premier League, and neither would my colleagues on these Benches. We recognise, understand and appreciate that the Premier League is an institution that is more than worth supporting. It is the best in the world and we know that.
The other thing that noble Lords need to focus on in this debate is that when the noble Lords opposite were in government, they were very keen to have this legislation. A DCMS report published in September 2023 quoted the findings of a research paper that showed that there continues to be
“a widespread issue of clubs being run in unsustainable ways from a traditional financial analysis viewpoint”.
That was then the position of the party now in opposition, and I am hoping that it has the same range of concerns about our football finances now as it did back then, because it was quite clear that that was the primary motive for the legislation, and it is the primary motive for the legislation today. It is about its financial sustainability.
If a product or a good cannot be produced in a way that is sustainable, it will not be, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, made a great song and dance about, successful. That is why my noble friend Lady Taylor and I have tabled our amendments in the first group—to focus on making sure that the Bill and the regulator that the Government are seeking to create promote the sustainability and success of our beautiful game. That is why we are here today; that is what we are arguing about and what we are so passionate about. It is for that very reason that we tabled our Amendment 10 to Clause 1.
I hope that the party opposite is not going to suffer from this collective amnesia for too long, but that it will get behind the Bill, get behind the purpose and objectives set out very clearly in that first clause—a clause that, in government, it amply supported and gave voice to. We need to get behind the Bill and make sure that it is sustainable for the future.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest in the Register of Lords’ Interests, as the elected chair of a football supporters’ group with 13,000 members. On Sunday, the weather advice was that nobody should travel in south Wales. I and 3,000 others did travel in south Wales. On Sunday afternoon, we travelled, not of our choice but because football fixtures are being changed to all sorts of obscure times. We went, and returned very late, very happily. That will not be the case at all fixtures if I wish to attend this House. In the new year, we have three fixtures that have been shifted to 8 pm on a Monday, and that does not quite balance with the sitting times of the House. I am just one fan, but there are many thousands who face that.
Imagine trying to get to Plymouth by 12.30 pm on a Sunday. That is what we had to do. It is not an easy way of life, and it is not just the bishops who are losing custom by this odd scheduling. It affects people’s ability. If there were to be an added word in here, it should be “enjoyment”—enjoyment of the game. Yesterday, one club, Manchester United, announced its new prices for this season. For a child, the minimum price is £66. That was my first away fixture, supporting Leeds United, aged five. I was lifted over the barriers—in for free—as I was at Leeds until the age of eight or nine, because that was how children were welcomed then. I did not pay to go in for the very many hundreds of matches I went to in that age span, and now it is £66. Well, it is a business.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who has good football taste, was none the less slightly awry with the example he gave in terms of liquidation, insolvency and the problems. If we take where I live—I will take Lincoln City and Notts County at random—both were about to disappear. The only reason they survived is that the supporters saved them. That is the difference between this industry and other industries. There are countless examples. If they were private sector businesses, they would have vanished.
In some cases, the fans could not do it. In 1987, as a Leeds United fan living in London with a few friends, I got a season ticket for a club called Wimbledon. It was a good choice; we got to the cup final with Wimbledon. I had a young daughter and I could not get to Leeds all the time, so a group of us went to Wimbledon in our spare time. If you are a fan of Wimbledon and your club wins the cup after coming from nowhere, you see what that does for the area and the fans, and people in south London. Then, a few years later, your club is extinguished, gone, shifted to Milton Keynes—vanished. The fans had the wherewithal to set it up again as AFC Wimbledon, and build from the bottom up, which is what they are having to do at Bury.
I almost thought that one or two noble Lords were suggesting that the state should not intervene in successful business, and I will end on this point. If we combine Scottish and English football, the most successful moment in terms of success on the pitch was around 1971. England had won the World Cup; Manchester United were the first English team to win the European Cup. Celtic had won the European Cup in 1967; Rangers were about to win the European Cup Winners’ Cup. We had the Cup Winners’ cup and the Fairs cup, and a whole succession of English teams about to take on the European Cup through the 1970s and dominate world football. It was the one moment when both Scottish and English football were at their height.
On the 2 January 1971, at a high moment, 66 people died at Ibrox football stadium. The state did very little intervening then. Then there was the fire at Bradford— I knew people who were there—when the state had not intervened sufficiently in the industry, and people died. Then there was Hillsborough, where people died. The state has intervened in the sport and the interventions, when they have been hard and focused, have been transformative. It was not the owners of the clubs who brought in the model of football with all-seater stadiums, revenue generation and corporate hospitality. I shall tell you the first club that did it. It was Glasgow Rangers. After 1971, their manager, Willie Waddell, went to see how others across the world did it. They rebuilt the stadium before anyone else did because of his experience of seeing people dying in front of him—that is state intervention.
In the balance between the fans, the state, the entrepreneurship and people’s ability to put in money—if anyone wants to put money into our club, we would be delighted because we are not trying to stop that—we want to see a slight tilt so that the fans are listened to. If we end up shifted to the bottom like the fans of Bury—I do not think we will, but you never know—the state should allow us to do something that they were not able to do; that is, for more to be done along the lines of what was done by the genius of those Wimbledon fans. It took them years to get back up. Wimbledon Football Club, having beaten Liverpool in the cup final in 1988, should have been able to survive seamlessly with their fans. That is the point of this regulation, and it is why I hope the Opposition Front Bench will be reluctant to further push this line of argument.
There are interesting issues that should be explored in getting that balance right. It will be legitimate to go into them and hold the Government to account, to question and even amend. Sustainability means that I, as a fan, will have my club in the future, whether it is badly or well run. That is what is critical about this legislation, and I commend the Government for bringing it forward.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I refer the Committee to my interests, which are declared in the register. I want to give the noble Lord, Lord Mann, a bit of comfort in that had he been going to a Premier League away game, he would have paid only £30, because there has been a cap on the price of away tickets for the past five years.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I am told that EFL clubs are likely to lose around £450 million in this current football season, and I think the noble Baroness said something similar. The regulator in this Bill, which is focused primarily on financial sustainability, is surely a good thing for football regulation because it is trying to make sure that those clubs—yes, involved in the business of risk and jeopardy—are financially sustainable and have a duty to their communities, and that their activities do not risk the future of those clubs. The point of the legislation, from the previous Government and our Government, is to make sure those clubs can be sustained and not have undue financial risk.
Baroness Brady (Con)
I thank the noble Lord; he made his point very well. The Bill does not say “financial sustainability”. Sustainability is not defined. If you put sustainability above overall success, growth and the competitive nature of the game, you might have a safer league, but you will have one that no one wants to watch. You might, notionally, have a more sustainable ecosystem, but it will also be smaller, more boring and poorer. If sustainability is the number one aim of the regulator, can the Minister explain to us what she and the Government consider to be the definition of the “sustainability” of English football? Can she also explain why sustainability does not include supporting the sustainability of the success and growth of the Premier League?
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I intervene briefly as an impartial Cross-Bencher. In the interest of productivity, I am aware that we are still on the amendment to:
“Clause 1, page 1, line 4”—
although many of us are still discussing line 1. I will suggest a compromise. The word “sustainability” on its own is too undefined; I suggest that it should be “financial sustainability and success”—thereby combining Amendments 1, 2 and 3.
However, I do not agree with Amendment 4. On growth, I would go back to the banking sector. I know that football is a very different industry, but banking and the financial services in the noughties had the most phenomenal growth rates and we are still all picking up the tab as taxpayers. That was not financially sustainable. So my suggestion is that the words should be “financial sustainable” and “success”—those two together.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4, because words matter. We have been debating the words “sustainable” and “sustainability”, but I will mention the word “unpredictable”—as was my team this weekend in trouncing Manchester City 4-0 away; a completely unpredictable result by all accounts. That is exactly what the Bill is trying to work against—if somewhat inadvertently.
Having spoken to many organisations in the professional game, I get a sense that the Bill is trying to establish a vision for the game that it does not need to. That vision needs to be left in the hands of this successful industry. That is why there is a general feeling that, when we are focusing on whether it is sustainable or on how much we are listening to fans, we are stepping in to an arena that we do not actually want to control and should leave to the people who have been so successful so far.
Many views have been expressed—including, with respect, those of the noble Lord, Lord Mann—on football’s past, but we should be cautious of looking back through rose-tinted spectacles at the history of our game. Yes, it is celebrated by fans, but the future is about innovation, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said. Whatever we say, the game will evolve—because of pressures from fans and commercial pressures. The European Super League did not succeed, but have we seen what UEFA has done with the Champions League? It has evolved again, with more games and more clubs. I am not sure that I completely understand the process it works in at the moment, but it has created a whole new league. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said, maybe the Church is losing some of its customers, but these leagues and clubs are gaining customers, eyeballs and commercial contracts that are only getting bigger. So something is succeeding and it will continue to succeed and drive the evolution of our game.
I say in conclusion that, as we go through the Bill and look at the regulator, can we say that the regulator does not drive the vision of football—leave that to the successful industry—but steps in if there is going to be significant failure? That is what a good regulator should do.
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for withdrawing from the Second Reading debate at short notice because of an urgent personal matter, and also draw the attention of the Committee to my declaration. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mann, I have occasionally not paid for football tickets as a guest of the EFL and the Premier League, mainly in my former role as shadow Culture, Media and Sport Secretary.
It is right that we focus on definitions, and I should like to point out a couple of the amendments in this basket. We are saying that we want to protect the sustainability of football and are effectively or explicitly saying that football is so unsustainable that the state wants to intervene in a market to such an extent that we are going to create a new regulator—another regulator. I have been in politics for about 40 years and I have been in many debates where people often talk about the failure of regulators and regulation. If there is one lesson that I have learned from that, it is that the politics of regulation are this: you can always delegate power but you can never delegate responsibility.
What we are saying to 1.5 billion people on the planet is that we are so concerned that your weekly viewing of English football is so unsustainable that politicians, the ones who moved Clause 1 last year and the ones who are moving Clause 1 this year, are taking responsibility for your hopes, desires, heartache and disappointment every week when you watch English football. Well, in the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby, that is about the bravest and most courageous decision I have ever seen taken in either House of Parliament. Good luck with that.
My second point is this: I have been in another bit of the territory, trying to get the Secretary of State to define what she means by “football fan”. Whatever you think a football fan is, an English football fan—the ones I am thinking about today watch a lot of football, including the World Cup and European Championship —wants everyone in this House to guarantee that our national team will be able to play in every international competition.
The noble Lord, Lord Maude, has spoken to Amendment 6, which he has told the Minister is very helpful to the Government. On this occasion, I agree with him. This is explicitly saying to English football fans, “We will not allow our regulator to allow the rules of UEFA or FIFA to be breached such that there is a threat to England playing in future competitions”. We are not going to resolve this discussion today, but I guarantee that by the end of the passage of this Bill, this Parliament will have to say to 1.5 billion English football fans that we will guarantee that England can play in an international competition. I should be grateful if, in his summation, the Minister could reassure at least this English football fan that that will be the case at the end of this Bill.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 4, to which I have added my name. I must admit that I am slightly surprised that it seems controversial to want to make it clear in the legislation that the purpose of the Bill in setting up the new regulator is to ensure the continued success and growth of English football. That is exactly what the regulator, or part of the idea behind the regulator, is supposed to do. To achieve sustainability and resilience in the game, the regulator will need to preserve and encourage the conditions for growth and continued success. So, I do not quite understand the issues around having those objectives added to the Bill. As we have already heard, there is huge success that can be built on.
Lord Markham (Con)
I must admit that I am similarly scratching my head over how the debate seems to have gone into whether it needs to be one or the other—whether there is somehow a trade-off between sustainability and success. I am just surprised that success is not something that we would all want. I do not just mean success in terms of England playing in all the tournaments, which I hope we would all agree we want, and I do not just mean success in terms of taking on responsibility, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, says, for how well the teams do. We are talking about the success of the game in terms of the financial wherewithal.
I am a big believer that in life you want to maximise the size of the cake before you argue how you divide it. How do you maximise the size of the cake? Certain measures are vital to that. TV viewership is key—not just because of how much people enjoy watching the game, but that is what the media rights companies pay for. That is what is paying for the game, so why would we not want that as one of the criteria? I think the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, was absolutely correct. Why is there not room for both? Why, all of a sudden, as the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, said, has growth become something we do not want here? Surely we all want growth; the Government are saying, quite rightly, that they are all about growth. I could not agree more, so why would not we want a measure of success here in the objectives of the football regulator to have growth?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
I hear what the noble Lord is saying, and as I have been chairing the Industry and Regulators Committee, I have heard a lot about growth. What worries me is that in one moment he and his colleagues are complaining that the regulator is going to be interfering too much, but in the next, we are hearing that the regulator should do more—it should be responsible for growth, for getting more fans and for getting more viewers. Is it more or is it less?
Lord Markham (Con)
I am very glad the noble Baroness mentioned that. When you set the objectives of any organisation, you want to set out the balancing factors. If it is only sustainability, you can get into the lowest common denominator, because a regulator would have absolutely done its job, by the nature of what is set down, just by the survival of all the clubs. There is a very easy way to do that: just dole out all the Premier League money to all the clubs straight away. That would make them all sustainable, giving the money to all the clubs. I think we would all agree that that would be a pretty nonsensical way to do it, but that would achieve the objective. If you set only a single objective, it is very one-dimensional.
Why would you not want a regulator to take into account that the overall financial health of the game is dependent on the TV viewership? That is what drives the money. What drives the TV viewership? It is how competitive the games are—not just the top games but all the games through the league? As I mentioned at Second Reading, and as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, mentioned, we are people who have sold and bought media rights around the world. The reason why countries as far flung as Nigeria, Thailand and everywhere else will pay so much for the rights is that every game is competitive. There is a chance that Bournemouth will go out and beat Liverpool, so everyone cares about it. The Premier League does not have a God-given right to be successful. As the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, many years ago, the Italian league was more successful. The difference today is that you do not have just two or three top teams, as you see in Germany, Spain and Italy. You have a whole host of teams which are all competitive in the league, so every game becomes interesting to watch.
My concern in all of this is if the only criterion set down is that of sustainability, it is so one-dimensional that the regulator could just decide to discharge its duties in that way. I hope it will not, but when it comes back to the scrutiny that we are all saying it should have, the regulator could sit here among us all and say, “Look, I have made all these clubs sustainable. Okay, too bad that the TV viewership has gone down and too bad that a load of the games are no longer competitive, so the TV rights money has gone down, but they are all sustainable, because I doled out all the money”. I do not think that is what any of us would want. I really do not understand why this should be. This is not a political point; I really do not understand the objective at all. I am literally scratching my head as to why there should be a problem with that.
That is why in our later amendments we try to put in other criteria of success. Those are designed to be the ones that are all about maximising the size of the financial pie, by making sure that TV viewership and attendance are high. People forget in all of this—
Lord Mann (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Would he like to comment on the Premier League vote of last week? Some clubs, led by Manchester City, wanted to grow the amount of money coming into football by allowing different forms of sponsorship, which were designed purely and precisely to put more money into certain clubs—for example, Manchester City, which is obviously why it is in favour. That would obviously be growing the amount of money going into the game, as the noble Lord said. Is that an issue that the regulator should be deciding or, on his argument, that the clubs should be deciding?
Lord Markham (Con)
I definitely do not want the regulator to be involved in every nook and cranny, but when the regulator is sitting here in front of us and we are assessing whether or not it has done a good job, to me, the only criterion is not whether all the clubs are still out there in existence. That is a pretty limiting move. Why would we want to narrow ourselves down to that measure? I do not understand why any noble Lord would not want an objective to be that TV viewership goes up or that media sports rights money goes up. I will sit down to give noble Lords a chance.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, asks: would we want a matter such as that to be decided by the regulator or the clubs? Well, the clubs made the right decision. The decision was: “We want the Premier League to remain very competitive to prevent those who have access to, in effect, unlimited funds being able to stack the odds in their favour”. The clubs made a decision that this would not become a less competitive league than it currently is.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his point. I would totally include in that measure of success, as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, says, enjoyment. That is absolutely part of it, because it is the enjoyment which means that people will pay a lot of money for their TV subscriptions, but it is all about the financial health of the game.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, I know that in terms of Clause 10 and the funds for six months, the amendment is well intentioned and sounds quite reasonable. However, I have been speaking to a different Premier League chair—I am sure that we have all been speaking to club chairmen—and from one of those clubs that is very respectable. They are afraid of having to lock a lot of money into escrow for their sustainability. They said that all that this will stop them doing is investing in their team and their players. They look at their club as a balance sheet, with assets and liabilities. If the worst came to worst, they would look to sell one of their players, because they are assets. That is what businesses do; it is what clubs do. You do not need to say, “You’ve got to lock six months’ worth of money in there, £30 million, so you can’t afford a striker”. It is, “If you want to buy that striker, take the risk,” as my noble friend would say.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
Would the noble Lord agree that many other businesses have constraints on the kind of reserves that they have to have and that charities certainly have constraints on the reserves that they have to have? One of the difficulties, when many clubs go under or are on the verge of going under, is that there is a category of football creditors who have special access to any money that might be there, so lots of local businesses, as well as many fans, get really hit if things go wrong. Even discussing this seems to be alien to him. I am not saying that the wording of that amendment is perfect, but it is an area that is worthy of consideration if we are going to improve the future of clubs throughout the pyramid going forward.
Lord Markham (Con)
The point that I was trying to make is that I absolutely agree that the noble Baroness’s amendment is well intended in terms of sustainability. I am worried that, as we all get back to the mission creep point and try to resolve all these things, we get into the law of unintended consequences. I know from speaking to a club chairman that if you put that money aside in that way, all you will do is deter their ability to invest in players. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, if we want to make ourselves unpopular in all this, it is by starting to do things that stop clubs buying players and investing. We think that VAR is unpopular today. Suddenly, you make all the clubs put £30 million to £40 million in escrow and they cannot buy those players. That would be a very brave decision for a Minister.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Following up on my noble friend’s point, looking at the finances of some clubs, you do wonder. Would the noble Lord, who has been in business himself, tolerate a situation where he only had five hours’ worth of reserves? Nottingham Forest last year spent something like £58 million on wages but had just £25,000 in cash reserves. I know that this is not uncommon across the world of football, but is that a highly desirable state of affairs? Is that not something that we should focus on? Is it not why we want good financial sustainable regulation? That is why we have got to this point where both sides of the Chamber have accepted the need to have a football regulator.
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Lord may be looking down the wrong end of the telescope. It is not that they have got only £25,000 in cash. You have to look at the whole balance sheet. The fact that they have a load of players who are worth a lot of money, who they could sell, means that they are fine financially. There are loads of companies out there today in positions of net debt. Most FTSE 100 companies have debt as a vital part of their balance sheet. You would be saying to them, “Oh, you haven’t got much money in your account, you’re in a net debt position”, when the value, when you look at all the assets too, means that it is in the FTSE 100 and is a very successful company. That is an example of why the whole area of us as politicians trying to get involved in setting criteria worries me. We will put things forward that are well intended but have unintended consequences. We will come on to this in later debates on the Bill.
I will finish. I hope that noble Lords understand that the reason why we have gone over time is that we have had a good discussion. It has been helpful in terms of the questions that have been asked. I would be pleased if the Minister could say why we would not want those measures of success as part of the criteria.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
The simplistic argument is, “Well, I can just sell a player”. Actually, you cannot just sell a player. We have a one-month window in January and the end of the season. If it is mid-October and that happens, you cannot sell a player. What do you do then? That is the point. You cannot run a football club on a shoestring because it makes them competitive. That is not the name of the game. The noble Lord’s argument seems to be that if we give them all the money, they will not try their hardest anymore. That is fanciful; it is not true. Football clubs need to be sustainable. They need to be able to pay their way. I could not buy a car if I could not afford the deposit. I could not buy a Rolls-Royce tomorrow saying, “I’ll give you the deposit, but I don’t have it with me today, so give me the car and, when I do quite well, I’ll give you the money”. That is not how life works. Football is a business like every other business. The noble Lord seems to want it to run in a way that is foreign to every principle of business.
Lord Markham (Con)
Speaking as a former chief financial officer of a FTSE 250 company, I would say that, in those examples, if you found yourself in a situation where you could not sell a player until the next window, that would be very poor financial management by the CFO, who would probably get sacked pretty darn quick if they led their cash flow into those sorts of situations. In extremis, if you needed to do that, the bank would lend the money against that because there are assets on the balance sheet that they can borrow against. Every FTSE 100 company is set up in that way. They meet their cash requirements by looking at their assets and raising debt where they need to against them.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord has sat down. I just want to make a few comments on some of the points that have emerged in a very interesting debate. The noble Lords, Lord Hayward and Lord Maude, talk about success—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
Is it an intervention?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House for the noble Lord, Lord Markham, to make it clear now whether he has not completed his remarks, in which case it would be appropriate for the noble Lord to wait a moment, or if he has sat down.
Lord Markham (Con)
We have had a good debate. When the Minister replies, can she explain why it is not felt appropriate to have these measures of success to get the overall financial wealth of the game? I will now sit down.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I thought that the noble Lord had indicated that he had finished. On success, which the two noble Lords that I mentioned talked about, the whole question seems to me to be totally subjective. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, said, what is success for one club is not success for another. I suggest that for at least half the clubs in the Premier League, success is not being relegated rather than winning anything.
Baroness Brady (Con)
Just to clarify, I said that what sustainability is for one club is different from what it is for another, not success.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
That is interesting. Someone in the debate said that we should have financial sustainability and success. I think that in this setting the two, if not interchangeable, mean very similar things.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and others, talked about the competitiveness and the jeopardy. As you can hear, although I am an AFC Wimbledon season ticket holder, I do not come from south London. When I lived in Scotland, my club was Dundee United. They were Scottish champions in 1983. Next season, Aberdeen were Scottish champions. There has been no team but Rangers or Celtic as Scottish champions in the 40 years since. That is a low bar, perhaps, but in fact only two clubs have won the Premier League more than twice in the 32 years of its existence. It is all very well to talk, as the noble Lord, Lord Markham, did, about Bournemouth beating Manchester City. Yes, it is always possible, but a club such as Bournemouth could never aspire to winning the Premier League. Only a very small number of clubs could realistically—
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I am going to come on to that in a minute. Only two clubs have won the Championship more than twice. Three clubs have won it once. If you ask people how many times Liverpool has won the Premier League they will probably say four or five. No, it has won it once, the same as Leicester City and Blackburn Rovers. Of course there is jeopardy; many clubs can be very competitive within a game, but winning the league is something different.
I know that noble Lords have talked about selling television rights and said that it is a very attractive league across the world, and I accept that. However, we have to tone it down a bit on the competitiveness of the Premier League, because there are not really all that many clubs that can aspire to become its champions. That is not to disparage it, but it is just a fact of the past 32 years.
Lord Hayward (Con)
Will the noble Lord accept that since 2000 the four major leagues in Europe—Spain, Italy, Germany and England—have effectively produced the same number of different champions in each case, either six or seven?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
Yes, I can accept those figures. I accept the noble Lord’s general premise, although I am not sure about Spain. I do not think that more than two clubs have won La Liga; actually, the two Madrid clubs and Barcelona have won it.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, talked about comparing England with France and Germany. I am not sure that is a fair comparison because in Germany the clubs are fan- owned. No club can have more than 49% ownership—51% is owned by the members of those clubs. There is not a direct comparison there. Yet Germany has been disproportionately successful in European competitions over that same period.
I want to move on to something else that my noble friend Lord Mann talked about— the opposition of many on the Opposition Benches. Unless I misinterpreted my namesake, my noble friend Lord Watson seemed to say that he was not in favour of the regulator having the powers that the Bill suggests. On the question of the role of the state, I thought that my noble friend Lord Mann was going to say that the Taylor report, which followed the terrible events of Hillsborough, was driven by the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. Quite right—I do not think anybody would object to that. There are cases where state intervention is appropriate and the only answer. If it had just been decided that we would hope all clubs produced all-seater stadiums for safety reasons, we would still be waiting for some of them.
That is one of the issues that we will probably come to later. The other one is the question of who is a fan. It is not for today, but it is very important to define what a fan is. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, talked about Peterborough and how Posh fans are spread right across the fen-lands and beyond. If you are defining a fan, it really has to be a season ticket holder, because otherwise you cannot pin them down. Manchester United and all the big clubs have fans across the world. You could not possibly consult them. I am sensitive that noble Lords will not necessarily agree with that. What about somebody who cannot afford a season ticket or who is not physically able to go to a match? I accept that, so we have to try to pin that down, and it will be one of the most difficult aspects of the Bill, because if we are going to take the views of fans into account, we have to have a means of corralling them and then taking those opinions. At this stage, I do not see how we can do that beyond season tickets.
My noble friend Lady Taylor talked about the sustainability and the success of English football, not just the Premier League but right down the system. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, talked of Stockport County. They sunk right down to level 6 in the National League North after going through some very traumatic periods, but have been able to come back up to level 3. My noble friend Lord Mann talked about AFC Wimbledon; in nine years they came from, basically, parks football to being back in in the Football League. It is natural that we tend to concentrate on the Premier League, but there has to be some understanding that the clubs below them are important. I am being opportunistic, but the Labour Government have talked about fixing the foundations. In any sense, when you look to go forward, you must have strong foundations. The foundations of English football are right down at the grass roots. I am not talking about the amateur level.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
The noble Lord references Amendment 10 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton. Will that amendment not potentially embed in primary legislation an economic concept of moral hazard? It is an economic term: a situation where a party has an incentive to take risks because it does not have to bear the full costs of those risks. That is going to be on the face of the Bill for the new regime, and will be directed by the new regulator. Is that not the case?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
We will have to see how that comes out in debate. I am not quite sure what the import of that amendment is. That is one of the issues about the role of the regulator. Noble Lords, particularly on the other side of the Chamber, are seeking to give him or her greater powers or influence than intended in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said at one point that we do not need a regulator because nothing is wrong. There is something wrong, because the Premier League and the English Football League have been unable to reach agreement on the disbursement of the funds from the top level to levels below. That is one of the problems in the system at the moment.
Baroness Brady (Con)
There is a deal in place agreed by all parties on how funds are distributed; 16% or £1.6 billion is distributed. It is also important to note that the Premier League has more title winners in the last 15 seasons than La Liga, the Bundesliga and Serie A, and the fewest number of titles won by one club than any other top European league over the same period, which shows it is competitive. That is why it is the best league in the world and the most valuable, and that is what we have to protect, because without that broadcast revenue the whole pyramid suffers.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I know the noble Baroness has experience with one of the major Premier League clubs but, in a sense, she has made my argument for me. The other leagues are less competitive, but I am just saying that if only four clubs can win the championship twice in 32 years, it is not spread very wide, and I would like to see it spread more widely, as many other people would—no doubt including those at her own club.
Lord Markham (Con)
I think the noble Lord misunderstands what I meant by competitive. It is not just which teams can win the Premier League overall and, as the noble Baroness showed, more teams can win here than anywhere else. It is the competitiveness of every single game, because the value is that you have so many games that people all around the world want to pay to watch, so they are interested in watching all the games. Brentford might not win the league, but they know they are going to be competitive against Man City and Liverpool and Arsenal, and they are the games that people want to watch. When we talk about competitiveness, it means that every single game is competitive and that is what the viewership wants to see, and drives the value up of the rights.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
That point was made earlier. I would not say every game is competitive, but I take the noble Lord’s point. I do not want to say any more at this stage because it is important that we get some clarity on how we go forward after this initial debate, because there are many important sections of the Bill that we need to look at in detail. The regulator will have a role, and we have to use this to make sure that it is absolutely clear. Some of the issues raised by noble Lords are legitimate, and until we can have our debates on each of these, we cannot quite see what shape this Bill and the role of the regulator will have. I thank noble Lords for the points made, and I think there are a lot of issues that we will follow up.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, if we do not get up to Amendment 36, we have a big job ahead of us, so I am going to be very brief.
Take the BBC. The director-general, the chair and the board really try to work hard to meet its objectives. It is there to entertain, to inform, to educate—and those objectives live in the same organisation. I do not know why, in the same way, the regulator cannot see its job as one of sustainability and success as well as growth.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, when trying to sum up these several hours of debate, I felt at times that we were dancing on the head of a pin. Sustainability —what actually does it mean? What do the Government think it means? That is the one question I would give to the Minister. Does it mean sustaining a successful Premier League? Well, I would hope so. Is sustainability making sure—remember, this Bill encapsulates it—that those five tiers of professional football are functioning? That is what is in this Bill—five tiers of professional football. That is what has allowed the resurrection of teams which got it wrong—there was somewhere to go.
Making sure that that is sustainable means that the fans want something. I hope I never cross the noble Lord, Lord Mann, on this subject because there was a great deal of fire in the belly there; my noble friend Lord Goddard might have got close at times, but I think we will give the noble Lord that one on points. The fans want something and are hugely emotionally and physically invested in this structure. That is what is behind the Bill. Football is not another business; it is not even another sports business. It is not—and may all that is holy be thanked—WWE. It is not something that we will throw away; it is embedded in the identity of much of our society. I say that as a rugby player. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, is my friend—I will say yes to him and “sir” when he is refereeing, but only then.
So it is that that comes through. The question here is about the word “sustainability”. What do the Government envisage it is? Let us get it out here now. Where will this be backed up? Where will it be shown so that we can know what is going on? Pepper v Hart is clearly not enough here. If we can get that, we can move on, but we must remember that we do not want the Premier League to be damaged, because it provides the money for the other good things to happen. That is the balance we must achieve—or at least get close to.
We cannot guarantee that it will be the best league in the world for ever. Will there be government intervention to make sure that it is successful? That would be a strange position for many noble Lords who have spoken.
Baroness Brady (Con)
The point is that the government regulator should not make it less successful by over- regulating, mission creep and making it so difficult to keep it competitive that it ends up having a detrimental effect.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, we come back to semantics, definition and interpretation. How do you interpret success? Is it by lack of regulation or by intervention? I do not think FIFA and UEFA would be terribly happy if it was felt that it was possible for a regulator to interpret success.
I hope that the Minister, who will have better access to this information than anybody else here—at least, I really hope she will—will be able to say what sustainability is, where does it go and what is the Government’s vision? That is what has happened here.
The Bill is about keeping five tiers of professional football functioning, with an escape route when it goes wrong, if we want to be terribly mercenary, for the top clubs. It gives a chance to rebuild and come back. That is difficult—Leeds have done it briefly; the noble Lord, Lord Mann, is smiling at me—but that is what is behind the Bill. It is not just about the Premier League, it is about the whole thing. I hope that the Minister will be able to correct—or rather, clarify—these points.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this has been a long but I think helpful debate, particularly towards the end when the more conversational changes that Committee allows exposed some fundamental differences, if not in party politics then in political philosophy and outlook. It is very valuable that we start our scrutiny of the Bill by reminding ourselves of the differing views and hopes of not just your Lordships in Committee but the many fans whose hopes ride on the job that the regulator is being asked to do and the way in which it is being asked to do it. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that it felt at times like matters of semantics, but it is important to make sure that the words in the Bill are carefully chosen and that the Government’s intentions behind each of those words are properly probed. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister about the Government’s intentions for the regulator and the way it will and will not carry out its duties.
I do not want to dwell too long on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton; I do not want to be accused of playing for time, as they do in football. However, I want to reassure her of the spirit in which those of us on these Benches are scrutinising this important Bill. As she said, and as my noble friend Lord Moynihan and others said, the Bill has enjoyed cross-party gestation and support. I made that very clear in my comments at Second Reading. It arises from the fan-led review led by the former Conservative MP, Dame Tracey Crouch, which was introduced to another place in the last Parliament. It has been changed by the new Government, as is their right, and we want to make sure that when it gets to the statute book it does so in the right shape and form. My noble friend Lord Moynihan noted that there are 340 amendments already tabled, and more than 100 of them are in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. I think it is a strength of this House that we will look at each amendment and give it the airing it needs, and that we scrutinise the Bill and read the Bill documents as carefully as my noble friend Lord Hayward has done. I know that your Lordships will not demur from that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, set out clearly and powerfully the case for her Amendment 10, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, particularly in the exchanges with my noble friend Lord Markham. I hope that that helped bring some clarity, both to the argument the noble Baroness was advancing and counterarguments from across the House. The exchange on her amendment chimed with our concern that “sustainability” is too imprecise or insufficient a term to stand on its own. She gave a practical and useful example of the way in which the Bill might expand on how we guarantee the sustainability of football and football clubs. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was seeking a cure for amnesia, understandably. I never had the pleasure of being the Bill Minister for this Bill, but he will remember from our many exchanges when I sat on the other side of the House that I was looking forward to the Bill coming to your Lordships’ House. He will also remember that, as a Minister, I had the pleasure of taking a number of Bills through and faced keen scrutiny from him and other Members on the Opposition Front Bench, carrying out, as was their right, the Opposition’s duty to scrutinise government legislation. I hope that he remembers, as he does not suffer from amnesia, that I was always open to ways of improving Bills, including those I took through as a Minister. If he thinks I am being too careful or conscientious in my scrutiny, it is only because I learned from the best.
This is important because, as my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham said, the Bill brings about an unprecedented intrusion by the state into a sport and an industry that is a resounding success story. My noble friend extolled the benefits of inertia, and I agree. We want the regulator to be carefully constrained, but we want it to be respected and able to fulfil its duties with authority. That is why it is important that we make sure it is not backward looking, nor that it seeks simply to preserve football as it is today in aspic, but can demonstrate to football clubs and to fans around the world that it shares their aspirations for the future of the game.
My noble friend also struck an almost Schumpeterian note by reminding us that sustainability, particularly in this complex ecology of the football pyramid, has sometimes been delivered through new clubs, new tournaments and new successes emerging from the ashes of previous failures, so sustainability can be delivered in ways that may feel turbulent as we go through them. I thought that was a useful point. We want to ensure that we avoid the unwitting or avoidable failures, such as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, so powerfully set out in the example he gave, and to make sure that the clubs that matter so much to their communities are protected—they are not, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, like just any other business; they have a social purpose, which we have already well considered—but it is the nature of sport that there are winners and losers. We also have to bear that in mind as we look at the regulator and the way it will carry out its work.
We could probably save ourselves a lot of time if we heeded my noble friend Lord Hayward’s referee’s whistle and just accepted his rulings on everything. I am glad that he had gone through the impact assessment so carefully. I agree that there should be more references to success than to Bury, for instance, in the impact assessment and some of the accompanying documents.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, was right to warn about the inadvertent danger of sending the message that a sport loved by 1.5 billion people around the world is not sustainable without a new law, a new regulator or the intervention of politicians. My noble friend Lady Brady pointed out in both her speech and her interventions that sustainability can mean different things to different people and that, as something with no end state, it is very difficult to define. I think that is why we have given it so much attention in our debate on this first group.
The noble Lord, Lord Birt, was very helpful in saying that sustainability is a necessary but not sufficient term. My amendment would strike out the words, not because I disagree with them but because I do not think they are enough. The way he put it was right: the regulator must not stop football developing.
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, made a powerful case for adding the word enjoyment. I enjoyed not only the way he did it but also his powerful reminder of the necessity of government and state intervention in the past in football, particularly in relation to the disasters and terrible incidents that he rightly reminded us of, which we want to avoid happening again.
I was struck by the compromise from the Cross Benches from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, and his suggestion of “financial sustainability and success”. I wonder whether the Minister will set out her thoughts on that, as well as on the point that my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park made about growth. This is something, after all, that chimes with the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the work of the Government more broadly. We want to ensure that the regulator is a growth-focused one that helps the growth not just of the game but of our economy.
This has been a long debate, but in debates on the Online Safety Act, which I had the pleasure of taking through your Lordships’ House, we spent a lot of time talking about having a declaration of purpose at the beginning of the Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, pressed me hard on it from the Opposition Benches. I remind your Lordships that we made that change and put it in the Bill because I thought it was important for the regulator to be given a clear message from Parliament and in legislation about what its role should be and how it should do it. I was glad to make that change.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, reminded us in his analogy with the BBC of the Reithian principles, which we also inserted into the Media Act—again a Bill that I took through. I was happy to amend it to make sure that that Act also reflected important statements of intent and ways of working. So I make no apology for having invited the Committee to spend some time thinking carefully, as we embark on our scrutiny of the Bill, about the role of the regulator and the message that we send through the Act of Parliament that we pass about the way it should do it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for raising the amendments in this group. This discussion has arguably gone into extra time, although I am assured that we have not got to the point of a penalty shoot-out—although that might be one way to arrive at a conclusion, given that I no longer intend to take up the refereeing option from the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, having heard very clearly what he said.
It is clear that the enthusiasm for talking about football demonstrated at Second Reading remains strong. I am not surprised, however, given the time we have spent on this group, that my noble friend Lord Watson of Wyre Forest appears to have contributed on the next group. I will respond to his points then.
Before I get into the substance of the amendments we have discussed this afternoon, I want to make a general point that was made succinctly by my noble friend Lord Bassam: it is clear that the party opposite has very unfortunately caught an element of collective amnesia. It appears to have forgotten that it was a Conservative Party that was in government and brought forward a very similar Bill just a few months ago—a point made elegantly by my noble friend Lady Taylor. All serious parties—I include the Conservatives in that—had a commitment to introducing an independent football regulator as part of their manifesto.
Notwithstanding the length of the debate, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, made an interesting point about growth that has not been substantially covered by the notes I have. I would welcome further discussion on this point with her and am happy to meet to discuss it further.
Taking each amendment in turn, unfortunately, I have to disagree with the principle of Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and of Amendment 4 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham. The fan-led review, led by Dame Tracey Crouch, laid bare the facts of English football today. The review is the justification for the Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, asked for, and the basis of the Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, asked for when he asked what problem we were trying to address. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, for highlighting Dame Tracey Crouch’s point that the game is both a success and fragile at the same time—a point reflected, in my view, in the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Ranger.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Watson of Invergowrie and Lord Mann, gave other examples of where the state has intervened in football. Although, as a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, it is undoubtedly hugely successful in many ways and has grown substantially since the formation of the Premier League in 1992, and our football is a global export that we should be proud of, the game’s financial model is broken. Too many clubs are in financial distress, fans are not being listened to, and just a few years ago top clubs attempted to break away from the Premier League to join a European super league. That move undermined the very principles of football in this country. The Bill is designed to combat these issues, identified by the previous Government.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for Amendment 3 and for his contribution to this debate, not least for highlighting the cross-party support for an independent football regulator. In response to his point on hybridity, I think we will come on to this in a later group, but this is a matter for the examiners, not the Government. I am happy to discuss this and others points in the debate on the relevant group, which I believe is the eighth group. We will potentially come to that at some point in the near future.
Unfortunately, the Government do not agree with the intent of Amendment 3 to narrow the purpose of the entire Bill specifically to financial sustainability. The purpose of the Bill is sustainability, as already defined in Clause 1. I highlight to noble Lords that they will find the Government’s definition if they turn from page 1 to page 2 of the Bill. I hope this answers the query from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about the Government’s intent in this regard. It is about a continuation of service—to continue to serve the interests of fans and contribute to the well-being of the local communities that regulated clubs serve.
I listened with interest to the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and all noble Lords will recognise her passion and expertise. I welcomed the passionate description from the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, of what the Bill is about. It is about those fans and the communities. Of course, financial sustainability is an important part of this. If a club suffers financial collapse, it cannot continue to serve its fans and community. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that this is exactly the same as any other financial club, a point echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
However, there is more to it than this. If a club’s balance sheet remains healthy but it ups sticks, moves 60 miles away and changes its name, badge and shirt colours, that is not a continuation of service either. Clause 6 sets out the regulator’s objectives, breaking down the overarching purpose of the Bill into its component parts. That is where noble Lords will see the club financial soundness and systemic financial resilience objectives, alongside the heritage objectives. That is the right place for them, and we believe this structure appropriately conveys the regulator’s aims and priorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, asked whether all clubs in a league would have to adhere to the same rules. The regulator will be proportionate and adaptive in its approach, rather than taking a one-size-fits-all approach that requires all clubs, regardless of their level, to adhere to the same approach.
Moving to other amendments, I thank my noble friends Lady Taylor of Bolton and Lord Bassam of Brighton for Amendments 10, 53 and 63, which raise interesting points about how much funding is required by individual clubs in the pyramid. On Amendment 10, the Government understand that the intent is to explicitly define sustainability in Clause 1 as the ability for a club to meet its financial commitments for at least the next six months.
This amendment would also effectively seek to alter the purpose of the Bill by adding to the definition of sustainability in relation to English football as a whole. As I have already stated, we believe that sustainability is already appropriately defined in Clause 1. I have no doubt that my noble friends’ intention was to define the financial soundness of a club as per the regulator’s objective in Clause 6. However, here we do not believe that it is necessarily appropriate to define general financial soundness in this way. We believe that there are circumstances in which the ability to meet financial commitments for six months may be an appropriate measure, but it is a blunt one and may not also and will not also be the case.
It will be for the regulator to set out exactly what it considers constitutes financial soundness. We think this is the right approach. However, the Explanatory Notes to Clause 6 clarify that:
“‘Financial soundness’ is a measure of a club’s expected ability to continue meeting its liabilities and debts in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances … This will involve an assessment of a wide range of factors and circumstances relating to a club’s long-term financial sustainability and resilience”.
I hope my noble friends are reassured as to the benefits of this approach.
The Government also recognise the good intent behind Amendment 53, which is to clarify that the regulator should be concerned with the financial resilience and sustainability of English football. I hope I can reassure my noble friend that, in our view, the desired intent is already achieved by the wording of the regulator’s objectives in Clause 6, and the purpose of the Bill in Clause 1.
Care was taken in the exact choice of the wording. “Financial resilience” feels appropriate in relation to the wider football system, as an established concept regarding the ability of the system to withstand shocks. “Financial soundness” feels more appropriate when referring to individual clubs, as an established concept regarding the financial health of organisations. “Sustainability” feels appropriate when referring to the overarching purpose of the Bill to ensure a continuation of service. To repeat “sustainability” in this objective could risk confusing these concepts and how they interact. I again point all noble Lords to the Explanatory Notes, which provide more detail on these various objectives and, I hope, provide some reassurance on the points raised.
Amendment 63 seeks to ensure that the financial position or soundness of regulated clubs is not diminished relative to other, non-regulated clubs. In line with its objectives, this regulator will be tasked with protecting and promoting the financial soundness of regulated clubs. Therefore, I hope my noble friends will agree that it is not necessary to place this additional requirement on it to not adversely affect financial soundness.
Amendments 4A, 7A and 62 are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, and Amendments 2, 209, 226 and 231 are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. In response to the surprise from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, that this is included, I understand the desire to ensure that the success of English football is protected and would like to be explicit that we believe this is achieved in the Bill already. As previously stated, the Bill is largely the same, not least in the part we have been discussing this evening so far, as that published by the previous Government, in which the noble Lord served.
As part of its secondary duties, the regulator must have regard to avoiding impacts on important outcomes in football. This extends to domestic sporting competition, the competitiveness of our clubs against international clubs, and investment into football. Actively pursuing these outcomes will remain the responsibility of the industry rather than the regulator, but the regulator will avoid unduly harming them while it strives for sustainability.
On Amendments 2, 4A and 7A specifically, if, as part of the purpose of the Bill, the regulator were required to protect the success as well as the sustainability of English football, it would not be afforded the flexibility needed to solve the clear and present issues within football currently. As someone who at Second Reading admitted to supporting Oxford United—who, sadly, lost their most recent games—I feel that success would be a hard ask of any regulator.
Similarly, my noble friend Lord Mann mentioned enjoyment. I know that most noble Lords will appreciate that sometimes that enjoyment can be quite painful as well.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Yes, suffering—all noble Lords will suffer for their football clubs as well, at times.
Lord Markham (Con)
I think the Minister did not quite understand. She was talking about success in terms of success of teams. The point about success that the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and I were trying to make was about TV viewership, which drives the media rights value. I have not seen that anywhere else in the Bill, and I would be grateful if the Minister could say where it is addressed.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I might have been being flippant, so I apologise to the Committee. After the length of time we have been discussing this, I came up with some flippant remarks. That was not to undermine the noble Lord’s point.
Much of the success of English football has come from investment, and we do not believe the Bill will in any way deter this. Nor do we believe that the regulator will detract from the noble Lord’s point about what might be measures of success. Indeed, a stable, more certain regulatory environment is likely, in the Government’s view, to attract investors with a more long-term, prudent approach to stewarding and growing these community assets.
These amendments would require the regulator to bring into scope anything that relates to the growth of English football. This would include things such as broadcasting revenues—which the noble Lord referred to—transfer fees and sponsorship deals, alongside many other areas. Not only would this dramatically widen the scope but the regulator would be required to become actively involved in these areas, potentially causing unintentional harms when looking to advance these worthy objectives. I am sure noble Lords will agree that this is not a space we necessarily want to have the regulator interfering in.
Lord Hayward (Con)
May I just seek clarification? She has covered a very wide-ranging debate as quickly and reasonably as possible, and I have no criticism of the manner in which she has done that. The key debate has been around the word “sustainability”. I think that, earlier in her reply, she said that it was defined at some point. The powers to operate are in Clause 1 and there is no definition in Clause 2. If she has given clarification at some point, I will check it in Hansard, but I am seeking clarification as to whether there is, within the Bill, “sustainability”. For that purpose, the powers identified in Clause 1 do not define it, and looking under key definitions in Clause 2, it does not appear to be there, either.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I draw the noble Lord’s attention, and other noble Lords’ attention, to the first line on page 2. Even if it does not have the word “definition”, it is quite clearly a definition. It says:
“For the purposes of this section, English football is sustainable if it … continues to serve the interests of fans of regulated clubs, and … continues to contribute to the economic or social well-being of the local communities with which regulated clubs are associated”.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her remarks and I agree with my noble friend Lord Hayward that she has covered a wide-ranging debate very reasonably. It was useful to get some of the thinking in the Government’s mind behind the way that Clause 1 is set out, and she was right to draw attention, as she did at the end, to the way Clause 2 tries to expand on this. As she knows, we have amendments down to look at that a bit further.
I am sorry that she repeated the points about amnesia. The reason I rose again to speak at some length before her concluding remarks was to reiterate the cross-party gestation that the Bill has had and the interest that is there. She mentioned that her notes gave her little to say on the points that my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park raised about growth. After a debate of this length, there was time to get a few additional notes, so I hope she might be able to write to my noble friend and the rest of the Committee on that. But I am grateful for what she said. I will go back through the official record and look at the points that noble Lords have raised in relation to Clause 1. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Moynihan
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 5 and 24 standing in my name. In the spirit of cross-party support for this Bill, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, for moving my amendment so eloquently. Should the Minister be in complete agreement with him, I think we could curtail this debate immediately and place the wording on the face of the Bill, since what I was looking for was exactly what he sought—namely, to insert
“within the rules laid down by UEFA, FIFA and the International Olympic Committee, relating to the autonomy of sport from government influence and control”.
Since there surely can be nobody who does not want to see us continue to play in UEFA competitions and the World Cup, to make that clear on the face of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, spoke to, is important.
Why is this being raised? It is being raised because UEFA has already—before we even got to Committee—raised specific concerns about the Government’s proposal to establish an independent football regulator, emphasising potential government interference in football governance. UEFA made four key objections, as I understand it. I have not had sight of the letter, but perhaps the Minister could confirm that in her response. First, it talked about the autonomy of football governance. UEFA insists that football should be self-regulated without external government influence. As I understand it, in the letter from the UEFA general secretary, Theodore Theodoridis, he stated that there should be
“no government interference in the running of football”.
The second point that he made was about the impact on UEFA competitions. UEFA warned that government interference could lead to the exclusion of English federations and clubs from European competitions, including the Champions League and the European Championships. This concern was highlighted in communications to UK officials, where UEFA emphasised the risks associated with the proposed regulator’s powers.
The third concern that UEFA expressed was on the regulatory powers and the competitive balance, which was referred to in earlier debates this afternoon. UEFA, as I understand it, is apprehensive about the proposed regulator’s backstop powers, which we will come to at a later stage of the Committee’s proceedings. Those are powers to intervene in funding discussions between the Premier League and the English Football League. UEFA argues that such intervention could disrupt the competitive balance and hinder amicable solutions within the football ecosystem. This is interesting; the point was made earlier about the comparison between the German system and the system that we have here. The reason I made that comparison was that Germany has possibly got the most regulated football in Europe in terms of what they call the Sonderweg, which translates as the “special unique past”. It is based on financial regulation and measures, including the 50-plus-one rule.
The point I was making was that the insolvency levels and the financial position of clubs within Germany and the UK are broadly similar, so it is not the regulation that impacts on that. UEFA has therefore concluded, comfortably within its own rules, that Germany, under its regulation, satisfies UEFA’s criteria. However, it raised a fourth point about licensing and club ownership. The proposed regulator would have had the authority to implement a licensing system for clubs and influence club ownership decisions based on the UK’s trade and foreign policy. That was the specific point withdrawn—removed—from the original Bill, and UEFA made it clear that it feared this could lead to fragmented governance across Europe and undermine the independence of football clubs.
These concerns that UEFA has brought forward are very serious. They would have a significant impact on our ability to play in the Champions League and the European Championship—indeed, if we apply the same logic to FIFA, in the World Cup as well. The preservation of the autonomy of football governance is therefore incredibly important. I hope we all agree that in introducing a football regulator nothing should jeopardise the autonomy of football governance and that we are within the rules and regulations set out by UEFA, which are comprehensive, as well as within FIFA’s. There should be nothing that could allow a regulator to overreach that boundary and thus disrupt the sport’s established structure.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
I agree that we want to see our clubs competing at the highest level, and the national team as well. Earlier, the noble Lord said that the level of regulation in France, and indeed in Germany, was much tougher than anything that we are going to have in the Bill. But those countries have not got into difficulties, given the regulation that they have, so I do not really see why we should either.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My point was that that is not the case. I do not want to go back into our debate on the first group, but the financial stability in the English system is no different. It is very similar to the financial stability in both the French and German systems. The levels of insolvency are, broadly speaking, the same. It is therefore not the level of regulation that is creating financial stability. If it was, the argument that we needed more regulation to create financial stability would hold water, but in practice it does not.
My point on this set of amendments is simply that if we all agree on this legislation and the role of the regulator, which is not comprehensively defined in the Bill, despite its length—the Minister has said, rightly, that we do not know the details of how the regulator will use its powers in any given situation—the one thing we can be sure about is that we do not want that regulator ever to use its powers in contravention of the UEFA and FIFA guidelines, by which we would have admission to play in European competitions and the World Cup. Should that be the case, there should be no difficulty in placing in the Bill that the whole operation of the regulator should be
“within the rules laid down by FIFA, UEFA and the International Olympic Committee, relating to the autonomy of sport from government influence and control”.
I added the International Olympic Committee because the same principles of autonomy apply, albeit that the British Olympic Association does not enter a men’s football team at present. It certainly enters a women’s football team and would wish to continue to do so. The Bill would enable, by secondary legislation if necessary, the Government to include the women’s game within the scope of this Act, as it would then be. I am thus also looking to have protection of
“the autonomy of sport from government influence and control”
in the Bill for the International Olympic Committee. For those reasons, I put these two amendments before the House. I beg to move Amendment 5.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moynihan for the way in which he has introduced and moved his Amendment 5. My Amendment 6, which also carries the name of my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park, has a similar effect. It would deal with the consequences if the Bill is not amended in a way that protects against those consequences. It is another way of getting at the same point—the same danger, risk and jeopardy that English football is potentially in if this is not dealt with at a very early stage.
On this business of English football having its own autonomy and not being subject to influence or control by government, we know that there are countries where football is an important activity and where national teams take part in international competitions. But in some of those countries, the boundary between where the state ends and the Government begins is sometimes unclear. It may be contended that in these circumstances, given the undoubted influence and control over English football that will come if the Bill is enacted in its current form, there will be state intervention, for sure. Is that the Government? It will be contended that this is an independent regulator.
None the less, it is a regulator appointed by Ministers in the Government. Its powers will be defined in secondary legislation drafted by the Government and if there is mission creep and scope creep, which some of us fear is almost inevitable, that will come about because of government decisions. This is a real issue; it is not scare- mongering. UEFA has written on these concerns, so when it is argued that this cannot really matter because Germany has regulated football, the fact is that that has been done in a way that prevents those concerns.
UEFA, which matters for these purposes, is not content at this stage that this jeopardy does not exist, so it has to be dealt with. The sooner that the Minister can give us some comfort that she understands how serious this is and the political danger the Government would be in if they—by lack of proper care and attention to these risks—allowed this malign effect to come about. It is very important to indicate at the earliest possible stage, which is really tonight, in this debate, that a provision which deals with this risk will be incorporated into the Bill by way of government amendment. I think that would be a great comfort to all of us.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My understanding of the exchange of correspondence was that UEFA’s primary concern was that the scope of the legislation in the Bill may go beyond financial concerns. It was entirely happy with the regulator being concerned about the finances of football, and rightly so. I do not quite see the fear that lies behind this set of amendments. Although the noble Lord is right that we need early clarification, the regulator’s purposes are clear: they are about ensuring sustainability and success, and all the rest of it, of our brilliant game. I think UEFA was just seeking clarification that it was tightly constrained around the notion of football finances.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am a bit of a Brighton supporter myself. Tottenham is my first love; Horsham is my second; Brighton comes a very close third. I hope the letter from UEFA will be published so that we can see in exact detail what is said and therefore satisfy ourselves that the concerns will be dealt with comprehensively and finally so that there is no lingering anxiety.
I totally understand the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. I wish I could be as happy as he is that there is no risk of subsequent mission creep, which is exactly the concern that UEFA raised. Some of us have raised that, in the Bill as currently drafted, there is scope for precisely the kind of mission and scope creep that UEFA seems to have identified. That is why it is so important at this stage that it should be dealt with and for it to be finally laid to rest that this concern need not be a concern.
My noble friend Lord Goodman spoke about the political risk for the Government if they come to be the people who have enacted a Bill which inflicts savage damage on English people’s expectations that their clubs will be able to participate in the Champions League, the Europa League and even the Europa Conference League, which West Ham so spectacularly won. It has to be dealt with quickly, cleanly and effectively, so that we no longer need to have sleepless nights over this.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome this group as a point of clarification and reassurance, as has been asked for. I would expect the Minister to accept this, because she has been at great pains to stress that this is intended—I do not doubt her good faith—as light-touch regulation motivated by the best of intentions. But I think that there is a real problem with this Bill that could potentially destroy football, so I want that worry at least to be taken seriously.
The examples given by the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Maude, were in relation to UEFA and FIFA and what damage could be done. I understand that, but I think this is a point of principle. It is really important that the Government state at this point that they believe that the Bill is not to be used as a vehicle for government interference in football. That is what they agree with, so why not put it in the Bill?
Should I just be having a moment of paranoid delusions? I spent as much time reading the amendments last night as noble Lords spent on the first group, possibly longer—i.e. it took me a long time. They are, in many instances, the vehicle for what can be described only as a wide range of political hobby-horses for people who believe that this Bill and the regulator should be asked to do things that are extraordinarily contentious, political and have absolutely nothing to do with football. The fact that they are deemed in scope of the discussion on this Bill is nerve-wracking. Consequently, this group seeks—very importantly—to state as a matter of principle that the Government should not interfere in the autonomy and independence of football in England and Wales, and English football particularly.
I want to stress, and I said it at Second Reading, that this not just because of any technical matter; it is because football came from and remains at its heart a grass-roots part of civil society. The last thing it needs is an overbearing political hand that will try to shape it into the image of the particular Government of the day. The particular Government of the day might be one that the Government trust; it might be one that many football fans trust, but imagine if it was not? We do not want the political fashions of the day to dominate football—to destroy football. I think the Minister will agree and therefore accept these amendments willingly, because it will reassure us that we are not all being paranoid about it. It will reassure football fans that the Government are doing it in their best interests rather than trying to use football as a hobby-horse to push a particular political agenda.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I want to ask the Minister to follow up on something she said in her wind-up speech at Second Reading. She said that, that week,
“the Minister for Sport had a productive discussion with UEFA and they committed to continuing to work together”.—[Official Report, 13/11/24; col. 1908.]
Obviously, it was just a reference, but I wonder whether she might be in a position to give more detail about that conversation, whether some issues raised in the letter have now been dealt with, and what continuing conversations might entail. As she mentioned it quite briefly at Second Reading, it would be great to get a bit more information if she can provide it to us. If she cannot do it now, could she perhaps write to all noble Lords to give us the latest on the discussions that have been ongoing?
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments from my noble friends Lord Moynihan, Lord Maude and Lady Evans of Bowes Park. The important thing we are missing is the sweeping enabling powers in the Bill; I think there are 42 powers and a number of Henry VIII powers.
The Prime Minister said on 17 September in response to UEFA:
“I don’t think there’s any problem with the rules, because this is a truly independent regulator. But as you’d expect, we’re talking to UEFA, and I’m sure we’ll find a way through this”.
I reiterate the view of my noble friend Lady Evans and ask for an update from the Minister.
I am not sure if the Prime Minister has actually read the Bill. If he did, he would surely concede that particularly in Clause 11, “Football governance statement”, there are very wide-ranging powers. For instance, Clause 11(3) states:
“The Secretary of State may revise any football governance statement”,
while Clause 11(1) states:
“The Secretary of State may prepare a statement”.
In paragraph 28 of the Explanatory Notes, there are significant powers that are open to future interpretation in a court of law. This is an unprecedented situation, but the notes state that
“guidance is intended to aid the IFR in interpreting the intention of legislation and to inform the detailed development and implementation of its regime. IFR guidance to the industry should give clubs greater information about the specific requirements of the regime, including how the IFR will operate and what is expected of clubs”.
With the best will in the world, that is a very pervasive, far-reaching, enabling power for the Secretary of State and Ministers in the department to exercise. If I can beg the forgiveness of noble Lords, I am slightly sceptical. I am not quite taking the side of FIFA and UEFA, but I have some empathy with the concerns they have about mission creep and a movement from financial issues into the minutiae and technical, granular operation of different football clubs. That is why my noble friends and I are raising this issue. I hope and expect the Minister to address those concerns.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I have been in this House for 10 years this year. For eight of those years, I was on committees for secondary legislation and primary legislation. It is a little bit rich for the Conservatives to start complaining about Henry VIII powers, when I spent most almost 10 years trying to stop Ministers from across the previous Government taking Henry VIII powers at every single opportunity. I think people need to put this into perspective.
I hear what the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Maude, are saying. I believe they are saying it with the right intentions and from the heart. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has opened the tin a little bit by saying that the conversation going on between the Government and UEFA is about finances but not about this.
So is there an element of sabre rattling? I do not know, but we on these Benches would like clarification from the Minister—this can be clarified quickly—on whether any of these three amendments are true, can be true or can be dealt with in the Bill. If they can, we can put this to bed quickly, but, if they cannot, there is some mileage in considering the alternatives, which are the last things that anybody wants. I do not want Stockport County not to be able to play in the Champions League in 30 years because of an oversight in this Committee one night.
Finally, can we end this love-in with Brighton & Hove Albion? You beat Manchester City once; you did not win the World Cup.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, made a point about Clause 11. I have read it and I have also read the previous Clause 11. As far as I can see, they are absolutely identical. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, can help us, because he would have been in the DCMS at the time. Was it the case then that Ministers sought assurances from UEFA and FIFA that there was nothing in the Bill’s powers that would have offended them? If that is the case, and if Clause 11 is so important in the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, this argument is probably a bit of a non-argument in the end, because we have had that clarification and assurance through the exchange of letters that took place in September this year.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I think this is important. The last two contributions have just reminded me. I do not care what was in the previous Government’s Bill, which, to be honest, I would have stood up and argued against at that time as well.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I entirely accept that the noble Baroness would have done that, but I was more concerned about the argument coming from the Official Opposition.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I agree, but I was going to appeal to us myself to try to tackle the Bill—which is so important in many ways—with at least a little of the spirit of what is in the best interests of football, rather than what is in the best interests of the political footballs of political parties. That is just an appeal—it might not work—because Henry VIII powers, for example, are anti-democratic and illiberal whoever uses them. I do not therefore want not to be able to criticise them in case somebody thinks that I am on the side of the Tories or that I am anti-Labour. That is not the point, surely.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I will briefly respond to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. I take on board the Maude doctrine, which is that, had we had the opportunity to have scrutiny and oversight of the Bill at the appropriate moment, I would have made exactly the same points to my own Government when they were in power. So, with all due respect to the noble Lord, he is flogging a dead horse by keeping on saying that this was a Tory Bill. We are today considering a Labour government Bill on its merits and its efficacy, which is why we are debating it.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 6. I clarify for the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, that there is no state regulator in France or Germany—all the regulation there is football-led—so this is something completely different.
I will raise with the Minister the alarming letter that UEFA sent the Secretary of State. In it, the warnings are spelled out very clearly, as are the concerns about “governance interference” in football. It points out that it has very “specific rules” that guard against state interference in order to
“guarantee the autonomy of sport and fairness of sporting competition”.
It states:
“If every country established its own regulator with similarly broad powers, this could lead to a fragmented, inefficient and inconsistent approach to football governance across the continent and in essence hinder the ability of UEFA and other bodies to maintain cohesive and effective governance standards across Europe”.
It goes on to say that
“it is imperative to protect and preserve the independence of the FA in accordance with UEFA and FIFA statutes”.
It warns against anything that could compromise
“the FA’s autonomy as the primary regulator of football in England”
or the ability of domestic leagues to set
“their own season-to-season financial sustainability rules”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, it gives stark warnings about the backstop power and licensing. UEFA expresses significant concerns about the backstop and stresses the importance of preserving collaboration and voluntary agreements in football governance, while cautioning against overreliance on regulatory backstop powers that could disrupt the sport’s balance and stability.
It says that the backstop threatens
“the balance of power within football governance”
and that
“mandating redistribution which affects the competitive balance in the game and wider European competition would be of concern to us”
and would
“prevent amicable solutions being found”.
UEFA says that the backstop in the current Bill should be “carefully reconsidered”.
However, despite those warnings from UEFA, the Government have made the backstop even wider and broader in scope, to now include parachute payments, which are fundamental to competitive balance. They have removed the incentives for a football-led deal, which goes specifically against the advice of UEFA. So it appears that the Government have ignored that letter and its warnings. UEFA spells out that
“the ultimate sanction would be excluding the federation from UEFA and teams from competition”.
No matter how small the Minister may say the risk is, the inclusion of this amendment will help to ensure that the IFR does not act in a way that enables such unintended consequences for football fans. That would be a huge relief.
We should be careful not to empower this regulator without fully addressing the concerns of the international governing bodies in advance. If we create even a small but ever-present risk of intervention in the future, that could put the Government, the regulator and our competitions in an invidious position down the track, especially in circumstances where the interests of English football may not align with UEFA or FIFA—for example, in the event of future disagreements on the football calendar. I therefore urge the Minister to give assurances that every single issue raised in the letter has now been dealt with to UEFA’s satisfaction, including its concerns on financial distributions and independence from government. This leverage, once granted, cannot be taken back.
It is imperative that nothing in the Bill gives the regulator powers to interfere with the rules that already govern football—which, by the way, is one of the most governed and regulated industries around. We have to comply with FIFA rules, UEFA rules, Football Association rules, Premier League rules and EFL rules—and now we have the IFR rules. We will be tied up in more red tape than a company applying for a post-Brexit import licence.
So will the Minister ask the Secretary of State to allow a full copy of the letter she received from UEFA to be put in the House of Lords Library and the Commons Library for every single Peer and MP to be able to see it, read it and be aware of its nature and tone and of the consequences it spells out, so that every Peer in this House can take that into account when they consider why this amendment is so important and so necessary?
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
My Lords, I continue to be humbled by the gentle kindness and grace with which Members of this House help relatively new Members understand the list of amendments in Committee on Bills. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for helping to steer me back on course. To reciprocate the kindness, I say that I enthusiastically support his amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Maude.
I apologise to my noble friend the Minister for adding to her confusion. She withheld comfort on that first debate in relation to the clarity I was seeking on whether English football teams and England will be able to play in European and international competitions at the end of the Bill. I say to her that now is the time: she can end my confusion, give the clarity that this Committee deserves and end the ambiguity by saying that England and English football clubs will be playing in international tournaments, because these important amendments are trying to get that reassurance to every football fan in England tonight.
Lord Birt (CB)
I agree that that reassurance is essential, but the only way to get it is not through publishing the letter but through knowing that UEFA and FIFA have agreed that we would be compliant.
Lord Markham (Con)
On that point, I think that is the only way. We all agree that this would be such a big risk. I looked it up before the debate, because this is not just the equivalent of us scoring an own goal, it is like a hat-trick of own goals, so I looked at whether there has ever been an example of a hat-trick of own goals. I found out that the most own goals ever scored in a match was 149. We may go close even to that. There is a real point here, and it was very well made by my noble friend Lady Brady, but I really want to unpack it.
What we are talking about here is a lot more than what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was saying about the pure financial sustainability of clubs. The concern of UEFA is:
“A Member Association may … be suspended if state authorities interfere … in such a significant way that … it may no longer be considered as fully responsible”.
The Premier League has thought very carefully about how it wants to bring in such things as parachute payments in order to, as we were talking about before, have competitiveness right the way through the game. It is to encourage those clubs—again, I have spoken to clubs about this—to invest, even though they might be in the bottom half of the table, because if they get relegated, they have that safety net. Without that safety net of parachute payments, they would not invest, so they would not be competitive.
What we are talking about here is that if we start to alter those parachute payments and the regulator starts to get involved in that, that is fundamentally altering the competitiveness of the game, so interfering in a way that I feel that UEFA, given the comments it is making, is absolutely going to say that we are overstepping the mark. To my mind, the only way to overcome that, while it is helpful to have these amendments, would be to have a meeting with UEFA—I know meetings have been had—and having a letter from UEFA clearing it, saying that this is something it is happy with and that it will not cut across it. If we do not do that, there will be a fundamental danger of what I think all of us would agree would be the biggest own goal of all.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Maude of Horsham for their amendments in this group and for the way they set them out. I support the reasons behind their amendments.
Amendment 5, moved by my noble friend Lord Moynihan, would add a critical provision ensuring that the autonomy of sport from government influence is respected, in accordance with the established rules of FIFA, UEFA, and the International Olympic Committee. The purpose of Clause 1, as stated, is
“to protect and promote the sustainability of English football”,
and my noble friend’s Amendment 5 would provide the necessary framework for achieving that purpose, while upholding international standards. FIFA, UEFA and the International Olympic Committee have clear rules regarding the autonomy of sports organisations and their independence from government control. Failing to adhere to these principles risks sanctions from these bodies, including the very serious sanctions that noble Lords across the Committee have set out, such as the exclusion of national teams or clubs from international competitions. My noble friend’s amendment would ensure that the Bill operates within these very clear and well-established boundaries, safeguarding England’s participation in international football.
Amendment 6, from my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham, is crucial, as it would directly protect England’s participation in international football tournaments such as the Euros and the World Cup. Again, FIFA and UEFA have stringent rules regarding government interference in football governance. The test here, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough and others set out, is not for the Minister to imagine what she or the present Government may do, but what future Governments might do with the powers afforded them by the Bill, including the very sweeping secondary powers that it sets out.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I genuinely welcome these amendments and appreciate the sincerity of the concerns noble Lords may have about the possible ramifications were the regulator to operate outside of governing body rules, including the potential ramifications for domestic teams playing in international competitions. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, noted that this threat might be alarming to fans. It behoves us all in your Lordships’ Committee not to spread unwarranted alarm and I hope it will be useful if I am able, in response to this debate, to reassure noble Lords—and, through the debate, fans—that we do not believe that there is any risk from the Bill as it stands to our domestic teams playing in international competitions. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that we definitely have the interests of fans at heart, and I say to my noble friend Lord Watson that I welcome his comments; I am not confused and nor should noble Lords be.
On Amendments 5 and 6, I assure the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Maude of Horsham, and my noble friend Lord Watson that there is no intention that the regulator will fall foul of UEFA’s, FIFA’s or the International Olympic Committee’s rules, or that the regulator will take any action that would lead to English club or international sides being unable to play in certain competitions, such as the European Championships.
The Government have worked closely and consulted with UEFA, FIFA and, in particular, the FA throughout the development of the Bill, and will continue to work with them as it progresses through Parliament. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, raised remarks I made at Second Reading. I can confirm that the Minister for Sport recently held a very positive and constructive meeting with UEFA, in which she reiterated that we will continue to work with it as the Bill progresses. We have listened to previous concerns and have responded by removing a clause from the previous Bill which required government foreign and trade policy to be considered when approving takeovers. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Birt, I hope I can provide assurance, in that my understanding is very clear that they have confirmed that they do not now have concerns about the Bill as it stands.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Noble Lords are listening carefully to the Minister’s words, and she says it is her “understanding”. Is it the Government’s clear view that UEFA and FIFA are happy? She said also that it is not the intention of the Bill that this would take English football into areas that might cause conflict, but I think noble Lords were probing not the intention but the risk that it might do so. Perhaps she is able provide something further in writing, but noble Lords are seeking certainty and precision in her response.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
There is nothing in the Bill that conflicts with English clubs or the English national side competing in international games, as the rules of the international bodies stand currently.
Baroness Brady (Con)
Have UEFA told the Minister that, or is that her understanding?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As I said, UEFA had a meeting with the Minister for Sport. My understanding from that meeting, at which I was not present, is that this was confirmed. It has not raised other concerns. If any noble Lord knows of other concerns that it has raised directly with them, please get in touch afterwards.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
We are listening very carefully to this, and it is really important. I have absolutely no doubt about the honesty of the Minister’s —or the Government’s—intentions and sincerity. The concern is that stating that it is not the intention that the regulator would do anything, or that the Bill would have any effect that would conflict with these international football bodies, is not quite as reassuring as it is meant to sound. The concern has always been the unintended effects, and the fact that, for all their good intentions, she, the Government and indeed the Prime Minister cannot bind future Governments. The regulator is meant to be independent, so there is scope for activity. Unless it is explicitly excluded in the primary legislation, there will continue to be a doubt, whatever good words we hear either first or second hand. To put it beyond any doubt, it is essential that this is in the Bill.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I can only repeat that I know that the Minister for Sport is clear that she had a positive and constructive meeting with UEFA, and that we will continue to work with it. The only other point I was aiming to make on this matter, rather than repeating what I had already said, was that when the Government say that we want to keep the Bill within its current scope, this is clearly partly to avoid mission creep, with the unintended consequence that we might then stray into areas that are problematic. When we debate subsequent groups, please note that it is front and centre of our minds that we are very clear that this Government will do nothing to jeopardise the ability of English clubs or the England team to play in international competitions, whether they are European, world-level or at the Olympics. I hope that noble Lords accept that there is no intention to do anything that will jeopardise that. The advice we have had is that this will not be the case. The engagement with UEFA is essential, and it is aimed at ensuring that there are not any unintended consequences that would damage the ability of English clubs or national teams to compete in UEFA, FIFA or Olympic competitions.
This legislation does not impose undue third-party influence on the FA, and therefore does not breach FIFA or UEFA statutes, which the FA has confirmed. In any case, there is an additional safeguard already in place in the Bill, in that the regulator must have regard to its duty to avoid any effect on sporting competitiveness of regulated clubs. For the avoidance of any doubt, and to ensure that there is no possibility of any clauses that may concern these sporting bodies, we have already taken action. As previously noted during the debate, we have removed a clause from the previous Bill which allowed government foreign policy and trade considerations to be considered when approving takeovers. The regulator will be fully independent from Government and tightly focused on the financial sustainability of the game.
On Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I say that we are extremely confident that no powers or potential actions taken by the regulator would be in breach of the rules, and thus preclude England’s national teams from competing in international competitions. We are mindful of UEFA’s governing principles around undue third-party influence, and this has shaped how we are setting up the regulator.
I am proud that this is a Labour Government Bill that we are taking through this House, as was noted, with agreement from the previous Government. This legislation will not impact the intention for our teams to play in UEFA competitions. For the reasons I have set out, I am unable to accept the noble Lords’ amendments and hope that they will not press them.
Baroness Brady (Con)
Just before the Minister sits down, can she confirm if she could, and would, place in the Library the letter that the Secretary of State received from UEFA, so all Peers have a chance to read it? I know the Minister stated that this was not alarming, but I think the majority of people would find it alarming.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Baroness refers to my point about this not being alarming. I do not want fans to be alarmed by our discussion. It was a private letter from UEFA; there is no intention for it to be published. I assure noble Lords that this Government will not do anything to jeopardise the FA’s membership of UEFA or the participation of English teams in UEFA competitions.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am a little disappointed by the Minister’s reply to my noble friend. An important point to bear in mind is that we are not probing just the Government’s intentions, and the Minister has been very clear that it is not the Government’s intention to put in peril English clubs’ participation in international tournaments. However, the risk is that the independent regulator—ironically, as it is more independent from Government and able to do things—could take us into areas that do jeopardise that. The Government have made some changes to the Bill to try and satisfy concerns raised about its independence from Government, and we will touch on those, but I know that they are trying to help. Can she address the distinction between the Government’s intentions and actions, and what the Bill does in bringing about an independent regulator that can, through its actions, inadvertently lead to some of the jeopardy raised by noble Lords?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As per the FA articles of association, the FA is established to promote and govern the game of association football. This Bill will not affect the FA’s ability to do that independently without undue influence, so it will not breach UEFA and FIFA statutes as they are currently drafted. The FA gave all evidence to this effect to the Committee in the other place, during the passage of the previous Bill.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for what I am sure is a completely genuine and committed response to the many points that have been made. However, I hope she will understand that it worries this Committee to hear that fans might be alarmed by something, so we must not show it to them”.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
That is not what I said. My point was that this conversation and this debate may be alarming, and I believe it is unduly alarming to fans, although nothing in this Bill would preclude us from international games, whether that is English clubs or the national team.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I am sorry, but the Minister was very clear in her response to my noble friend that the publication of the letter might cause alarm, and that that was one of the reasons why it was not to be published. If I misunderstood, I apologise to the Minister, but I would simply say that, if there is no alarm from the letter, why not publish it? Why not place the letter in the House of Lords Library so that we can review it?
Windsor Framework (Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals) Regulations 2024
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:48 - Division on Baroness Hoey’s amendment to the Motion. - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 45 - Baroness Hoey’s amendment to the Motion disagreed.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 October be approved.
Relevant document: 4th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the instrument before you provides for the introduction of the Northern Ireland pet travel scheme. The purpose of the instrument is to implement arrangements agreed under the Windsor Framework which were announced in February last year. The framework represents an important step forward for the people of Northern Ireland by significantly improving on the arrangements that existed under the original Northern Ireland protocol. This Government have been very clear in their intention to secure new, better arrangements for sanitary and phytosanitary matters with the EU. We are clear that we want to continue to simplify this process as far as possible in order to support those across the United Kingdom, whilst protecting our internal market.
Turning to the SI itself, this scheme will simplify the requirements associated with moving pet dogs, cats and ferrets from Great Britain to Northern Ireland significantly. It replaces single-use animal health certificates with a free-of-charge lifelong travel document and removes the need for costly pet health treatments. Pet owners who travel frequently with their pets, or those who rely on the services of an assistance dog to travel independently, will benefit substantially from this change in approach. I am pleased to say that this benefit has been recognised by Guide Dogs UK specifically, which has noted the positive impact of removing single-use EU certificates on assistance dogs travelling to Northern Ireland.
Movement of pets for other reasons, such as young assistance dogs being moved to Northern Ireland for training or the movement of police or military working dogs from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, will also benefit. This SI also reaffirms the Government’s commitment to unfettered access, in that those from Northern Ireland have no requirements whatever beyond the need for a microchip, as is good practice already and in line with this Government’s approach to high animal welfare standards. Finally, the SI empowers relevant competent authorities to carry out their respective responsibilities as part of the scheme in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. This will ensure that the scheme is sufficiently robust and ensure that those travelling with their pets have the best experience possible.
To summarise, the Windsor Framework is already successfully restoring the smooth flow of trade within the UK internal market by removing the burdens that have disrupted east-west trade, as well as safeguarding Northern Ireland’s place in the union. This instrument is essential in implementing those benefits: an international treaty negotiated by the last Government that this Government have committed to delivering in good faith. I hope noble Lords will agree that the Northern Ireland pet travel scheme delivers significant benefits for pet owners and for assistance dog users across the UK, and I urge all to support its implementation. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Hoey
At end insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations treat pets travelling to Northern Ireland differently from those travelling to any other part of the United Kingdom.”
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I will not be quite as short as the Minister, because it is important that noble Lords understand this in a great deal more detail. Sometimes the words that sound very positive are not nearly as positive when you go into the detail. These regulations are in effect about a new aspect of the Irish Sea border that has not had expression until this point because of the grace periods.
As we are an animal-loving nation, I am sure that this statutory instrument will resonate with the British public, perhaps more than the other ones that I and other Members have prayed against in the past. The draft Windsor Framework (Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals) Regulations 2024 will impact the everyday lives of people seeking to move for non-trading purposes from one part of the United Kingdom, Great Britain, to another, Northern Ireland, when they travel with a pet under the terms of the regulations.
The experience of visiting Northern Ireland with your pet dog or cat, or even a ferret, will be made to feel like a visit to a foreign country. It will be possible for you to travel from GB to NI with pets, including guide dogs—despite what we were told in the past—only if you have ensured that, first, your pet is fitted with a microchip; and, secondly, you have successfully applied to join the Northern Ireland pet travel scheme and have a pet travel document, which amounts to a pet passport. Meeting the requirements for that document remain obscure, because their definition, and indeed the potential for their definition to be changed, rests not with this Parliament but with the EU Commission—in regulation 4(1). Thirdly, as you travel with your pets, you must submit to full documentary and identity Irish Sea border checks, subject to sanctions. Fourthly, and very importantly, you must sign a form saying you will not attempt to enter the Republic of Ireland.
Of course, if your pet is found wanting in any way during the border checks, you will then suffer the inconvenience of being sent immediately to an SPS inspection facility, where you must remain with your animal unless and until you are permitted to leave. You could have your membership of the UK pet travel documents scheme suspended. So it is the fourth and final bullet point that makes these regulations particularly absurd, because it seeks to impose an Irish Sea border for internal UK movements while keeping the border for moving into the Republic. On the one hand, we are told that there can be no border across the island of Ireland, which is why there must be a border down the Irish Sea; but, on the other, the regulations before us do not comply with that logic. It is, by any measure, absurd to have both.
Your Lordships need to look at the implications of, if you use the pet travel scheme, having to sign that you will not go over the border to the Republic with your pet. Does the Minister have any idea of the effect that this will have on the casual tourist, who, perhaps having visited the Glens of Antrim, decides to drive down to the Ring of Kerry? There will be specific tourist implications of this, on top of the tourism effect of having to get a pet passport in the first place. Relatives going back home for Christmas or summer holidays next year, as they have always done, will no longer be able simply to travel freely with their pet within their own country.
Can noble Lords imagine how they would feel if it were their county in England, Scotland or Wales that required this extra bureaucracy? This could spell the end of holiday trips for pet owners from GB to NI and then on to the Republic, when they want to explore both Northern Ireland and the Republic. If they have a pet passport, they will have renounced their right to go to the Republic. That makes the border more of an obstruction than having border control posts on it, because at least in that eventuality, you could still cross over it. If you have a pet travel document, you cannot go to the Republic of Ireland via NI, unless you leave your pet behind or find somewhere in Northern Ireland to fulfil all these requirements. Can the Minister say where those requirements will be fulfilled in Northern Ireland for that travelling person?
The Minister might respond by saying, “Yes, that’s right”. However, that would be ridiculous, because rather than making it less of a border, the border is being made more of a border than ever, by preventing people with pets travelling over it. What advice will be given to prevent them breaking the law? Will they be told to drive back to get a boat to Liverpool and then to get the boat from Liverpool to Dublin? Does the Minister have an answer to this question? I assure her that neither Defra nor DAERA has that answer. All the people who have rung them, over the past week or so, get a different view every single time depending on whom they speak to. I wonder whether anyone in Defra or DAERA actually understands the detail of these regulations.
The Minister could say, “No, if you want to stay in Northern Ireland and then go on to the Republic, you can, but not on the basis of the pet travel scheme. You have to stay in Belfast or Larne, and we will then give you entry on the basis of EU regulation 576/2013—not on the basis of a pet travel document under the pet travel scheme”. So where will that happen and what will the cost be? In that instance, the reality of the rationale for the pet passport—being subject to documentary checks, having your pet checked, with the possibility of being sent to an SPS centre and being made to feel as though you are going to a foreign country—makes no sense, because these animals are not going to the Republic. They will remain in the EU under EU law, as designated by the withdrawal agreement. On that basis, we do not need to divide our own country. We do not need a pet travel scheme for the movements of pets that do not leave the UK, with pets and people being sent to SPS facilities. Have His Majesty’s Government even thought about the fundamental implications of the pet travel document making the open border absolute?
As the Explanatory Memorandum makes clear—as does Article 12 of the now very famous EU regulation 1231, the important one that allows the EU to govern the division of our country—pets can be moved into the Republic of Ireland only if one is subject to another border. The rationale is absurd. If the border for moving a pet from NI to the Republic of Ireland is such that it cannot be crossed without engaging in border requirements, surely the rationale for the Irish Sea border evaporates. It is particularly absurd when you remember that, to get the pet passport originally to take your animal to Northern Ireland, you have to sign that you will not take it into the Republic. So there should be no need for any restrictions on taking your pet on holiday or to visit relatives in Northern Ireland from GB.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. We are having this debate in your Lordships’ Chamber because the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has put down a regret amendment. It is important that these matters are debated. We must ensure that the negative instruments that will be coming forward are fully debated. Every one of the statutory instruments that come forward under the Windsor framework must be properly debated, because these laws are being brought forward to implement what a foreign jurisdiction has decided should be the law of the United Kingdom. In the 21st century, we should not accept colonial rule. We abolished it elsewhere. We believe it should not be tolerated for one second. People should have the democratic right to decide their laws for themselves, in their interests. Yet there are many people in this Chamber and the other Chamber who rail against Henry VIII clauses and so on but seem quite happy to take legislation from the European Union made by the European Commission in its interests, and not in the interests of the United Kingdom, without any consultation from any MP or mere MLA in the Northern Ireland Assembly. We are expected at times just to nod it through.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has gone through in detail the implications of this statutory instrument. I detect some people in the Chamber almost smiling and sort of thinking: “This is all very detailed. We’re talking about dogs and cats. This is not worthy of this Chamber. What’s this all about?” Quite frankly, I believe that these matters need to be properly scrutinised. These things matter to the owners of pets, and it should matter to all citizens who believe in democracy that these laws should be made by us.
We have before us the Windsor Framework (Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals) Regulations. The ridiculous part about this debate is that we are having to debate European laws regulating the movement of pet animals owned by British citizens between one part of the United Kingdom and another. That is an outrage. People should not be smiling about that, smirking or thinking it is all a bit of a nonsense. This is serious stuff, and it matters. This is just one of what are going to be hundreds, thousands, of such laws made by the European Union and implemented through these statutory instruments by the process set out in the withdrawal Act. People can say, “Well, on this particular issue, it is not that serious or, on that issue, it does not do any real harm”. But cumulatively over time, all this does grave damage to democracy. It does grave damage and harm to the constitutional position of Northern Ireland within this United Kingdom.
We had a debate earlier on how to safeguard Northern Ireland’s place within the union. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said, we heard soft words, kind words and all the rest of it. Yet this is the reality of what is happening. One cannot secure the union by undermining the union in this way. If we believe in sovereignty, then it should be sovereignty for all the United Kingdom. We cannot have Brexit for part of the United Kingdom and leave other parts behind. I dare say that if your Lordships and many of those who are not here were presented with the regulations when they were leaving their London homes to go to the shire country estate or to where they live at the weekend and were told, “I am sorry, when you leave London, go to Shropshire, Glasgow, Cardiff, Leicester or wherever it is, you are going to have to apply for a pet passport. You are going to have to enrol for a pet travel scheme. You are going to have to ensure that you declare that your pet will not be moved into a foreign jurisdiction; and it applies, and you can prove that this passport relates entirely to the animal that is in your company”, people in England, Scotland and Wales, Members of Parliament, and Members of your Lordships’ House would not tolerate that for a second, especially when they were told that the reason that they were being asked to do it was that the European Union demanded it. We should be taking these matters much more seriously.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has said, we will be told—the Minister has said it—that this is a great improvement on what was theoretically going to be a dire situation under the original protocol, when we were going to be subject to the panoply of a full international border for pet movements, as if one was bringing a pet from a third country into the European Union. That was rightly dismissed by many of us who said that it was a disgraceful, unacceptable and unworkable regime. But let us remember, and your Lordships need to be reminded, that there were many in this House, in the other place and in Northern Ireland—Members, the leadership of the SDLP and Sinn Féin, and the leadership of the Alliance Party—who said, knowing the full diabolical terms of that protocol, that it had to be not just implemented but rigorously applied. That is how fervently pro-EU and anti-democratic they were. When we hear some of those representatives now lecture us about what is in the best interests of Northern Ireland, let us remember their position on this—ultra ideologically driven and not in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland in any shape or form.
Now we are told that things have greatly improved. The grace periods were implemented by the previous Government to prevent that dire protocol being implemented. Even the implementation of the grace periods was fiercely resisted, again by many of the same players and actors and characters. We were told that it was a breach of international law, an outrageous, flagrant breach of the UK’s responsibilities, requirements and obligations under an international treaty. Forget about the harm that it would do to UK citizens and all the things that I have outlined in terms of democracy, sovereignty and so on. Again, that was fiercely resisted. When you hear some of the same people argue in favour of what is now being presented under the Windsor Framework, remember where they are coming from in this debate.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
It is this side, thank you.
My Lords, I refer to the register of Members’ interests, as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House and of the Government’s Veterinary Medicines Working Group. We had a similar debate on the Windsor Framework some weeks ago and I suppose that we have had debates like this on other statutory instruments in relation to the Windsor Framework. It is an issue that divides communities in Northern Ireland along broadly political constitutional lines. However, we must not forget that the Windsor Framework is a result of Brexit. It would not be here if we did not have Brexit. That is the political reality that we all face and must countenance.
I for one support the Windsor Framework and I supported the protocol, which I believed was the best means of dealing with the challenges that were presented by Brexit for trade in goods on the island of Ireland, both north and south. Before Brexit, goods moved freely across the island, helping to sustain and underpin our economies, both north and south. That fact was recognised in the Good Friday agreement, which was referred to earlier today, and in the three-stranded relationships as a result of that agreement, whether it was the Northern Ireland Executive, the Assembly, the North/South Ministerial Council or the British-Irish Council.
Prior to and since the vote on the Brexit referendum, many of us have insisted that there was a need for a special status for Northern Ireland because of those unique trading and political relationships on the island. That fact has not diminished and now manifests itself in the Windsor Framework, which exists to manage those challenging relationships that exist—there is no doubt they are challenging. I believe that where there are imperfections with some areas of trade within the Windsor Framework, they need resolution through dialogue and negotiation between the UK and the EU.
On veterinary medicines, my noble friend on the Front Bench very ably chairs our Veterinary Medicine Working Group, which is trying to understand and deal with the challenges presented to our agri-food industry in Northern Ireland and to resolve with the EU those challenges with the supply of medicines to our veterinarians in Northern Ireland, as well as looking at an SPS veterinary agreement. I believe the same applies with pets and companion animals; it requires sensible management of this issue to ensure that there are no impediments.
I say to those who supported Brexit and who bring forward these regret amendments to your Lordships’ House to challenge every piece of secondary legislation on the Windsor Framework as an attack on the constitutional sovereignty of the UK and Northern Ireland that I believe that is disingenuous. I recognise their reasons for doing so, but I do not agree with them. At the end of the day, those same people and those same representatives argued for the hardest possible Brexit, and sometimes you get what you argued for. Put simply, I believe we would have been better to remain in the EU, and I am pleased that my colleagues in the new Labour Government, via the Prime Minister and other senior Ministers, are working with the EU on a reset of those relationships, notwithstanding the realities of the situation. For my part, I have my own political identity as a democratic Irish nationalist, but I recognise the difficulties that my colleagues on the Front Bench are presented with.
The purpose of the instrument under discussion this evening is to ensure the smooth movement of pet dogs, cats and ferrets from GB to Northern Ireland, while ensuring that any pet movements from GB and Ireland or other EU member states remain subject to the relevant EU requirements. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member, considered that this instrument
“is an example of where wider consultation would have been desirable”.
Our role in that Committee is largely process-driven, and effective engagement and communication through a publicity campaign and notices in veterinary surgeries will definitely be vital to improve public understanding of how the scheme will operate in practice.
Therefore, can my noble friend say whether there are any plans to do such publicity, and will she talk to ministerial colleagues, maybe through the usual channels, about the necessity for more consultation in relation to statutory instruments as per the Windsor Framework? That would help in explaining the detail not only to public representatives but to wider business and the communities throughout Northern Ireland.
Businesses want to see a resolution to all the challenges presented by Brexit and the bureaucracy of the Windsor Framework, and many businesses have said to me that they welcomed any agreement when faced with the catastrophic alternative of a no-deal Brexit. Business and trade in Northern Ireland welcomed an agreement that provided continued access to the all-Ireland market, which many businesses in Northern Ireland relied on. Furthermore, it welcomes a unique solution for a unique place with trade, social, family and emotive ties with both Britain and Ireland. It is also worth noting that in the assessment of the recent Queen’s University survey, most respondents—around 57%—again want MLAs to vote in favour of the continued application of Articles 5 to 10 of the protocol/Windsor Framework. That vote is expected by the Secretary of State to take place before the Christmas Recess of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
In wanting the dismantling of the Windsor Framework, I wonder whether those who object realise that their fervour for opposition could result in tampering with the human rights and equality provisions of the Good Friday agreement that the Windsor Framework seeks to protect, as well as the single electricity market which exists on the island?
In conclusion, I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that I totally support this statutory instrument. I support the Windsor Framework because it is a necessary legal device to deal with the complexities that were presented to us in Ireland, north and south, on the issue of Brexit. We need a pragmatic solution rather than choosing to have political contests and duels simply for the sake of them.
Does my noble friend the Minister agree with me that debate is necessary in a democratic society, but that all of us have to ask whether this is in the best interests of our businesses and economy? Perhaps my noble friend could also tell us how this statutory instrument can be progressed to full implementation stage and what she sees as evolving and developing as part of that full implementation?
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for moving her amendment and securing this important debate. She made a very powerful and detailed speech. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, on his excellent contribution. As I know the Minister appreciates, there are many noble Lords who feel very strongly about the Windsor Framework. I hope the Government will take these concerns seriously as they work to deliver a fair settlement for Northern Ireland now that we have left the EU.
In particular, the Government’s stated policy of seeking closer ties with our partners in the European Union is concerning to many in Northern Ireland, and we on these Benches are clear that the Government must not do anything that undermines Northern Ireland’s access to the UK internal market.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, there has been some confusion about speaking, so I beg your Lordships’ indulgence and will speak as briefly as I can on this issue.
I put on record the fact that I have never supported the Windsor Framework; I have spoken and voted against it previously. I pay tribute to my friend, the indefatigable and persistent noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for her amendment, which naturally I support. I also support and pay tribute to Jim Allister KC and Member of Parliament for North Antrim for the excellent evidence he provided to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. He raised important issues, including the potential breach of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and of the UN Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States.
I found the powerful remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, very compelling and astute. We have a lacuna in terms of our scrutiny and oversight of EU issues in this House and the other place. We no longer have the European Scrutiny Committee, chaired by Bill Cash, my former colleague in the other place. Even the European Affairs Committee in this House is not tasked in its terms of reference to look in detail at statutory instruments such as this. As noble Lords will know, we are very unlikely, by convention, to be in a position to amend or strike down statutory instruments.
I will make a few very brief points. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, wished to relitigate Brexit; we are not talking about that, we are talking about this statutory instrument. Nevertheless, it is about the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. It is about a border in the Irish Sea. It is about treating people in Armagh, Fermanagh, Antrim and Down and other parts of Northern Ireland as second-class citizens vis-à-vis people in Surrey, Shropshire or Kent. That is very important.
It is also so unnecessary because, as I have said before in this House, Lars Karlsson brought forward what the EU rather derisively called “magical thinking” but were technical solutions to enable an SPS regime to be put in place in Northern Ireland. That would have avoided a hard border and would not have led us to these draconian regulations.
I am also concerned about these regulations because they were foisted on our Government in 2023 after we left the European Union. They have been made by a supranational legal, legislative and political entity over which we have had no control, influence or ability to make our views clear. That is a significant issue.
I will finish with a detail for the Minister. I am sorry that she has had this hospital pass this evening. She is an excellent Minister, if I may say so, but she is in safe hands with the Northern Ireland Whip sat next to her, making sure that she is on the straight and narrow.
I will press the Minister very briefly. Defra said it is going to engage comprehensively in the run-up to the launch in March 2025. Can she elucidate on that a little bit and tell us a bit more about it? As she knows, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee talked about the lack of proper and comprehensive public consultation.
In Regulation 5(3) in Part 3, the threshold of evidence for the individual who owns the pet to have to report to the SPS inspection facility is very low and very arbitrary. Maybe the Minister will say something about that.
Is reasonable doubt built into the regulations in cases of suspension following non-compliance under Regulation 6? It is very important that is not misused.
I have two other points. On the reviews, the speed of response by the competent authority in reviewing the decisions is not included in the regulations and it should be. Finally, how will the storage of data under Regulations 9 and 10 be managed? Quite a lot of data is going to be collected. Will it be safe and how will it be stored?
We cannot vote down this statutory instrument. It is a constitutional and democratic outrage. I find it unacceptable. For that reason, I will strongly support the very reasonable and sensible amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I support the statutory instrument because it follows logically from the Windsor Framework, which is complex and, in many respects, inevitably unsatisfactory in certain details but a necessary compromise with the European Union and one that is part of the process by which devolution was restored to Northern Ireland. Underneath everything that lies in the statutory instrument is the concept that Ireland is one eco unit. That is what is in the Windsor Framework and what underlies this legislation. It is the most fundamental point underlying it.
However, the Windsor Framework does not say that Ireland is one economic unit. This is an important point to make while we address this subject. Page 5 of the Windsor Framework says:
“Inherent in this new way forward is the prospect of significant divergence between the two distinct economies on the island of Ireland—from food and drink to plants and pets, building on the existing differences in every area of economic and political life such as services”—
which, by the way, appear to be very strong now in Northern Ireland—
“migration, currency and taxation”.
That is the Windsor Framework. That is the international law that the Government, who give a very strong emphasis to their commitment to international law, are committed to.
Yet today I listened to the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson—at Question Time giving excellent answers, for which I am extremely grateful, to a number of searching questions, but on this point, she said something that is open to misinterpretation. She said there is an island economy. I agree. There is no question that there is an island economy and that for some activity, whether it be dairy products or the single electricity market, which has been mentioned already tonight, as well as a handful of individual companies that operate on an all-Ireland basis, there is an island economy, but there are many more individual companies operating across the UK’s internal market.
The Government are in a position where they cannot leave any ambiguity. This is part of the process by which Stormont was returned, and the Good Friday agreement was returned to operation. The “island economy” is a complex and slippery phrase. I have just said that I can understand completely why somebody might say there is one, but it is also very important to notice the very strong commitment in the Windsor Framework to there being two distinct economies on the island of Ireland. I suppose you can say that the island economy is a fact; it is just not as significant as the fact there are two distinct economies on the island of Ireland. There is a danger here that if we do not get this right, the whole compromise which has led to the re-establishment of Stormont will start to unravel. This is a commitment the Government have entered into in international law.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I cannot fault virtually anything the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said in her eloquent analysis from a technical point of view. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, made a very important point that there is going to be a conveyor belt of these regulations as far as the eye can see at this time. Every time one of these comes along, there will be a wailing and a gnashing of teeth, and we will complain, and quite rightly so, because it is an affront to our status as citizens of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, mentioned the future and how things can be changed. I think we have to shift our focus to how we change things in a permanent and much more beneficial way.
In 2026, there is a review pencilled in of the trade and co-operation agreement. I believe that we should be putting our heads together now to develop a series of proposals that can rectify, in as far as it is possible, the situation we are in. While politicians do not like to say it, the truth is that this problem is fundamentally insoluble because we are half in and half out of the single market and half in and half of the United Kingdom’s single market. So, ultimately, we are fiddling around with these sorts of things and tweaking them, and tonight the Minister can justifiably say that this instrument is less bad than the one before it and that is true, but, as was pointed by the noble Baroness, what do we do with tourists? Does somebody bring their pet with them and have no intention of staying in Northern Ireland? We can all find ways to chip away at these things, and that is true.
However, we must now focus on working up an alternative that at least would begin to restore some of the sovereignty and remove some of the friction. I have to say that if people had done their homework some years ago, all of this was foreseen and foreseeable. There are no surprises here. The minutiae might be different. We might see something here that we had not quite seen, but we all knew and were told and were warned—we had debates galore in this House and in other places—that when the negotiation on Brexit was taking place, it was probably the worst piece of United Kingdom statecraft that many of us have ever witnessed. It was a bad negotiation and, ironically, some of those who negotiated it who are sitting on their Benches are getting up and attacking the negotiation. The individual who led it is attacking the outcome of his own negotiation, but that is neither here nor there.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I rise to support the regret amendment, moved so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and supported by my noble friend Lord Dodds.
The protocol and the Windsor Framework were built on a false and rotten foundation. The Windsor Framework was sold as a great step forward from the original protocol through which Northern Ireland would enter into the promised land flowing with milk and honey and foreign investors would be so excited by Northern Ireland’s favoured position in the United Kingdom, having access to the single market of the European Union, that they would be camping out and patiently waiting in line to invest in the Province.
Of course, having access to the European single market, we would have to subject ourselves to EU laws over which the elected Members here at Westminster or in the Assembly would have no influence. The concept that 300 areas of EU law should be imposed on Northern Ireland is highly offensive. It recklessly violates our constitutional position in the United Kingdom and dismisses the fundamentals of this heralded Belfast agreement, which demanded that any constitutional issue would have to be decided by a cross-community vote—in other words, by a majority of unionists and nationalists.
The purpose of this instrument is to provide a statutory basis for the Northern Ireland pet travel scheme, which is agreed under that Windsor Framework. According to Defra, the scheme will enable the “smooth and straightforward movement” of pets—pet dogs, including assistant dogs, cats and ferrets—from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, while ensuring that any pet movements from GB into Ireland or any other member state remain subject to the relevant EU law requirement. It has been acknowledged by the department that this is but another example of where a wider consultation would have been desirable. In other words, it did not take place in that wider context.
However, to my mind, deeper consultation would be meaningless whenever we have a Government that have closed their mind as regards the implications of the Windsor Framework. When Europe makes its demands, our Government usually cave in. The United Kingdom Government have got Northern Ireland so entangled with Europe under the protocol and the Windsor Framework that the only way to grant equal constitutional rights to the people of Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom is, in my opinion, to scrap the protocol and the Windsor Framework.
I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said about taking the way forward and getting the alternative. But there is a big problem with an alternative because the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, who has spoken, and the noble Baroness who is speaking for the Lib Dems have in fact said that the protocol had to be rigorously implemented. In actual fact the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said again tonight that she wants the Windsor Framework to be rigorously implemented. Getting an alternative, when there are those who see a need not for change but rather for a rigorous implementation of what is there at present, which is totally unacceptable to many within Northern Ireland as British citizens, is going to be very difficult.
Under these regulations, pets can travel from Northern Ireland to GB and return from GB without needing any pet travel documents and will not be subject to any checks or processes. However, the same does not apply to pets travelling from GB to Northern Ireland. This is another part of the United Kingdom. GB pet owners will need to show that they have a valid pet passport document which applies to the pet that they are travelling with. They will need a valid GB address to obtain a pet travel document and that will be checked during the course of applying for it. Why has this happened? It is simply because the EU has legislated for it to happen within the United Kingdom—a foreign authority legislating what happens between two parts of the same United Kingdom. We have been told constantly that we have left that authority. In fact, listening to the Minister earlier on today we were told that Brexit will not be changed, so therefore we have left.
If persons from GB come to Northern Ireland with their dog and then wish to visit a friend over the border in the Irish Republic, they must subject themselves to a full SPS border check for their pet. Under these regulations, should the EU feel that they are not being implemented to the satisfaction of EU-authorised personnel, their operation can be suspended, or whatever other steps the EU feels appropriate will be taken.
If any animal—pet dogs, including assistance dogs, cats or ferrets—does not meet EU standards regarding documentation or identity checks, the animal can be taken into SPS custody. What impact assessment has been done on the regulations, or is this another example of simply being subservient to EU demands? What detailed consultations were held with guide dog owners? In the other place, the Minister explained the reason for her acceptance of this imposition by Europe and divergence within the United Kingdom:
“We believe in keeping our word and in fulfilling our obligations”.—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 6/11/24; col. 7.]
I ask the Minister: what does she feel about her Government’s obligations to the people of Northern Ireland and respecting the integrity of the United Kingdom? Surely, it is time to take a stand and to reject this Windsor Framework imposition. I, for one, am happy to vote—
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
Before the noble Lord sits down, he referred to the necessity and requirement for cross-community support, and he is absolutely right to highlight that important part of the arrangements in Northern Ireland. Therefore, would he accept that when the noble Lord, Lord Empey, read out various paragraphs of the proposal from Boris Johnson to the European Union at that time, he seemed to overlook and omit a key paragraph of part of that? He has done this on a number of occasions. It is that those proposals could happen only with the full consent of unionists and nationalists, not just in the Northern Ireland Assembly but in the Executive—so both nationalists and unionists would have an absolute lock on whether it happened or not. That is something that, of course, now unionists in Northern Ireland would take your right arm off for.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention and I wholeheartedly agree with him. It is now on the record, and I think it would have been good to read that part into the record as well.
The sad reality is that the goalposts have been moved recently. Because, in the vote taken in the Northern Ireland Assembly, for the first time—50 years—they have now declared there is no need for a cross-community vote. Members in this House have campaigned that this was so essential. The Belfast agreement was quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, tonight. The Belfast agreement.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
It is sacrosanct; it cannot be changed. Yet the reality is that, for this vote, it is being put into the bin and now it must be a simple majority vote. That is despicable, that is disgraceful and those who support it ought to be ashamed.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was not going to speak, but I feel I should, given some of the commentary around the House—some of it, quite frankly, was not correct. I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Dodds corrected some of the commentary from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, in relation to 2019. Of course, we know that the reasons we got to 2019 were laid in 2017, in relation to the Prime Minister’s negotiations and how she set the agenda at that time.
One area I will raise again, like other noble Lords and noble Baronesses, is openness and transparency. Again, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee concluded that wider consultation would have been desirable. I take the point that was made about the level of scrutiny in the other place being fleeting at best. When I read through Hansard for the other place, I was, frankly, shocked at the level of scrutiny that had taken place.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, it will hardly come as a surprise to anyone that I will support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, as will my colleagues. In the debate on these regulations in another place, the Minister’s main defence was that they should be celebrated as an achievement because they represented an advance on what went before. There are two huge problems with that argument, as I see it, and I implore the Minister to be more sensitive to Northern Ireland—somehow, I think she will be—than the Minister in the other place was.
In the first instance, if these regulations were an improvement on what went before, they would be wholly unacceptable, because they are still a function of EU regulation 1231, which has already been mentioned tonight by others. It allows our country to be divided in two and hands the governance of that division, in the final analysis, to the European Union. In the second instance, they are not an improvement on what has gone before but a deterioration, because the marker against which the Government suggest that an improvement is being made is entirely theoretical, because the division to which they allude was never ever accommodated.
Let us, therefore, not play with words: these regulations confront us with a new level of division within ourselves from March 2025. I also appeal to the Minister not to confuse the issue by saying that Northern Ireland has always been treated differently for SPS purposes. There is a distinction, in my view anyway, between internal SPS checks within a sovereign country, on one hand, and the imposition of an international plant health border—I cannot think of any other way to say it—along with an international customs border, on the other, for the purpose of dividing our country into two. This is why people travelling from England to Northern Ireland have never before had to travel with a pet passport, border checks and the possibility of having their dogs remitted to an SPS facility. It is incredible—unbelievable.
I also appeal to the Minister not to tell us in Northern Ireland that we have nothing to worry about because the difficulties face those moving from GB to Northern Ireland and not the other way around. In the first instance, it is not correct that there are no burdens imposed on the movement of pets from Northern Ireland to GB. EU regulation 1231 makes it clear that pets must be microchipped, which is currently common only for dogs. In the second instance, however, and far more importantly, people who state that we have nothing to worry about because the burden is on east-west movements completely misjudge the situation and completely misunderstand us. Northern Ireland is the smallest part of the United Kingdom. If the Government impose any obstacles on people moving from GB to Northern Ireland, that necessarily makes the people of Northern Ireland feel more isolated and cut off, which is completely unacceptable.
The regulations confront us with exactly the same difficulty we confronted when looking at the Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme: Plant and Animal Health) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2024 in October. On that occasion we were forced to recognise that it was impossible to scrutinise the regulations without also scrutinising EU regulation 2023/1231, especially Articles 4 and 12. On this occasion, we have to look especially at Articles 12 and 14 of regulation 1231, as well as the regulations immediately before us.
In coming to today’s debate we must first remind ourselves of the title of EU regulation 1231:
“Regulation (EU) 2023/1231 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2023 on specific rules relating to the entry into Northern Ireland from other parts of the United Kingdom of certain consignments of retail goods, plants for planting, seed potatoes, machinery and certain vehicles operated for agricultural or forestry purposes, as well as non-commercial movements of certain pet animals into Northern Ireland”.
This is a piece of legislation that relates not just to Northern Ireland but to the whole United Kingdom and it divides our country by an international border imposed by and governed by the EU.
Article 12 requires that if you wish to travel from Great Britain to see family in Northern Ireland with your pet dog, you can do so only if, first, you acquire a pet travel document validating that your pet is micro- chipped. Secondly, you have to sign a form renouncing your right to travel with your pet into the Republic of Ireland. Thirdly, your pet and its papers have to be checked on moving from GB to Northern Ireland—and you do so uncertainly, because you know that both you and your pet can be prevented from proceeding freely and may be sent to an SPS facility and not allowed to leave unless and until permission to do so is granted. In other words, you are made to feel like you are visiting a foreign country, and we are made to feel like we are foreigners.
In the last debate, the Minister sought to defend the imposition of EU regulation 1231, by which the EU not only imposes but asserts its sovereign right to govern the border in a way that is completely contrary to international law. The UN Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations does not tolerate any action such as that effected by the Windsor Framework and EU regulation 1231. It states that:
“Every State shall refrain from any action aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of any other State or country”.
How can we accommodate legislation, such as the Windsor Framework, that violates international law? No country can accommodate its division into two, especially when this also results in the disenfranchisement of 1.9 million people and the creation of a colony in 2024. The Government can kid themselves that all is well and that we can all live with this, but no country with an ounce of self-respect or commitment to its citizens, and any hope of a future, can accommodate this. They must wake up and adopt the EU (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill that is to have its Second Reading on 6 December in another place.
As my noble friend Lord McCrea has ably stated, we do not do majoritarianism in Northern Ireland. We have not been doing it for 50 years but, all of a sudden, in this instance, it is the acceptable way. If there was to be majority rule on other things in Northern Ireland, I suspect that those who are in favour of this regulation would be the first on their feet to say, “This is not the way we do things”. This is not the way it is done in Northern Ireland and the pending vote, which the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, has already referred to, is a departure from those who gave us the Belfast agreement.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to these regulations, and for all the hard work she is doing to try to resolve the extremely difficult issues, which have been raised so eloquently by so many noble Lords.
I have three brief points. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for the opportunity to discuss these issues. However, I am not going to disappoint her, and I am going to say what she predicted I would. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and, as I have said on several occasions during these debates, I am afraid that we are in this situation because of the type of hard Brexit that the previous Government chose to adopt, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, eloquently said when he read out Boris Johnson’s memo.
In the rush to get Brexit done, incompatible promises were made in haste, which means that measures such as these regulations will keep on being introduced in order to make the system work. None the less, these Benches welcome these regulations because we believe they are a significant improvement on their previous requirement, as set out in the Northern Ireland protocol. They are a move towards a common-sense approach to these matters, allowing maximum freedom for pets between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, while recognising the need to maintain high biodiversity standards.
It is particularly welcome that the pet travel document will be valid for the lifetime of a pet, which I believe—indeed, I hope—will minimise the need for bureaucracy. However, I would like to follow the question asked by noble Lords from the DUP, although I will ask it in a slightly different way. It is about how these regulations will be enforced in practice. As I understand it, the pet owner will be obliged to confirm that the pet which has travelled from Great Britain to Northern Ireland will not then subsequently move to Ireland, and therefore the EU. However, given that there is no border on the island of Ireland, how will these provisions be checked and enforced in reality?
My second question is really one of curiosity: why are these regulations just limited to dogs, cats and ferrets? What happens to pets being transported from Great Britain to Northern Ireland that are not currently covered by these three categories? Perhaps there is a logical reason for it, but I am not quite sure what it is.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the many contributions we have had this evening and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. As a number of noble Lords have said, including the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, it is important to have opportunities to debate these issues in some depth, because they are complex issues. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for appreciating that I am doing my best to work through these complex issues and understand all the different perspectives and points of view, so that I can do my job as effectively, efficiently and transparently as possible as we move forward on some quite complicated—and, in some quarters, controversial—regulations.
Regarding the Windsor Framework, there has been a lot of discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, made some very pertinent points and referenced some things that have been previously mentioned by my noble friend Lady Anderson. I have got a lot of questions to answer and I do not want to get bogged down in wider discussions about the Windsor Framework at this point—I will come back to them. However, one thing I do want to say, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie mentioned this, is that we are trying to work more constructively with the European Union; we are trying to reset that relationship. I have heard a number of criticisms of the European Union’s attitude towards discussions and negotiations and I am hoping that, with a more constructive approach to working with the EU, we may be able to make some progress in how we manage things going forward.
A number of questions were asked around checks. To be completely clear, Northern Ireland pet owners will not face any checks and there will be no checks for pets travelling from Northern Ireland into Great Britain. I will go on to a few other questions. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about unfettered trade and whether the Government were still committed to it. I can confirm that the Government have long-standing commitments to ensuring that Northern Ireland’s businesses have unfettered access to their most important market, which is of course Great Britain. That was legislated for in the UK Internal Market Act 2020 and is reflected in the border target operating model, which this Government are continuing.
The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, asked whether there had been an impact assessment. I can confirm that a de minimis assessment was completed for this statutory instrument, which is in line with standard practices and thresholds for the evaluation of impacts where these are expected to fall under the de minimis threshold. The assessment is that the Northern Ireland pet travel scheme will deliver large net benefits, particularly to UK pet owners.
Consultation, and the lack of it, was mentioned by a number of noble Lords. While there may not have been a formal consultation, the Government engaged comprehensively with interested stakeholders—including pet owners, ferry and airline companies that operate the travel routes between GB and Northern Ireland, and commercially owned pet microchip database operators—when the regulations were drafted.
Assistance dogs were mentioned. Guide Dogs UK has specifically highlighted the positive impact of removing single-use EU certificates on assistance dog owners who are travelling to Northern Ireland. The British Veterinary Association outlined that the arrangement will reduce paperwork and health treatments for vets.
My noble friend Lady Ritchie asked about the information being provided. I can confirm to her that there will be a public communications campaign; it is currently being planned. Officials are working with stakeholders, including vets, on that communications plan.
I turn to the SI’s requirement that pet owners apply for pet travel documents, because a number of questions were asked about that. Under the Northern Ireland protocol, dog owners in Great Britain would have to go to the vet and be checked for EU animal health certificates, rabies vaccinations or tapeworm treatments. That would cost the pet owner a considerable amount of money every time they wanted to travel into Northern Ireland. In practice, there are currently no routine checks on pets travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but of course this was only a temporary arrangement while the Windsor Framework pet travel scheme was being agreed. Officials have always reserved the right to undertake checks, should there be any suspicion of illegal activity or any welfare concerns.
The Northern Ireland pet travel scheme is designed to greatly simplify pet movements to Northern Ireland. There are no health treatment requirements; instead, the pet travel document requires more basic information. It is free. It can be applied for very easily and quickly online, and you do not need to visit a vet to do that. I also want to confirm that Northern Ireland-based pet owners will not need any pet travel documentation or be subject to any process when they return home with their pets. The scheme needs to ensure that GB pet owners have a valid pet travel document, because we need to mitigate against any abuse of the scheme. We believe that the new arrangement will involve a smoother experience than the current legal requirements.
Microchipping was mentioned by a number of noble Lords. I confirm that microchipping is already a legal requirement in England, Scotland and Wales for all dogs. It is now a requirement for cats in England—that came into force in June of this year. Microchipping is considered good practice, and it is also part of the Government’s commitment to world-leading standards in companion animal welfare. We believe that this approach to microchipping reflects existing requirements and practice.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked whether there would be exemption certificates for microchipping on the basis that a dog might not be able to be microchipped if a vet said that that was the case. I have been assured that if the pet cannot be microchipped with a UK chip, the pet owner can still travel with the pet animal from GB to Northern Ireland under the existing pet passport scheme.
There were mentions about how burdensome the scheme could be; the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, referred to burdens. Clearly, the scheme needs to be adhered to, but the new arrangements will create a cheaper and smoother experience for those travelling with their pet from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, because it removes the need for pet health treatments, as I mentioned. This is because the scheme recognises, for example, the rabies-free status of the UK. As other noble Lords have said, the benefit is that it also lasts for the entire lifetime of the pet.
I turn to some other questions. How will things be enforced? One thing that is important to say is that I am sure the vast majority of people will comply with the scheme and the rules. The Government intend to provide comprehensive support to those travelling with their pets to ensure that they can do so. I cannot remember now who asked about pets being taken to facilities. We need something in place, because you cannot have something that is open to abuse. You have to have some kinds of checks in place and something that happens if people do not comply. But we do expect this to be very rare. If any pet is taken to a facility, we expect that to be extremely rare—but, clearly, it is a new scheme that will be monitored and we will check progress.
Another question that the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, asked was why the scheme covers only cats, dogs and ferrets. It is for the very simple reason that these pets make up the vast majority of movements and it is about keeping things simple and manageable. It is in line with relevant applicable regulations that have grouped these animals together. Also, they are those most susceptible to rabies. That is that is the other reason for having that in place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked whether everyone travelling with pets would have to be checked to identify whether people are not resident in the UK: are they travelling to Northern Ireland via GB in transit from another country? Onward travel to the EU was mentioned. There are no new requirements applied by the Windsor Framework concerning movements into Ireland, the EU or for those who are not resident in the UK, or otherwise not covered by the pet travel scheme. What is required in these circumstances is unchanged by the Windsor Framework. If pet owners wish to travel with their pet on to Ireland, provided the same rules that have applied throughout Ireland’s membership of the EU are adhered to, that option remains available to them.
I will conclude. It has been a long debate, so if I have not answered anything, I will go through Hansard carefully and write to noble Lords. I just want to summarise. The Northern Ireland pet travel scheme certainly has benefits. It is new, sustainable, durable and will support non-commercial pet travel between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and secure the smooth movement of pets within the UK. It will also remove costs, pet health treatments and red tape.
I want to make one point before I conclude. I am very aware of the concerns that have been raised during the debate on this SI. I am aware that similar concerns were raised on previous SIs and I am sure that, as further SIs come forward, we will return to these discussions and debates. I want to reassure noble Lords who have expressed concerns that I am continuing to engage constructively with DAERA and relevant organisations in Northern Ireland. It is important that we start to rebuild trust in these areas. In fact, I am going to Belfast next week for a couple of days and intend to do that regularly as part of my portfolio. I know that a number of broader issues that have been discussed. I very much appreciated the meeting I had with noble Lords representing Northern Ireland some weeks ago and look forward to continuing that ongoing engagement, where we can get more into the depth of these broader concerns. Having said that, I thank once again all noble Lords for their contributions.
Lord Empey (UUP)
Can the Minister discuss with her ministerial colleagues, looking towards the review in 2026 of the trade and co-operation agreement, work which can be undertaken to find a way out of this as best as possible? It would at least be reassuring to Members. I hope that work has already started but, if it has not, it ought to.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I apologise; I know that the noble Lord raised this in his speech. I am more than happy to speak to ministerial colleagues on those matters.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken this evening. I want to say, as usual when this kind of statutory instrument is being discussed, that it goes much wider than the actual SI. I kept my remarks specifically to pets, and a number of questions were asked which it was very difficult for the Minister to answer. I very much appreciate her genuine sympathy and concern. We will go through Hansard to see what more needs to be answered, because one of the things that has come out of tonight’s debate is that there is genuine confusion, much more within the departments than even with the Minister. That has to be sorted.
I thank those noble Lords who supported my regret amendment. The two noble Lords who opposed it did not say anything specific about what was wrong with the issues that I raised; they tended to go wider than that. I am sorry if I pre-empted the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. I always know that she will say that it is all Brexit’s fault. However, I thank her very much for asking some questions that were very relevant to the debate.
Scrutiny is the reason that we are here tonight and why these SIs always take a long time; I know that there are many frustrated colleagues here tonight wishing that this had gone through in a quick hour. It is because there is no real scrutiny in Northern Ireland. As the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, said, many MLAs now say that quite a lot of what is going on there is a farce in terms of scrutiny. The scrutiny for this part of the United Kingdom is more and more having to come in this Chamber, which is why we have these debates.
I am still not at all satisfied and feel very strongly that all those animal lovers out there watching this tonight—many knew that it was happening, particularly the Kennel Club, which I mentioned earlier—will not feel satisfied about any of the answers and will not understand why our Governments have allowed this to happen. I keep tabling regret amendments. I am getting fed up with regret. I would like to press this amendment to a vote.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, at one minute to 10 it is not practical to go back to the Football Governance Bill. We have done only two groups today, having started this afternoon. We will have discussions with the usual channels over the next couple of days because we have only four days left on the Bill and many more groups to do. I will be discussing how we will make much greater progress than we have made today.