House of Commons
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
The steel industry has been in decline, and we intend to turn this around. That is why we are developing a steel strategy, investing up to £2.5 billion and working at pace. The steel sector in South Yorkshire and across the UK has been neglected for too long, and we intend to change that.
Dr Tidball
Stocksbridge Speciality Steels in my constituency is a world-leading plant, with specialist capability to produce cleaner and stronger high-grade steel for our aerospace industry. The plant supports hundreds of jobs and has an exceptional on-site skills training centre, with links to local universities. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the future strategic significance of Stocksbridge Speciality Steels and its fundamental importance to our national steel industry?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for championing her constituency and its industries. She makes a very good point, and I recently met her to talk about this. This week, I met Community trade union representatives from the steel sector in her area as well. I am always happy to meet again to see what we can do.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
As the Minister knows, it is not just South Yorkshire that is facing difficult decisions about the steel industry. I thank her for our recent meeting about the future of Scunthorpe. Is she able to add anything on when we might expect an announcement? As she will appreciate, particularly at this time of year, there is growing anxiety among the workforce.
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and for his interest in his constituents and their jobs in the steel industry. As he says, we have met to talk about this, and I have nothing new to add today, other than that we continue with our conversations with British Steel. We are working as fast as we can. Obviously, it is ultimately up to British Steel to decide what it wants to do and take forward, but we stand ready to support and work with it.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
We recently launched Unlock Europe, a new export programme designed to help UK businesses build stronger relationships with European customers. Last month, in Manchester, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched a new pilot scheme, alongside the mayor and his team, that offers businesses in the north-west more support in selling their products and services overseas. We are determined to do more, and will bring forward further plans in due course.
Alex Baker
Exports from our aerospace, defence, security and space sectors contribute around £40 billion to our economy, but without additional support, many of the small businesses I speak to in Aldershot and Farnborough are limited in their ability to export. What can Ministers do to help them, and will the Government consider reinstating the trade show access programme, closed down by the Conservatives, to help more small and medium-sized enterprises trade around the world?
Gareth Thomas
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have to do more to help small businesses in particular, and businesses in general, to export more overseas. That is one of the key, but often understated, ways in which we can deliver growth for this country. As part of our work on a new trade strategy and a small business strategy, we are looking at further proposals to help our businesses export more.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Italian press has been reporting that the global combat air programme consortium, involving the UK, Italy and Japan, might be extended to include Saudi Arabia. Can the Minister confirm this press report? How would that affect any future decision to suspend licences to export arms to Saudi Arabia, as the Government decided to in 2019?
Gareth Thomas
We are looking at working with other GCAP partners. I was in Italy last month to discuss the further potential of GCAP, and other work that we can do with the Italians in this space, but that will not affect the issue about which the hon. Gentleman is specifically concerned.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
The Government were forced to make difficult choices in the Budget, but the fundamentals of doing business in the UK remain strong. The Government’s agenda of creating an industrial strategy, getting people back to work, reforming our planning system, rebuilding our relationship with the EU, pensions reform and more, is entirely focused on improving the long-term business environment across the UK.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
In the aftermath of the Budget, I spoke with many business leaders in my constituency of Solihull West and Shirley. Invariably, they told me that they are pausing recruitment and freezing their growth plans as a direct consequence of the decisions made around taxation and the Employment Rights Bill. What does the Secretary of State say to those businesses in my constituency that no longer have confidence in the Government and feel abandoned by their policies?
Jonathan Reynolds
I say that the Budget was seven weeks ago, so if the Conservative party, which did not tell us how it would pay for the promises it made when it was in government, now has a plan to pay for those promises, I would welcome receiving it in writing, or hearing it here at oral questions or in a statement. The raw reality is that the Conservative party made promises that it had no intention of keeping. We are not going to do that; we will fix the foundations and do what we say. The reason this Government will succeed on growth and business investment in a way that the previous Government did not has to do with the fundamentals: the return to political stability in the UK; an openness to the rest of the world, including the EU—a difficult subject for Conservative Members, I know—which is still our major trading partner; and the willingness of this Government to use their mandate to improve the business and investor environment. Those fundamentals mean that the future of the UK is very promising.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
Steel manufacturing is a vital west midlands industry, but business confidence is being dented by retrospective charging of steel safeguarding duties by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Companies that are affected in my constituency and elsewhere feel that such duties were unfairly and wrongly imposed on them during the chaotic Brexit transition period. They tried to work with the last Government, but got nowhere. Given the importance of the steel sector to British industry, will the Minister work with the Treasury to resolve the issue, and ensure that these vital businesses are protected from hefty bills that they should never have been sent in the first place?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important matter. Given the sums of money involved, I can understand why that is a substantial issue for businesses in her constituency. It relates to the duties that were charged at a time of significant political uncertainty. This is a Treasury issue relating to taxation, but I promise we will get her the meeting she needs, and work with her to ensure that she gets the answers she requests for her constituents.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
There is no clearer pointer on business confidence than the Bank of England’s recent survey on employers’ responses to the Budget. Some 59% expect lower profit margins; 54% expect to raise prices; 54% expect lower employment; and 38% expect to pay lower wages than they otherwise would have. Now City AM reports that Labour has carelessly lost all its business backers. Will the Secretary of State show any contrition, admit that business confidence is through the floor, and start standing up for business, rather than the Treasury?
Jonathan Reynolds
Well, what can I say? Was it the Conservative party that increased corporation tax from 19% to 25% in one Budget, and that crashed business investment and confidence because of the way it mishandled Brexit, failing to prepare for either outcome of a yes/no referendum? And which Opposition Front Benchers played a role in the mini-Budget? Frankly, it was all of them. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I will not take advice from him. Since the Budget, I have heard repeatedly from Conservative colleagues that they want to lower taxes and increase spending, even though they cannot account for the promises that they made when in government. That is not credible unless they engage with reality, as this Government are doing. Whether it is the response to the Chancellor’s speech at Mansion House or finally sorting out Marks & Spencer this week, this Government are getting on with the job and looking to the future.
Greg Smith
Sorry seems to be the hardest word. [Interruption.] I am talking about the Government’s Budget. Further proof of how low business confidence is getting under this Government was given in evidence to the Employment Rights Bill Committee. Jane Gratton of the British Chamber of Commerce predicted
“a reduced hiring appetite were this legislation to come in, and that”
their members
“would be less likely to recruit new employees due to the risk and difficulty, particularly under the day one rights”.––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 8, Q2.]
If business confidence is low, employment goes down. We already know that every Labour Government leave unemployment higher than when they took office, but is it not a bit extreme for this Labour Government to legislate for that outcome?
Jonathan Reynolds
If the hon. Gentleman googles that statistic, he will find that it is not actually true, but I appreciate that it is demanding being in opposition, and that there may not always be the capacity and resources required. As we heard on the excellent Second Reading of that legislation, the vast majority of employers in the UK already operate to a higher standard than the level to which the floor is being raised in the Employment Rights Bill. I do not in any way pull back from saying that some of the most vulnerable, insecure and low paid members of our society will benefit from the Bill; that is exactly what it is about. Those people may have given up on politics or think that the mainstream political system will not deliver for them. I reject the claim that certain industries require a supply of labour from jobs that do not give people the security and dignity that they need. This is a set of proportionate, reasonable reforms that will make a difference—
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
We recognise the vital role that kinship carers play in caring for vulnerable children, and the challenges that many face in balancing that care with employment. We recently announced the largest ever investment in support for kinship carers: £40 million to trial a kinship allowance in up to 10 local authorities. We will also review the parental leave system to ensure that it best supports all working families, and work is already under way to plan for that delivery.
Munira Wilson
I am sure the Minister will agree that kinship carers are unsung heroes, who often step up at a moment’s notice to look after a child whose parents cannot, but four in 10 are forced to give up work to do so, which means they often struggle to pay the bills or put food on the table. Will the Minister look to right that wrong through the Employment Rights Bill, and introduce a right to paid employment leave for kinship carers, given the savings to the public purse and the better outcomes for children that arise from kinship care?
Justin Madders
I met a kinship carer in my constituency recently who told me about the challenges the hon. Lady has articulated. The carer said that the most important thing to her was getting respite care—a point that we can all recognise. We are looking at how the trial pans out. I have spoken in detail to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) about the proposals coming forward, but we think it is best to see how the trial works, and to look at the wider review of the parental leave system.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
Hospitality businesses are at the heart of our communities and are vital for economic growth. The Government are creating a fairer business rates system, reducing alcohol duty on qualifying draught products and reforming the apprenticeship levy to support businesses and boost opportunities. We are addressing strategic issues for the hospitality sector relating to high-street regeneration, skills, sustainability and productivity, and that work will be supported by the publication of the small business strategy Command Paper next year.
Rebecca Paul
In Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages, we have many amazing pubs that contribute hugely to the economy, such as the Garibaldi community pub in Redhill. For those businesses to thrive, reform of the unfair business rates system by 2026 is critical. Will the Minister commit to the proposed 20p reduction to the small business rate multiplier, which is the absolute minimum reduction needed for the long-term sustainability of the pub sector?
Gareth Thomas
The hon. Lady will know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer committed in the recent Budget to a series of reforms to business rates, including permanently lower business rates for hospitality businesses from 2026-27. I welcome the hon. Lady’s support for that measure.
Sir John Whittingdale
UKHospitality has estimated that the Budget measures will increase the cost of employing one employee by £2,500. Shops, pubs and restaurants across my constituency have said that that will lead to higher prices or fewer jobs. Will the Minister at least consider delaying the implementation of the national insurance contribution increase to 2026-27, when the planned realignment of business rates is due to come in?
Gareth Thomas
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that in the Budget, the Chancellor more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500. That will mean that more than a million small businesses, many of them hospitality businesses, will see no increase in their national insurance liabilities next year.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
Our approach to trade deals considers the impact on and opportunities for the agricultural sector, along with other sectors of the economy, and, of course, our growth mission. The Government will publish impact assessments to aid the ratification process for new free trade agreements.
Dr Chambers
I worked with farmers for many years as a veterinary surgeon, and now I meet them regularly as an MP, so I am aware that farmers in Hampshire and the rest of the country were hugely disappointed when the previous Conservative Government signed trade deals that undermined our high animal welfare standards. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that after future trade deals, British farmers will not have to compete with products produced to lower animal welfare standards—for example, battery hens, or products that involve the indiscriminate use of antibiotics, which is also a public health issue? It is not only vets and farmers who are proud of our high animal welfare standards, but the British public, so will the Minister confirm that he does not want to compromise on those standards?
Mr Alexander
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing his considerable expertise in veterinary science to the Chamber today. We will not compromise on animal welfare standards as we take forward our programme of free trade agreements. Although we might well have approached the negotiations that the previous Government undertook in a different manner, reopening them would certainly create uncertainty, which we genuinely believe would hurt UK business. We are not seeing Australian or New Zealand beef and lamb flood the UK market, and we will continue to monitor trade flows under both those free trade agreements. He makes a very fair and important point about the need to maintain welfare standards.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
Small businesses are the beating heart of our high streets and communities, and are essential to our economic success. That is why, on Small Business Saturday, I announced the business growth service, which will ensure that businesses across the UK get quicker and easier support and advice from Government. Further announcements include the disability finance code for entrepreneurship to improve access to capital and tackle inequality for disabled entrepreneurs. A new fair payment code was launched by the Office of the Small Business Commissioner to help address late payments. Next year, as my hon. Friend has said, the small business strategy will be published to create thriving high streets, easier access to finance, open overseas and domestic markets and enhanced business capability.
Alice Macdonald
Small and medium-sized businesses come in many forms, from microbusinesses to community interest companies and co-operatives. Often, co-operative and mutual business models are overlooked. Norwich has a proud history of co-operatives. Will the Secretary of State reassure me that co-operative and mutual business models will be properly included in this Government’s much-needed push to support small and medium-sized businesses?
Jonathan Reynolds
I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s question. My area on the eastern side of Greater Manchester has, like hers, a huge history of co-operatives and mutuals. The diversity in business models that they bring is a huge strength; they bring different things to the market and different ways of doing business. The resilience in co-operative models is particularly attractive. I can assure her that they form part of the Government’s wider strategy. Our ambition is to double mutuals’ size in the economy. The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), the small business Minister, is leading on that work, and I would love my hon. Friend and businesses from her area to be involved in it.
Darren Paffey
Last week, I had the pleasure of visiting the winners of my first Small Business Saturday awards in Southampton Itchen. They were Riann Care, The Bunker, Miss Ellie’s Café and Julie’s Dance Studio. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating them on their role in ensuring a thriving local economy? What assurances he can offer them that this Government have the back of small businesses?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I certainly join him in congratulating those local businesses on their work and, indeed, all Members of Parliament on the work that they do on their constituency days to champion and support local businesses. The Government’s agenda includes long-term reform of business rates to create permanently low business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure. The launch of high-street rental auctions, getting rid of derelict property in town centres, is also hugely exciting. The business growth service is predominantly about recognising that although the Government do a lot, businesses can often find it hard to access exactly what they need. I have looked around the world—to the US and its Small Business Administration, and to Singapore and its Enterprise Singapore, for example—to discover the best models. That is what we will take forward in 2025, and I find it a hugely exciting agenda.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Last Saturday was indeed Small Business Saturday. It was an opportunity for us to celebrate and support the many small businesses in our constituencies. However, too many of them are really worried about the increase in national insurance contributions—the £25 billion jobs tax—and there is simply no easy answer for them. They cannot just put up their prices, so they are looking at staffing levels. Why are the Government so against aspiration, and how do they think they will improve productivity and deliver growth in the economy?
Jonathan Reynolds
Conservative Members know what they left behind, and I have not heard any of them offer an alternative. The specific answer to the right hon. Member’s question is that employment allowance was doubled in the Budget and the threshold was taken off. That is why 1 million, mainly smaller, businesses are paying less or the same in national insurance contributions as they were before the Budget. She should tell the House how the Conservative party would pay for the infected blood scandal—the victims of which we are all committed to compensating—Post Office compensation, support for the steel industry, and the advanced manufacturing plan that we inherited, because none of that was in our departmental budget. We are fixing the foundations with long-term public investment and an agenda based on higher business investment and better, stronger economic growth in every part of the UK.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Government have raised national insurance charges on employers and introduced a family farm and a family business tax. The Employment Rights Bill will raise business costs by £5 billion, predominantly for small businesses. As a result of those changes, does the Secretary of State believe that SMEs will employer more or fewer people?
Jonathan Reynolds
I have absolutely no doubt that the Government’s agenda is one for employment, business investment and growth. Some of the things that this country needs the most could only have been delivered by a change of Government. I simply do not believe that the Conservative party is capable of reforming the planning system or having a long-term industrial strategy, fixing our relationship with the European Union, and all the rest of it. Yes, there have been challenges, but the Conservatives know what they left behind. They knew what they were doing. There is a reason the Conservative party had no spending plans for the next financial year. We have had to confront that reality, but we cannot have the kind of success that this country needs unless we are willing to fix the foundations and focus on the long term. The Chancellor did that in the Budget, and the agenda of the Department for Business and Trade is extremely attractive for the future.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Some of the most successful small and medium-sized businesses, which truly think long term, are owned by families, so why does the Secretary of State think that it will help his long-term growth mission for the Government to start taxing those businesses when they get passed on to the next generation?
Jonathan Reynolds
With respect, I hear a lot of calls from the Conservatives to cut taxes and increase spending, but still no account of how they would do that. I appreciate that sometimes the initial transfer into opposition can feel exhilarating, but there is a responsibility that comes with it. I would like to see an account from the Conservatives of how they would pay for it.
For all tax changes across the board, we can still say with real confidence that the UK has a competitive tax system—benchmark our corporation tax, and the allowances on it, our capital gains taxes and, in this case, our inheritance taxes. The mistake that the Conservatives make is that they forget that the adjustments to specific reliefs for businesses and agricultural property are on top of the existing inheritance tax thresholds. Frankly, a little less scaremongering from the Opposition and a bit of focus on what is really at stake would be welcome.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
Small businesses are at the heart of our local communities. Firms such as Carbon ThreeSixty in my constituency are cutting-edge manufacturers of carbon fibre products. However, its growth as a small business is seriously affected by its ability to attract and retain quality staff, predominantly because of the poor public transport and completely non-existent cycle routes. These issues cut right across Departments. I would therefore be grateful if the Secretary of State could confirm what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues in other Departments about how rural transport infrastructure would greatly support small and medium-sized businesses.
Jonathan Reynolds
I welcome the hon. Member’s question. She is right that some of the issues that most affect businesses in our constituencies often sit in other Departments. The role of my Department is to focus on and champion those issues across all of Government, whether they sit neatly in the Department or not. She correctly highlights the incredible and important role that rural businesses play, and their social as well as economic benefits. Her points about transport were well made. One of the big changes in the Budget was the ability to focus on long-term investments, which was recognised by the Office for Budget Responsibility in its assessment that the productive potential of the UK will grow significantly over the next decade because of that increased focus—investment, investment, investment. Transport is a great element of that, whether in my constituency or in hers. I assure her that the needs that she articulates are considered at the highest levels of Government.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
Growth is the Government’s No. 1 mission and, in her Mansion House speech, the Chancellor announced a package of reforms to drive growth and investment across the UK. I have lost count of the number of times I have had conversations with businesses where they talked about how our appetite for risk is not in the right place, and we are looking to reform that. Here in DBT, we are driving change through our new industrial strategy working across Departments, which we will publish in the spring.
Callum Anderson
High-growth companies across Buckingham and Bletchley rely on foreign direct investment for their growth and innovation. Will the Minister set out the steps her Department and the Minister for Investment are taking to ensure that the Office for Investment can attract more foreign private investment to help the high- potential industries in which Britain excels?
Sarah Jones
We have an expanded Office for Investment, which brings together the Department for Business and Trade, No. 10 and the Treasury. Our Investment Minister is working at pace travelling around the world to bring in investment. I met her and the Office for Investment this week, and we are in constant dialogue about how we can bring more foreign direct investment into the country, building on the £63 billion announced at the investment summit, and how we can kick-start the economy after 14 years of failure.
Mr Charters
The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned growth over 40 times in her superb Mansion House speech. York, Leeds and beyond will benefit from that. How will my hon. Friend ensure that the industrial strategy delivers for financial services so that we can achieve the growth this country desperately needs?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the UK’s world-leading financial services sector. Through the Treasury, we are developing a 10-year financial services strategy and, of course, financial services is one of the pillars of our industry strategy, which we will publish in the spring. We cannot take the UK’s status as a global financial centre for granted. In a highly competitive world, we need to earn that status and work to keep it, and that is what we intend to do.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
The Government are committed to doubling the size of the mutuals and co-op sector. The creation of Great British Energy will help drive a significant expansion in the number of energy co-operatives, while work to modernise co-op, credit union and mutual law to drive expansion was recently announced by Treasury colleagues. We will work particularly closely with the recently established mutual and co-operative business council on this agenda. We will bring forward further proposals in due course.
Patrick Hurley
Co-operative businesses can be the life- blood of our towns and communities. In my constituency, I have been working with stakeholders and interested parties to bring about a community co-operative bookshop, following the closure of independent bookshops in Southport in recent years due to the cost of living. May I take this opportunity to encourage new expressions of interest in the bookshop, and to ask the Minister to confirm what more support the Government can provide for our co-operative sector, so that towns like mine can see a thriving high street built around our community?
Gareth Thomas
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to underline the positive community impacts that co-operatives, mutual businesses and social enterprises can have not only on our high streets, but in our communities more generally. We recently announced a significant increase in the capital available to the British Business Bank, and that has enabled us to give £150 million of additional support to community banks, or community development finance institutions, as they are officially known. That will help drive more lending to community businesses, potentially including the one he set out, but if there is anything I can do to support the initiative, I would be happy to meet him to discuss it.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
Businesses in Northern Ireland, like businesses across the UK, are crying out for stability, open trade and an environment in which we can break down barriers to growth and investment, and that is what the Government are working across the board to deliver. My Department has a team in Belfast to help stay close to businesses in Northern Ireland and to understand what they need. Of course, we also work closely with Invest Northern Ireland, the Department for the Economy and other key partners. I have spoken with Northern Ireland businesses during my short time in office, and I am encouraged by their passion and resilience.
Tonia Antoniazzi
Northern Ireland businesses, large and small, received just 0.6% of what the Government spent with UK defence companies between 2018 and 2023, compared with 25% in the south-east of England. As my Committee heard when we visited Northern Ireland last week, Spirit AeroSystems, which works on high-value defence and other aerospace contracts, faces an uncertain future, as half of its 3,600-strong workforce in Belfast wait to find out whether their jobs are safe following Boeing’s buy-out of the company and the subsequent takeover by Airbus of only 50% of the work at its site in the city. We all know what happens to supply chains, communities and individuals in these circumstances, so what discussions are Ministers having with Cabinet colleagues, with Airbus, and with other interested parties to safeguard those jobs at Spirit now and to increase Government spend with Northern Ireland defence companies in the future? [Interruption.] Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Sarah Jones
We love a long question, and it was a good one. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue, one that we are all of course concerned about. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the global chief executive officer of Airbus last week, and I have met representatives of Airbus, Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems and talked about this issue. We care about those jobs and about the future of our defence industry in the UK—it is incredibly important to us for many reasons—so we are doing what we can to make sure there is a good outcome.
Mr Speaker
This will be a good example of a short question. I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Challenged already!
In the short time that the Minister has been in her role, she has shown quite clearly that she has a deep interest in Northern Ireland. Defence, light engineering and cyber-security are all vital to jobs and the economy in Northern Ireland, but what assessment has been made of the sustainability and efficiency of Northern Ireland’s agrifood sector, and will the Minister commit to promote the productivity of that industry across the United Kingdom and, indeed, across the world? That is as short as I can make it, Mr Speaker.
Sarah Jones
The agrifood sector is incredibly important —I meet representatives of the sector, and I will do all I can. As always, I am very keen to talk to the hon. Gentleman about what more we as a Government can do to support the sector.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
Working across government with mayors, local authorities and—crucially—local communities, we are beginning to tackle antisocial behaviour and crime, reforming business rates, working with the banking industry to roll out 350 banking hubs, stamping out late payments, empowering communities to make the most of vacant properties, strengthening the post office network and reforming the apprenticeship levy.
Ms Billington
I welcome the new powers delegated to local authorities, enabling them to tackle the blight of empty shop fronts and rejuvenate our local high streets. This will be particularly welcome in East Thanet, where the Ramsgate empty shops action group has been a powerful advocate for addressing this issue. We have a 24% vacancy rate on Ramsgate high street, so what steps are the Government taking to support and encourage local businesses and community projects to take over those vacant properties?
Gareth Thomas
I commend my hon. Friend on her work with the Ramsgate empty shops action group. Her experience on her high street is sadly echoed up and down the country—under the Conservative party, vacancy rates on our high streets shot up. High street rental auctions, which are the new powers that my hon. Friend alludes to, will help local councils to bring vacant units back into use, working with local communities. That will hopefully help to drive co-operation between landlords and councils and make town centre tenancies more accessible and affordable. We are encouraging local authorities to take advantage of those powers. As I suspect my hon. Friend already knows, colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are looking to do further work in this space.
Sir Oliver Dowden
I did not realise you had grouped them, Mr Speaker. Forgive me—a schoolboy error.
What advice would the Minister give struggling businesses in my constituency who are trying to work out how to absorb Labour’s national insurance hike? Would he advise them to increase their prices, to squeeze wages or to cut investment, and can he explain to those businesses how that fits with the Government’s promises to increase growth?
Gareth Thomas
I think the best advice I could give to businesses in the right hon. Member’s constituency is to never vote Conservative again. His and his party’s idea of good economics in Government seems to be to create a huge fiscal hole and leave it to the next Administration to fix it. We are working at pace to try to tackle the difficult economic inheritance that he and his colleagues in Government helped to create. Measures such as the industrial strategy and the decisions we have taken in the Budget—albeit some are difficult—will help to bring back economic stability to this country. In the long run, that will help businesses in his constituency and, indeed, in constituencies up and down the country.
Baggy Shanker
On Small Business Saturday recently, I had the pleasure of visiting Derby’s small businesses of various types, which are the beating heart of our city. However, as our planned city centre regeneration project recognises, empty shops on our high street do not reflect the high-performing, high-technology economy that we are so proud to have in Derby. Building on the new community right to buy, what more can the Department do to ensure that community groups receive the correct business advice and support to use this new right and to breathe new life and vibrancy into our high streets?
Gareth Thomas
I commend my hon. Friend not only for his work recently on Small Business Saturday, but as the leader of Derby council in driving the town centre regeneration work that he mentioned. We are determined to establish a small business growth service to provide better support and information to small businesses so that entrepreneurs in this country can take advantage of new powers to set up small businesses on the high street, perhaps capitalising on the high-tech, high-growth sectors of the economy to which Derby has access, and in that way making sure that we see benefits from the industrial strategy not just for bigger businesses, but for smaller businesses.
Mark Ferguson
My hon. Friend will know from his visit to Gateshead this week some of the fantastic small businesses we have on our high street, but also some of the incredible challenges faced by so many high streets and town centres. With that in mind, will he tell us what the Government are doing on access to finance for small businesses?
Gareth Thomas
Despite the considerable cold, I very much enjoyed my recent visit to Gateshead town centre, and I was impressed by the dynamism of the businesses that he and I met at his instigation in the railway quarter. One of the things we are determined to do is to increase access to finance for small businesses up and down the country. That is why we have provided over £1 billion across this year and next year for the British Business Bank, particularly to drive access to finance for small businesses such as the ones to which he introduced me.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
One of the ingredients for a successful high street is having a post office in the mix. The Government have inherited a network of 11,500 post offices, and that number has been stable since 2010. Will the Minister commit to supporting high streets by maintaining the scale of the post office network in this Parliament?
Gareth Thomas
Yes, we are determined to maintain and, indeed, strengthen the post office network. I suspect that the hon. Member will recognise that we inherited a Post Office with huge problems, which we are working with the new leadership of the Post Office to begin to tackle. We are looking at what new commercial opportunities there may be for the Post Office, and banking appears to be the most significant one. We are also working with the Post Office to identify some of its infrastructure problems, not least in developing a replacement for the Horizon scheme.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
The parental rights survey 2019 found that 89% of employee mothers took maternity leave and 70% of employee fathers took paternity leave, but take-up of shared parental leave is much lower. In fact, it is disappointingly low, which is why we are committed to a review of the parental leave system. Work is under way to deliver on that, and I will provide an update in due course.
Christine Jardine
I agree with the Minister: it is very disappointing. For many parents, current maternity pay is too low, and the leave system is not flexible enough. A recent report by the BBC said that almost half of new fathers were unaware of what was available to them. The system is skewed, and the take-up is lower among lower earning families. That is particularly important—this was pointed out to me by a constituent in Edinburgh West—for those with multiple births who need not only more time but more financial support during maternity leave. Does the Minister agree that maternity pay levels need to be increased, and that the flexibility of the scheme needs to be improved, as does public awareness?
Justin Madders
The hon. Member makes a number of points, which I am sure we will consider as part of the review we are undertaking. The Employment Rights Bill has a number of important measures to support working families, bringing 1.5 million parents into scope for parental leave and another 32,000 into scope for paternity leave. We are keen to build on that and we want to support families who are in work.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
The creative industries are a huge force for good in our country. They were responsible for 2.4 million jobs last year, and more than £124 billion for our GDP in 2022. They are one of eight growth sectors in our industrial strategy. We are working closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and across Government, to identify what more we can do to draw out even more of the potential growth that Britain’s creative businesses can offer.
Tristan Osborne
As we all settle down for Christmas, we will be watching “Mission: Impossible”, “James Bond”, “Ironclad”, and perhaps even “Call the Midwife”, which were all filmed in Medway—[Interruption.] And also “The Great Escape”, which was not filmed in Medway, unfortunately. How can we make “Mission: Impossible” possible across our country when it comes to new films?
Gareth Thomas
I cannot follow the impressive nature of that question, but I can tell my hon. Friend that in the Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirmed a new independent film tax credit, which will help to enable the successes that he has alluded to in his constituency and the surrounding area to be spread, potentially, across the country. That will allow more businesses to set up and generate growth and wealth for our country.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
No decisions have been taken on the future of any directly managed branches, including in Chester-le-Street in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The Post Office continues to work with local communities, and others, to consider how best to meet the need for post office services in a local area. The Government set minimum access criteria to ensure that 99% of the UK population live within 3 miles of a post office, and those Government-set access criteria ensure that, regardless of changes, services remain within reach of all citizens.
Luke Akehurst
The post office in Chester-le-Street has been at the heart of the community in North Durham since 1936, and offers vital services to my constituents. Does the Minister agree that keeping those services accessible is vital to keeping footfall on our high streets and encouraging other businesses to locate themselves there?
Gareth Thomas
I recognise the significance of the post office in my hon. Friend’s constituency, as indeed I recognise the significance of post offices in my constituency and across the UK. It is important to maintain access to post office services as they play a crucial role in the high street. That is why we are determined to work with the Post Office to strengthen the network, as I alluded to earlier.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
It has been a hugely significant six months for the Department for Business and Trade. After our record-breaking international investment summit and our industrial strategy Green Paper publication, my Department has been engaging with businesses big and small to drive growth. Just this week we have helped to land a £500 million train-building deal with Hitachi, securing hundreds of jobs in the north-east—another promise fulfilled from the election campaign. For smaller businesses we are reforming business rates to breathe new life into our high streets, while launching a new fair payment code, tackling late payments to SMEs, and supporting new high street rental auctions to improve town centres. As we have heard, our brand new business growth service will streamline SME support on everything from finance to exports.
We are also tackling the challenges that we inherited, negotiating a better deal for Tata Steel employees in Port Talbot, while progressing a UK-wide steel strategy. Our Horizon convictions redress scheme shows that we are righting the wrongs of the past for victims of the Post Office scandal. I look forward to working with all hon. Members in the new year, delivering on our plan for change, going for growth, and realising a decade of national renewal. In addition, Mr Speaker, I would like to wish you, all hon. Members, and businesses across the UK a very merry Christmas.
Alex Baker
My constituents still mourn the loss of our M&S outlet in 2015, but we are delighted that Superbowl UK has just opened in Aldershot. These anchor retail and leisure tenants are so vital for our town centres, so what can the Government do to assist communities such as mine to ensure that we can encourage businesses to be the cornerstone and footfall drivers of our town centres?
Jonathan Reynolds
I very much agree and welcome the question from my hon. Friend. I certainly recognise that high streets are going through a transition from being primarily retail centres to now having much more of a mix of retail, hospitality and leisure, and I am delighted to hear about Superbowl’s investment in Aldershot. I am not nostalgic for a town centre or a high street that has passed; it is about how we do that transition into the future. There is great practice around the country, whether in Aldershot or in Walthamstow, where I was recently, and the Government’s agenda is committed to delivering that.
Mr Speaker
I remind the Secretary of State that these are topical questions, and contributions should be short. I come to the shadow Secretary of State for a good example.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
One of the great British innovations is the gift of free trade, lifting billions out of poverty abroad and increasing prosperity at home. Thanks to the Conservatives, this week the UK proudly joined the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, a bloc that includes some of the world’s fastest-growing economies, as well as major trading partners and investors, such as Japan and Canada. With the Government having precious little else to show on growth so far, will the Secretary of State update the House on when he expects to conclude free trade deals with the Gulf, with India and with the US?
Jonathan Reynolds
At least we have some things we can agree on there, which is a nice start to the Christmas period. I agree that the UK has always been and must be a champion of free trade in a world where trade issues will be politically significant in 2025. We can work together on that future. We believe that we have progressed the Gulf Co-operation Council trade deal significantly. The shadow Secretary of State will know that there were some problems between the previous Government and some countries in the GCC, particularly the UAE, where the relationship had unfortunately got into a difficult place. We have repaired that and the talks are going well. It is always a mistake to put a deadline on those, because it can limit our negotiating potential. When it comes to the US, we will see what happens with the President-elect, but I am looking forward to negotiation and discussion about that.
Andrew Griffith
The Secretary of State can count on our support to bring those deals forward. It pains me to say it, but as we have heard today, business confidence is at an all-time low, bar the pandemic. Hiring is collapsing and companies are fleeing. Labour has talked growth, but it has delivered decline. The one game changer now would be a US trade deal. Will the Secretary of State urge the Prime Minister to stop obsessing about going backwards into the EU and agree with me at this Christmas time that the best gift for British business would be for the Prime Minister to get on a plane to Washington and talk trade with President Trump?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am afraid that the shadow Secretary of State’s analysis is too simplistic. The US is a major trade partner and always will be, but he will know that so is the European Union and another area is our trade with China. The future for the UK is being positioned to get the maximum benefit from all those key markets. The kind of agreement that he puts forward would have major ramifications for British agriculture in particular, and he knows the issues associated with that. We cannot consider one of those trade negotiations without considering the impact on all those key trading relationships. I ask him to consider the issue in a more holistic and complete way.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Jonathan Reynolds
I might be biased, but I thought that the international investment summit that we held was the best day of this year. That was not just because of the investment and the real tangible jobs that came from it, but because of the clear, simple message that we could put out there: stability, openness and improving the investment environment. I am delighted to hear the news from Wales. Not only will we support that, but I appreciate the strong working relationship we have on such issues as Port Talbot and getting a better deal for that community and the workforce. We have worked hand in glove with the Welsh Labour Government, and it strengthens the things we are able to do together.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
Tomorrow—on Friday the 13th—the EU’s general product safety regulation comes into effect. Businesses are telling me that the additional costs will mean that they can no longer sell to the EU and to Northern Ireland. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that small businesses are supported as the regulation comes into effect?
Justin Madders
As the hon. Lady rightly pointed out, the regulation comes into force tomorrow. Actually, it covers things that most businesses are doing already, but we have provided guidance for businesses, including online marketplaces, on how the regulation will apply in Northern Ireland. We will continue to engage with businesses and online marketplaces to ensure that we are supporting them in dealing with this new regulation.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Jonathan Reynolds
I welcome my hon. Friend’s question, and I welcomed the time we spent together at South Crofty tin mine, which was also one of my favourite visits of the year. This is a hugely exciting area, and the opportunities for his area are particularly exciting. What we need is an open, transparent trading system where these products will have the certainty of access to markets, which will unlock the ability to use those deposits to our and our allies’ mutual interests.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
There is an established process in taking forward the Government’s discussions in relation to the mandate. On animal welfare standards, the Secretary of State has already alluded to how there was clearly considerable divergence during the previous attempts to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States. I assure the House that we as a new Government continue to take issues of animal welfare extremely seriously.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
Jonathan Reynolds
I recognise what my hon. Friend is saying in her question, which is that skills will be one of the biggest, if not the biggest issue for businesses going forward. Of course, that sits in the Department for Education and we work closely with colleagues on that. We have the creation of Skills England and the reforms to the apprenticeship levy to create the growth and skills levy. Indeed, I think that my CEO call next week—I do those regularly—will be with the Secretary of State for education, where we will discuss this problem. Businesses from her constituency would be welcome to join that.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Jonathan Reynolds
The hon. Member’s question is perhaps more for the Secretary of State for Transport, but she skilfully put that to me. I assure her that I will work with the Secretary of State for Transport to do that. How we assemble investment sites is a huge issue, and how we can work better across Government with local partners is also a key issue for us.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
My hon. Friend will be aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently announced £20.4 billion in investment for research and development for the next year, which will help to drive even more of the type of technological investment that she rightly champions. We are also working with small businesses to encourage them to adopt more digital technologies through the digital adoption taskforce.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Businesses in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton are at the sharp end of the Bank of England’s business confidence survey. Unlike the Chancellor and the Secretary of State, they know that her Budget and the Employment Rights Bill are a recipe for higher prices, higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment. Is that the growth that the Secretary of State had in mind?
Jonathan Reynolds
We have had seven or eight of the same question from the Opposition Benches, and not a single answer to how they would pay for the promises that they make. We are getting on with fixing the foundations, looking to the future and improving the business environment across the board. That is why businesses in the hon. Lady’s area and mine should look to 2025 with real confidence.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on British buses. The Secretary of State will be aware of the consultation on 160 jobs at Alexander Dennis in my constituency. In September, it cited an increasingly unlevel playing field over a number of years for domestic bus manufacturers. That shows the requirement for a clear industrial strategy. What assurances can the Minister give me, as part of implementing the industrial strategy, that the Labour Government are working to level the playing field for domestic manufacturers?
Jonathan Reynolds
I recognise the issue and I welcome my hon. Friend’s raising it at the annual dinner of the Society for Motor Manufacturers and Traders. It matters to this Government that we make these products in the UK. There have been specific procurement issues, mainly with local areas. I promise him the meeting that he needs to take that forward, but I assure him that the industrial strategy will cover this issue.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
My constituent Kirsty is self-employed and is looking to adopt a child, but she does not qualify for adoption leave or adoption pay and, because she is not having her child biologically, she does not qualify for maternity allowance. Would the Government support changing that, whether through the Employment Rights Bill or otherwise, so that brilliant future parents are not put off from adopting because they cannot afford it?
Justin Madders
That is an interesting question. There is a great interplay with rights for self-employed people. We are committing to a review on that in due course, together with a wider look at the parental leave system. We will get back to the hon. Lady on that.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I welcome this Government’s commitment to getting more disposable income in the pockets of working people. At Christmas time a lot of people will want to buy concert tickets; what conversations is the Minister having with Cabinet colleagues on reforming the secondary ticketing market?
Justin Madders
Hopefully, we will make an announcement very shortly about plans in that area.
Business of the House
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
The business for the week commencing 16 December includes:
Monday 16 December—Second Reading of the Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 17 December—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill.
Wednesday 18 December—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [Lords], followed by Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords].
Thursday 19 December—General debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House will rise for the Christmas recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 19 December and return on Monday 6 January 2025.
The provisional business for the week commencing 6 January will include:
Monday 6 January—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Further business will be announced in the usual way.
Jesse Norman
What a marvellous time of year it is when I see the Christmas tree in New Palace Yard, and the trilling sounds of the parliamentary and Salvation Army choirs to boot. On a slightly more sober note, you will recall, Mr Speaker, that the story of this Government so far has been one of early scandal, a first reset and a delayed Budget, and now what we can expect to be a delayed spending review. We must hope that at some point the Government will get round to actually making policy.
I am afraid that this week has brought further confirmation of the disastrous effects of the November Budget. As Members will recall, the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicted at the time that the rise in national insurance would hit lower-wage and more labour-intensive parts of the economy hardest, and predicted that the Chancellor may need to raise taxes again soon. The Chancellor’s reaction, as she told the CBI, was:
“I’m really clear, I’m not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes.”
We will see how long that promise lasts. Only this week, the Financial Times reported that hiring has fallen more sharply in the UK than in other major economies over the past year, including the US, France, Germany, Canada and Australia.
Luckily, however, we now have the Government’s new plan for change. I think the whole House should welcome the fact that the Government now have a plan, only 14 years and seven months after they first started in opposition, and that their plan is to change direction. I would describe the plan for change as a fine, fat Herefordshire beef cow that has been inadequately fed with the Reform party’s favourite anti-methane feed supplement, Bovaer: it is a beast full of nutrition, but with a certain amount of unnecessary flatulence. A lot of media commentators have had fun with the Government’s blizzard of to-do lists, including their six first steps, six milestones, five national missions and three foundations, but I am afraid that they have missed the Christmas spirit of the thing—all we need now are policy announcements on turtle doves and partridges in pear trees to complete their new initiatives advent calendar.
I jest, Mr Speaker. I come not to bury Caesar, but to praise him. I am not going to indulge in the easy mockery of the commentariat: on the contrary, I can report genuine signs of reality breaking through in the plan for change—something rarely seen in a document from this Government. The Prime Minister says:
“In 2010, the incoming government inherited public finances in desperate need of repair.”
He is absolutely right: public finances in 2010 were in desperate need of repair. He also says that we need
“a profound cultural shift away from a declinist mentality, which has become…comfortable with failure”,
and again, I think he is absolutely right. Finally, and most notably, he says that
“we cannot tax our way to prosperity or spend our way to better public services.”
Not only that, but the Government have sensibly dropped their commitment to 100% clean energy by 2030, as Conservative Members have called for, and as I specifically highlighted only a couple of weeks ago.
The plan for change is a revolutionary gospel indeed: honest about the poor performance of the previous Labour Government, realistic in not seeking to blame Governments for wider global events, seeking to adopt a longer-term approach and recognising the need to limit tax and spending. All we can hope now is that someone spreads this revolutionary gospel, in the Christmas spirit, to the rest of the Government.
But I also have various concerns about the plan for change that I would like to put to the House. It barely mentions the crucial short-term issue—and long-term issue—of defence, highlighted once again this week by events in Syria, or the vital long-term issue of social care, which all parties concede has been inadequately handled over the past 30 years. These are extraordinary omissions in what purports to be an inclusive, long-term reset for the Government.
There are more fundamental questions to be addressed, too. The idea of a mission is a fashionable one in policy circles, but it implies a total commitment to the goal. How will that be reconciled with the obligation of the civil service, and the Prime Minister’s new efficiency tsar, to demonstrate short-term value for money? How will all this be reconciled with the Government’s intense desire to campaign aggressively against those they see as their political enemies, rather than recruiting them soberly to a political consensus that could provide a sustainable basis for these missions? I would be very interested to know what the Leader of the House thinks on these issues, and how they will shape her approach to the conduct of future business in this House.
Lucy Powell
May I start by saying how appalled I am—I am sure the whole House is—about the details that have emerged on the murder of Sara Sharif? May I say, on behalf of the Government, that nothing is more important than keeping children safe? We are committed to further reform of children’s social care and much stronger safeguards for children being taken into home education. That is long overdue and further details will be announced imminently.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the new Chair of the Liaison Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier). I know the Prime Minister is very much looking forward to his regular appearances before it. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) on his appointment as the UK special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. I am sure he is looking forward to his very frequent and very regular meetings with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I also remind the House that the Modernisation Committee’s call for views ends next Monday. We have had huge interest in this agenda from Members old and new. I encourage everyone to submit their ideas.
I thought we might have had a little bit more Christmas cheer from the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), but it was another rather strange and confused contribution. Perhaps he can work on his Christmas jokes a bit more ahead of next week’s business questions.
Let me share some merry news instead, Mr Speaker. We are making the big changes that people voted for: rebuilding Britain and fixing the mess that the Conservatives left us; reshaping the state and society to put ordinary people at the front of the queue. Over half our King’s Speech programme is progressing through Parliament: the biggest change for workers in a generation, giving security and dignity at work; putting powers back in the hands of renters so that they can get the secure, quality tenancies they deserve; switching on Great British Energy for lower bills and energy security; bringing rail services back into public ownership, already delivering better reliability; taking on water bosses to clean up our waterways; and reforming our planning laws to build more affordable homes. The right hon. Gentleman does not like it, but nobody can deny that these are the big necessary changes in the service of ordinary people, rooted in our values.
And yes, we have a plan for change—the right hon. Gentleman asked about it—and we are delivering it. The country voted for change: they voted to change from the Conservatives’ government and record; they voted to improve their living standards; they voted to change the NHS; and they voted because they wanted this country to be fixed. He raises defence and social care spending. Perhaps that is his best Christmas joke so far, because the Conservatives’ record on that is woeful. We will not take any lectures from them on that, I am afraid.
The truth is that we are six weeks into the new Leader of the Opposition’s tenure and the Conservatives’ strategy for opposition is as clear as mud. They seem to have learnt nothing. They have no new ideas. They disown their record one day and defend it the next. Perhaps instead of the right hon. Gentleman’s ridiculous tired commentary, they could reflect and apologise for the mess they left, and ensure that the country gets the change it deserves.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
The Leader of the House rightly mentioned a live case. I hope nobody will add to that, because it is in the courts at the moment.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Next year, Bradford district will take on the honour of city of culture. My constituency will be hosting events celebrating local artists and our industrial heritage. Will my right hon. Friend join me in wishing Bradford 2025 well, and will she consider granting time for a debate on the contribution of northern cities to our British culture?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Bradford as the city of culture. She is absolutely right to point out how much of our British culture is rooted in our northern cities like Bradford, Manchester and others—Chorley and elsewhere, Mr Speaker. I am sure that will make a great topic for a debate.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
This week the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned us that local authorities’ special educational needs and disabilities deficit is currently £3.3 billion, and that without proper reform it could rise to £8 billion within three years. It is clear that, even with the deficit at £3.3 billion, the Government’s Budget announcement of £1 billion is less than a third of what local authorities need for SEND just to allow them to stand still. Meanwhile, according to analysis by Special Needs Jungle, the £740 million of capital funding announced recently is less than the average amount of similar funding over the last three years—and besides, it is capital funding, which means buildings and equipment. I am not saying that the money is not welcome, but what is the point of having more classrooms if we do not have the teachers, teaching assistants and support staff to fill them?
Online reports suggest that the Education Secretary told teaching unions this week that schools would have to find money for their underwhelming 2.8% pay increase from efficiency savings in existing budgets. She suggested, I understand—I am checking my notes, because it seems a little optimistic—that schools could pay for it by switching their bank and energy providers. Will the Leader of the House ask the Education Secretary to come to the House as a matter of urgency to lay out her plans for education and special educational needs? Nothing that the Government have announced so far is going to make things better, and there are children’s lives at stake.
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the issue of special educational needs. She is entirely right: the crisis that was left in SEND support in our schools was appalling—it was one of the terrible legacies of the Conservative Government— and demand is higher than ever. This is one of the big issues facing the education sector, which is why in the Budget, as the hon. Lady rightly pointed out, we announced an extra £1 billion for SEND, the biggest uplift that it has received for many years. Of course, that will not solve all the problems overnight; it is a down payment on the work that we will do, and are already doing, to reform SEND and get the resources in, which is vital to our education sector.
The hon. Lady also raised the issue of teachers’ pay. I am proud that one of this Government’s first acts was to agree to the independent pay review body’s recommendation of the pay rise that they had long deserved, and we will continue to support our education sector in respect of all its needs.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
This week some year 8 students from Ark Blake academy, in my constituency, wrote to me raising concerns about food security both globally and locally. They highlighted the impact of conflict on access to food, the unacceptable increase in the number of food banks in our country, and the shocking rise in the number of children skipping lunch because their family cannot afford it. Will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on what the Government can do to improve access to food both here and at home, and will she join me in thanking the pupils from Ark Blake for raising these important issues?
Lucy Powell
I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating those pupils on raising the issue of food poverty, especially at a time of year when the people’s needs in relation to both food and presents—Christmas poverty—are so stark. We all see that in our constituencies. I am sure that this would make a very good topic for a debate, and I expect we will shortly hear from the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Your wish is my command.
In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, on Tuesday 7 January, with your permission, Mr Speaker, there will be a debate in Westminster Hall on pay gaps in the workplace, and on Thursday 9 January, provided that that date is provided for us, there will be two debates, one on seizing frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine, and the other on the impact of food and diet on obesity—which will be quite appropriate after the Christmas festivities. May I urge colleagues who wish to participate in the pre-recess Adjournment debate next week to apply to you, Mr Speaker, to be put on the speakers list so that we know how many people are likely to want to speak?
Two years ago, on a cross-party basis, it was agreed to abolish the Vagrancy Act 1824. The only thing that was not provided was a commencement date. What is needed now is either a statutory instrument or further primary legislation to remove the Act from the statute book once and for all. There appears to be a dispute between the Home Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which neither seems able to resolve. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made on when such legislation will be introduced, so that those who are homeless on our streets will not face being arrested but instead will be assisted?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for announcing some of the forthcoming debates. After Christmas, I will probably very much need to attend the obesity debate—I do a mean Christmas gravy, which I am already looking forward to.
The hon. Gentleman mentions the important matter of a commencement provision for the repeal of the Vagrancy Act. He has done so much to bring about the changes that are needed, and I commend him for all his work. I will ensure that the Department has heard his question, and that an update is given to him and the House at the earliest opportunity.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Given the widespread revulsion at the violent crackdown on peaceful protesters in Georgia, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on that matter? Imedi TV, the main propaganda arm of that brutal Government, operates and is directed from the UK through a company called Hunnewell Partners, so in such a debate we might be able to discuss whether it is time for a National Crime Agency investigation into those operations and the direction from this country of pro-Russian propaganda and incitement to violence against peaceful protesters.
Lucy Powell
The Government continue to call on the Georgian Government to halt their move away from democratic norms and their isolation from western partners, and we continue to condemn the excessive use of force against protesters and journalists. My hon. Friend mentions the important issue of holding companies operating in that area. I think I heard the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), highlight a debate that might be a good opportunity for my hon. Friend to raise that matter.
Mr Speaker
Just to inform the House, we may have until only 11.30 am for this business, so let us all help each other to get in. I call Martin Vickers, who will set a good example.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. During the last Parliament, I initiated a Westminster Hall debate about the growing evidence that bright LED lights on vehicles were resulting in more road traffic accidents. I know that the Leader of the House might tell me that I can initiate yet another debate, but it would be even better if she arranged for a Minister to make a statement about the evidence that the Department for Transport is collecting on that matter.
Lucy Powell
The impact of LED lights in road traffic accidents is an important issue. I will indeed ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a full response from a Minister, or that a Minister comes to the House.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Labour committed in our manifesto to phasing out animal testing—a goal that is not only widely supported by the public, but critical to advancing scientific innovation. However, that achievement requires cross-departmental work. Will the Leader of the House allow time to debate that issue so that Parliament can explore how to turn that commitment into concrete action, and will she join me in hoping for a cruelty-free Christmas?
Lucy Powell
I do join my hon. Friend in hoping for a cruelty-free Christmas. She raises important issues on which we have a number of manifesto commitments. She will know that they are not currently in the legislative programme for this Session, but I am aware of the strength of feeling, and I am sure that things will be brought forward in the usual way.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Last week, the Government stated that they would move away from SEND safety valve agreements, which have seen many local authorities across the country enter short-term funding deals with the Department for Education. Although that is welcome news, it has left those in existing arrangements —including my local authority, South Gloucestershire council—worrying about the future. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time about the nature of the changes and ensuring that existing arrangements are fair, and to discuss how to provide all children with special educational needs and disabilities the quality education that they deserve?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Lady raises yet another important issue. The Government are trying to ensure that we have early intervention, and that the power to take action on that is in the hands of local authorities and others. We will introduce the children’s wellbeing Bill imminently, to tackle some of those issues at their core.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
Small businesses are at the heart of our local economies, and they are crucial to our ambition to deliver sustained growth. Last weekend, it was great to meet so many inspiring small businesses in Rossendale and Darwen during Small Business Weekend.
I was also privileged to attend the Rossendale business awards, which was a great celebration of entrepreneurial and community spirit. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the business award winners? Bear with me, as there were quite a few: Bacup Museum, Baha Accessories, D.O.G. Grooming, The Chubby Duck, Rossendale Radio, Carvansons, SolvAssist, Kelsea Bennett, Be You Lifestyle, Design Hut, Whitworth leisure centre, Olive Branch, The Ashcroft, Dansworks, Unscripted—
Mr Speaker
Order. Members are not meant to name a full list of different businesses. In fairness, I think the Leader of the House has had a real flavour of the importance of Rossendale and Darwen.
Lucy Powell
I am very well aware of how important small businesses are in Rossendale and Darwen. Over the years, I have enjoyed many a nice cup of tea and cake in Rossendale and Darwen, and I thought my hon. Friend was going to invite me. I am sure I will have one soon.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Leader of the House may not be aware of this, but Vodafone franchises across the country, including in my constituency, have launched a High Court action because the company has cut remuneration without notice and with no justification, despite benefiting from Government payments during the pandemic to support struggling franchises. Can we therefore have a debate on how these soulless, heartless corporate businesses are costing livelihoods, oblivious of the consequences? These struggling franchises will close, and the workers will be sacked.
Lucy Powell
I am really sorry to hear about the case in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and I am glad that he has taken the opportunity to raise it on the Floor of the House. He will know this Government are committed to taking on the vested interests in this country and putting ordinary people and communities back at the front of the queue, but I will ensure that he gets a proper reply.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
On Friday, I had the joy of visiting a couple of local organisations: the Southend business partnership and the Southend art collective. What is apparent from these meetings is the will and the talent in Southend East and Rochford to reanimate the city. However, like many constituencies, we struggle with the loss of grassroots sport, music venues, leisure facilities and high street shops. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the hard work of both collectives and grant a debate on the importance of extracurricular activities in low socio- economic areas?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. He is right to highlight the importance of grassroots sport, culture and others to our local communities and high streets. He will be aware that we have a curriculum review at the moment. We are also ensuring there is funding for grassroots sport in England, and he might want to note that the Government’s plans for devolution and supporting our high streets will be announced imminently to this House.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Both the Scotland Office and the Northern Ireland Office tell me that the Northern Ireland enhanced investment zone is still alive and still in play, and has not fallen into the fictitious £22 billion black hole. However, there is no indication of when it will actually be delivered. Given the multiple agencies involved, could we have some clarity on this? And can we address the policy of “devolve and forget” operated by this Government, which is so damaging to both Scotland and Northern Ireland?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Gentleman might want to raise this matter at Northern Ireland questions when we return. In the meantime, I will ensure that Ministers have heard his question.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
Queensway Gateway in my constituency is known as the “road to nowhere” because it has been left unfinished for over a decade, so my constituents in Hastings and Rye were delighted that the Labour Government confirmed more than £2.5 million to finish the road. However, Conservative-run East Sussex county council has let the works overrun for months and months, leaving residents and businesses stuck in delays. Local businesses have lost millions. Will the Leader of the House join me in calling on East Sussex county council to get the road finished?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend raises an important matter for her constituency, and I join her in encouraging the council to get on with making sure that the road to nowhere finally goes somewhere.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
There is a Dunkelflaute across the UK and the whole of Europe, meaning there is no wind and therefore reduced power generation. That highlights the importance of alternative energy sources, such as nuclear. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to update the House on the expansion programme for small modular reactors, to ensure we have alterative power sources?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that nuclear will play an important part in our ambition to be a clean energy superpower by 2030, a target I am sure he will join me in welcoming. I assure him that he will have the opportunity to question the Secretary of State on this matter very soon.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
During UK Parliament Week, I met students at the Orchards education health and needs unit in Leadgate in my constituency, which focuses on the emotional and educational needs of key stage 4 pupils. They told me their concerns about long waiting lists for child and adolescent mental health services, and other mental health support services, to address the needs of young people and allow them to do well in their exams. They feel lucky to have focused support, but would like it to be available to other people. They have asked me to ask if we can have a debate in Government time to explore urgent and strategic action to ensure that the mental health needs of all young people are met.
Lucy Powell
I really enjoy hearing about Members’ visits during Parliament Week; I know you had many such visits, Mr Speaker. I was on “Newsround” this week talking about Parliament Week—I have never had more cut-through. My hon. Friend raises important issues about CAMHS and mental health support for our young people. We are committed to getting more mental health support into our schools, and I will ensure the topic is considered for debate.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I have recently noticed an increase in case work from pensioners about accessing the west midlands pension fund, a pension scheme that appears to be run jointly by local government and the Department for Work and Pensions, administered by City of Wolverhampton council. Will the Leader of the House assist me in trying to get Government Departments to come together to unlock what is becoming a very slow process that is affecting people from a number of constituencies in the west midlands?
Lucy Powell
I am happy to look into that issue for the right hon. Lady. As she knows, we have had a big drive to ensure that pensioners who are eligible for pension credit get it. We have also put extra resources into the household support fund budget for local authorities. She highlights an issue about Departments working together better to ensure that support gets to those who need it most, and I will take up her question.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
Today, the integrated care board in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland is due to consider a paper on the removal of prescription support for people who require gluten-free products because they are coeliac. That would mean people in North West Leicestershire, as well as the wider Leicestershire area, will no longer have prescription services for those products from January next year. Around 50% of trusts in England are now in that position. I personally know how expensive it is to manage a restricted diet, and while gluten-free products are becoming more widely available, they are still extraordinarily expensive. Will the Leader of the House offer Government time to discuss the prescription postcode lottery for people who are coeliac?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. As she knows, the national prescribing position in England remains that gluten-free bread and mixes are provided to everybody who requires them, but, as she says, the local integrated care boards are now responsible for arranging provision in their areas. I will ensure that the Health Secretary has heard her question and gives her a full reply.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Dalton Mills in Keighley, which has previously been the film set for “Peaky Blinders” and the like, has unfortunately experienced continual arson attacks. The most damaging fire was back in March 2022, when £15 million of damage was caused, and the most recent arson attack happened only two days ago. The situation is causing deep concern to many constituents across Keighley because the site, which is owned by the Crown Estate, is dangerous and derelict, and needs to be secured. Can we have a debate in Government time on the responsibility of landowners, including the Crown Estate, to ensure that derelict sites that are dangerous are properly secured?
Lucy Powell
The situation the hon. Gentleman describes with the film set in Keighley is deeply concerning; I will ensure that he gets a full reply about it. The Crown Estates Bill will shortly be coming back to the House, so there may be an opportunity for him to raise the issue during its passage.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Dementia is the leading cause of death in the United Kingdom. In my constituency of Wolverhampton West, it is estimated that nearly 30% of dementia cases are undiagnosed. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate to give dementia the political priority it deserves, so that there is earlier diagnosis, with timely social, medical and nursing care for sufferers, as well as mental health and other support for carers, and so that positive steps are taken to find a cure for dementia?
Lucy Powell
We can all relate to my hon. Friend’s question on the blight of dementia and the suffering of those who have it and of their families. The Government are committed to tackling those issues. The matter has been raised in business questions a number of times, so I am sure it would make a popular Backbench Business debate were he to apply for one.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Trains between Rose Hill Marple and Manchester Piccadilly are timetabled to run every 30 minutes in the morning, yet this morning, only one made it between 7 o’clock and 9 o’clock and it had only two carriages. Such a lack of service is not unusual; it happens once or twice a week. Since the breakdown of discussions between the conductors and the already nationalised Northern, there have been no services on a Sunday. That is massively impacting my constituents, who are having to reject job offers because they cannot have faith that they will get to work on time. Will the Leader of the House allocate some Government time for a debate about services on the Hope Valley line?
Lucy Powell
I am all too well aware of the challenges on the Northern network that the hon. Lady describes and the issues on Sundays and with cancellations and capacity. I know that there are ongoing discussions and that this is at the top of the agenda for the Secretary of State for Transport. I will ensure that she comes to the House as soon as she has any further information to share.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Sussex Circus Fish Bar in Chaddesden for its 50 years of frying, and its owner Ronnie, who was two weeks old when his parents opened it? With one in seven of us choosing to have fish and chips for Christmas dinner, a debate on the enduring contribution of chippies to our national culture and cuisine and as a focal point in our communities would be timely, allowing us to discuss how we can support and thank those high street food business that serve us at this time of year.
Lucy Powell
I think we can agree that we are all a bit partial to some lovely fish and chips. Ronnie’s Sussex Circus Fish Bar sounds like one place we should all be visiting. I congratulate them as well. My hon. Friend might want to raise the issues she mentions in the Adjournment debate next Thursday, which is a great opportunity for people to raise issues to do with Christmas, and I am sure we will have good attendance. Invitations to local eateries are always welcome.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree that we should always acknowledge and congratulate Great British sporting success stories and that every Member was glued to their television on Sunday to watch McLaren secure its first constructors’ championship since 1998. Will she join me in congratulating McLaren, that Great British icon, on its success? Also, to make up for the apparent lack of acknowledgment from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, can we have a debate on the value of motorsport to the British economy?
Lucy Powell
I would rather not talk about sport today, as a Manchester City fan. Anyway, I certainly join the hon. Member in congratulating McLaren. My son is a big Formula 1 fan and has all the McLaren gear, so it does not go unnoticed in my house. McLaren is a Great British icon and on behalf of the Government, I congratulate it.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
Last week, the University of Northampton published its economic impact assessment, which showed that for every £1 of income it receives, it generates £4 in my local economy, and that 54% of graduates entered full-time jobs in the health and education sectors, compared with 38% nationally. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the importance of universities such as mine to local economies? Will she also make Government time to support fair funding for universities, such as the University of Northampton?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the University of Northampton. It sounds like it has a strong track record. He will know that we have inherited a really difficult situation when it comes to higher education funding in this country, but the Secretary of State for Education is focused on that matter and I know that she will keep the House updated on her plans.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate so that we can pay tribute to our young sporting heroes? I am sure that all Members have many examples, but 22-year-old cyclist Oscar Onley from Kelso was recently awarded the title of male rider of the year by Scottish Cycling after becoming the first Scottish-developed rider to start the Tour de France for 31 years. Will she take this opportunity to congratulate Oscar on behalf of us all?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. I join the hon. Member in congratulating Oscar on his fantastic achievement. Oscar was really breaking some ground there—cycling in the Tour de France as a Scottish-developed cyclist.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Pippa, Britain’s first ever illegal vape sniffer dog, won a special hero award this week from the Chartered Trading Standards Institute. Springer spaniel Pippa was honoured along with Rochdale trading standards and police for their work seizing vapes targeted at children by organised crime groups. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Pippa and the Rochdale team on their dogged detective work?
Lucy Powell
Now that is a good Christmas joke! That’s how to tell ‘em, I say. I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating Pippa on her very paws-itive work. [Hon. Members: “Urgh”.] Never mind. Perhaps the team want to come to Manchester Central to clear up some of the vapes we have there.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
In Sawtry, in my constituency of Huntingdon, Freda and John Grace have created a Christmas display at their home to rival the bright lights of Regent Street. They have overcome the damage from Storm Bert, rebuilt the display and opened their home for all to enjoy, raising £267 on opening night alone. The lights will be on every afternoon until 9 pm, until 1 January, should anybody wish to look at them—I am looking here at the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes), if he should find himself passing by. Will the Leader of House join me in congratulating Freda and John on their fantastic effort to raise money for charity and to spread some Christmas cheer? Can she make time in the parliamentary schedule to celebrate fundraisers in all our constituencies, especially during this Christmas period?
Lucy Powell
May I join the hon. Member in congratulating and thanking Freda and John for their very generous activities and all their fundraising work? He is absolutely right that we should all come together as often as we can in this House to congratulate and celebrate our constituents for the great work that they do.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
On Saturday, I will be going to the Newmarket Street winter festival in Ayr in my constituency of Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock. Music, food and dancing will help us get into the Christmas spirit, and it will also allow me to sort out my shopping. Although my right hon. Friend is welcome to join me, I appreciate that the journey to Scotland, and possibly the weather, may make her feel like she is going to the North Pole. However, will she join me in welcoming festive events such as this and supporting small businesses, and will she find time for a debate on supporting our high streets?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating those involved in Newmarket Street’s winter festival, which sounds like a really great place to get some last-minute Christmas shopping. I am very behind on mine this year, so perhaps it would be quicker for me to go up to Scotland to do it.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Many of my constituents in Bridgwater are worried about the risk that flooding poses to their homes, businesses and farms. They are concerned that the Environment Agency fails to adequately dredge our rivers and maintain our streams and brooks, rhynes and culverts. Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the Environment Agency and flood prevention?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Member for that question. Obviously, this is a growing issue, as we see the effects of climate change in many of our communities. He will know that the Government’s floods resilience taskforce is at work trying to co-ordinate many of these issues. We have been forthcoming with statements and updates to the House on our flood resilience, and I will ensure that that remains the case.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating the recent opening of two permanent banking hubs in my constituency—one in Horwich and one in Westhoughton—both of which I had the immense pleasure of opening? Will she join me in thanking the hard-working staff, including Jackie, Rabina and Ghulum in Horwich and Siraj in Westhoughton who provide a vital service to communities and businesses across the Bolton West constituency?
Lucy Powell
It is a refreshing change in these sessions to hear about a banking hub opening and providing greater access to cash in a local community, such as that in his constituency, instead of hearing about its closure. I very much join my hon. Friend in congratulating and thanking the hard-working staff involved.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I would very much like to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on their decision to appoint a new special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. The right hon. Lady knows that, after numerous attempts, we finally have one—the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith). However, can she outline the specific objectives and expected outcomes of this appointment, whether the position is enshrined in law and how the position will contribute to advancing the Government’s priorities on both a national and international level? I am ever mindful of Proverbs 31: 8-9:
“Open your mouth for the voiceless, for the rights of all who are destitute.
Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.”
I know that the hon. Member for North Northumberland will do just that.
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) as the UK special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. I am only sorry that it was not the hon. Gentleman himself, but I know that he will play a keen and active role in ensuring that my hon. Friend carries out his advocacy role properly, and that the many issues that the hon. Gentleman raises in this House, week after week, are taken up by the Government.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Since the closure of the Harlow Star in 2019, Harlow has not had a town-wide print newspaper, although the online platform Your Harlow has a number of articles that go out town- wide. May I ask for a debate in Government time about the future of print media and, in particular, the requirement in legislation for planning applications to be published in print media, rather than on online platforms.
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in noting the importance of this matter. Local print newspapers, as well as online media, are vital to sharing factual, correct information about what is happening in our communities in an age of social media, misinformation and disinformation, which we have seen time and again recently. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is very committed to these issues, and I will ensure that my hon. Friend and the House are updated.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Rural communities often feel neglected when it comes to crime. House of Commons Library research shows a 32% rise in rural crime since 2011, compared with 24% in urban areas. That includes 130,000 more reported offences, and 30,000 additional cases of criminal damage and arson. Those figures highlight—[Interruption.] I will come to the question, Mr Speaker.
Paul Davies
May I ask the Leader of the House for a debate on rural crime in Government time?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important topic. Tackling rural crime is really important to the Government, and we are committed to safeguarding our rural communities. Were he to apply for a debate on the subject, I think it would be very popular.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will share my concern about the evidence presented today in Imperial College’s national patient safety report. For the first time in 10 years, more women are dying during or shortly after pregnancy, and more babies are dying within 28 days of being born. This is a particular concern in East Thanet, where our maternity services had to be taken into special measures only a few years ago. Will she ask her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to present a plan to the House for addressing this worrying situation?
Lucy Powell
Like my hon. Friend, I was shocked to hear those statistics this morning. What a damning indictment it is of our healthcare system that more children are now dying at a young age than have done in recent times. I will certainly ensure that the Health Secretary has heard her question, and that she is given a full response.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
Peterborough lido is one of the jewels in the crown of our city. Just two years ago, we had a hydrotherapy pool and an indoor pool as well as the lido, but due to the reckless behaviour of the previous Conservative Administration, the hydrotherapy pool was bulldozed and the indoor pool was closed. The lido will be at risk in future years. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Government recognise the vital role of swimming for leisure, sport and wellbeing, and join me in congratulating the thousands of residents, including me, who are rallying to keep our lido safe?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. I join my hon. Friend in noting the importance of indoor and outdoor pools, and of swimming generally, to a healthy society and to our agenda for preventive public health. It is vital that we keep local lidos such as his alive. He will have a strong ally in the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, who is partial to an outdoor swim.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
An investor in my constituency is interested in regenerating a site, which would create jobs and growth in a community that really needs it, but the owner of the site seems unwilling to engage with the local authority or my office, which has contacted them seven times since August. What avenues can I take, through Parliament, to bring the organisation to the table and get the project off the ground?
Lucy Powell
I am always sorry to hear of local investors, businesses or other agencies in constituencies that will not engage with a Member of Parliament. My hon. Friend has mentioned them in Parliament today, and I hope that will make them more forthcoming in response to his request for a meeting.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I am frequently contacted by biodiversity, nature and climate groups across my Hexham constituency that are encouraged by our commitment to climate, nature and biodiversity. They are concerned, though, about the timescale for the Government’s ratification of the global oceans treaty. Will the Leader of the House give some clarity on the timeline?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend will know that the Government are committed to the global oceans treaty, and we are an international leader on climate and nature. The Foreign Secretary is committed to ensuring that we ratify the treaty, and I will ensure that an update is given to the House in due course.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Parties with Members elected to this place should uphold the British values of tolerance and respect, but many constituents have contacted me to express alarm about the way that local officers of the Reform party in County Durham are harassing and smearing local charities and town councillors, and are using their social media platforms to promote hatred, Islamophobia and misogyny. No other party in this place would accept such behaviour; they would chuck those people out and ensure that they do not stand as candidates. Could the Leader of the House advise me on what we can do to ensure increased civility in public life?
Lucy Powell
I am incredibly sorry and disappointed to hear of the harassment being perpetrated against elected officials in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and the whole House will have heard his calls. I hope the leadership of Reform and other parties that may be carrying out such harassment will hear his question and take action against those thugs, because we need to defend democracy and our elected representatives at all costs.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I do not know if the Leader of the House has been caught up in the wild swimming trend, which we in the Western Isles just call “swimming in the sea”. One of my constituents has taken that to the limit: Colin S. Macleod, charity fundraiser extraordinaire, has been swimming a mile’s length of the beach every day this year, and he will have raised £8,000 for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution this Saturday when he completes his 1,000-mile Land’s End to Shetland charity swim. Would the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Colin, find time for a debate on open-water swimming, and perhaps join Colin for a dip?
Lucy Powell
I do love a swim in the sea, though I am not sure anybody is ready to see me in my swimsuit any day soon. I will certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating Colin for swimming a mile a day and completing his 1,000 miles—what a great achievement—and for raising all that money for RNLI, which is such an important cause.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Recent BBC news analysis found that burning household rubbish in waste incinerators is the dirtiest way that the UK produces power. When might the relevant Minister update the House on exactly how and when we will move away from harmful incinerators? Will the Government support my campaign to implement a moratorium on building new incinerators in South Dorset and nationwide?
Lucy Powell
The Government are committed to developing a circular economy in which we do not need waste incinerators, and my hon. Friend is right to raise the issue. It has been raised with me a number of times, so I am sure that if he applied for a debate on the use of waste incinerators, it would be well attended.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Last week, I had the honour of witnessing the first flight to Doncaster Sheffield airport since its closure in 2022. This was made possible not just by the hard work of Doncaster Mayor Ros Jones and the whole team, but by 2Excel, an aviation company that has maintained its base at the airport. Will my right hon. Friend join me in celebrating this incredible achievement for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely will. My hon. Friend has been a dogged campaigner for Doncaster airport, and I am thrilled that he got to see the first flight to that airport in many years. I also congratulate Mayor Ros Jones and 2Excel on all the work that they are doing to ensure that this important airport in my hon. Friend’s constituency goes from strength to strength.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Earlier this year, Swanscombe and Greenhithe town council in my constituency applied in round 4, window 1, of applications to the community ownership fund for money to refurbish Swanscombe pavilion. That pavilion once was, and could again be, a wonderful hub for our community, providing opportunities for people to engage in sports, culture and arts. The council was told that decision making had been put on hold for the general election, and has not yet received a yes or no from the Government. Might the Leader of the House arrange for the relevant Minister to make a statement to the House, giving clarity on whether crucial community projects such as Swanscombe pavilion will receive the funding that they so desperately need?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear that my hon. Friend has not had a response about Swanscombe pavilion in his constituency. The vital role that these hubs—these culture and leisure facilities—play in our local communities cannot be overestimated, and I will ensure that he gets a ministerial response forthwith.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
Leaseholders in Hendon constituency—in Colindale, in West Hendon and in Edgware—are getting a raw deal. The big property managing agent companies that maintain their developments have put up service charges this year by as much as 40%, but all too often are failing to provide an adequate service, or even a basic explanation of why charges have gone up so much. It has to stop. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on regulating managing agents?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. I know from my constituency what a shocking scandal this is. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are committed to full leasehold and commonhold reform; the Minister for Housing and Planning is sitting next to me nodding his head. We will consult next year on proposals to strengthen the regulation of managing agents.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
A constituent recently shared with me his experience of applying for his dream job with Border Force. Initially, he was told that he would be placed on a reserve list three months after completing the recruitment process. Six months later, he was offered the role, which would require him to relocate to England. He was informed two days later that due to his past employment as a holiday rep, he would no longer be considered. Five months later, his case was flagged for review and he was told that roles in Scotland would be available to him. Recently, while recovering from cancer, he was chased for a response, and he re-engaged with the process, only to be told—two and a half years after applying—that he would no longer be considered. Will the Leader of the House support me in requesting time to discuss recruitment practices for our increasingly important Border Force, so that we do not deter enthusiastic, trained and empathetic young people from joining?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that our border security force is staffed by the brightest and the best who want to work with it, and I will ensure that the Home Secretary gives my hon. Friend a full response on this case.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
On Friday, I attended the opening night of panto at the fantastic South Hill Park arts centre in Bracknell. [Hon. Members: “Oh, no, you didn’t!”] Oh, yes, I did. Local arts venues such as South Hill Park suffered years of funding cuts under the previous Government. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on funding local arts centres?
Lucy Powell
He’s behind me, Mr Speaker! The importance of panto season for our local theatres cannot be overestimated—it is usually what funds them through the rest of the year. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue of local theatres and arts venues, and I am sure it would make a great topic for a debate.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I welcome the debate on LGBT veterans that will take place later. My constituents Martin Bell and David Kelsey have been severely wronged by the ban on LGBT people serving in the military. Will the Leader of the House join me and the Government in recognising the wrongs that they have suffered, and welcome the steps to bring forward financial reparations?
Lucy Powell
I strongly welcome today’s debate, and announcements on reparations and recognition for our LGBT veterans. Like my hon. Friend, I have constituents and others who were affected by this terrible practice over many years, and I am delighted that today, we are putting that right.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
Last week, I visited the Ferns primary academy, which I am pleased to say has had its termination warning removed because of its significantly improved Ofsted judgment. It is clear to me that, as stated by Ofsted, the school is determined
“that all pupils, including those with special educational needs and/or disabilities…achieve their best.”
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the school on its progress, and can we have a debate about supporting our schools to be aspirational for every student?
Lucy Powell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the primary school in her constituency on its Ofsted rating being turned around. She is right to highlight that we need to support schools in making sure that they support everybody, especially those with special educational needs, to get the education they deserve.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The recently proposed closure of a council-owned museum and theatre in Cannock Chase has shone a bright light on how much culture and heritage venues such as those mean to communities like mine and on the challenges facing the arts and museums more broadly. Would the Leader of the House join me in commending the campaigners fighting to save our museum and theatre, and would she make time for a debate on how we can safeguard and develop culture and heritage, particularly outside our big cities?
Lucy Powell
I think this is the fourth question I have had today on the vital role that local culture and theatres play in our communities and in keeping our high street as the vibrant centres that we want them to be. I am sure the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee has heard those questions, and I would advise everybody to club together and get a good debate on this issue.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Grange community primary school in Winsford has just retained its status as a centre of excellence through the inclusion quality mark. This award recognises the school’s commitment to make sure that inclusion is a priority, and that the educational and personal needs of every child, including those with SEND, are met through its curriculum. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating everybody at the school on this fantastic achievement, and will she arrange a debate in Government time on the importance of inclusive provision in mainstream schools?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating Grange community nursery and primary school in his constituency on its great work on inclusion and supporting children with special educational needs. We have had lots of discussion of that topic this morning, and I am it sure would make a great topic for a debate.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Two weeks ago today, after much anger and the worst stink possible, Walleys Quarry landfill site was closed by the Environment Agency. This is a victory for my constituents and all of us who live in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Notwithstanding any legal action—and the loss of my voice from talking about it so much—will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to all those who campaigned so hard to finally get these cowboy operators closed down?
Lucy Powell
I congratulate my hon. Friend, as well as those in his community, on his dogged campaigning—
Mr Speaker
Order. We must stop this. The hon. Gentleman has just asked a question, and the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) has walked straight in front of him. That is the second time in these questions.
Lucy Powell
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) on his dogged campaigning to get Walleys Quarry in his constituency closed down because of the actions of those running it. He has raised it with me a number of times, and I am sure his constituents will be very grateful for the action he has taken.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will be aware of speculation about certain high-profile individuals seeking to interfere in our politics with their money, and about concerning examples from the last Parliament of opaque foreign funds finding their way here. Will the Leader of the House make time to debate updating our election laws to ensure that foreign money stays out of our politics?
Joe Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this important matter. It is clear that foreign donations to political parties in this country are not allowed, but the Government do recognise the risk posed by malign actors who seek to interfere with and undermine our democratic processes. I am sure that the relevant Secretary of State will want to continue to update the House on this important matter.
Mr Speaker
I think we did really well, and it is great that we have managed to complete business questions only a minute or so over time.
Building Homes
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on our plan to build the homes our country so desperately needs.
This Labour Government were elected five months ago with a mandate to deliver national renewal. Standing on the steps of Downing Street on 5 July, the Prime Minister made it clear that work on that urgent task would begin immediately, and it did. Within our first month in office, we proposed a bold set of reforms to overhaul a planning system that is faltering on all fronts after a decade of piecemeal and inept tinkering by the Conservative party. Today I confirm to the House that we are delivering the change we promised by publishing an updated national planning policy framework, meeting our commitment to do so before the end of the year, and supporting our ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament.
The case for grasping the nettle of planning reform in order significantly to boost housing supply and unleash economic growth is incontrovertible. England is in the grip of an acute and entrenched housing crisis, and as you, Mr Speaker, and every Member of the House will know, its detrimental consequences are now all pervasive: a generation locked out of home ownership; 1.3 million people languishing on social housing waiting lists; millions of low-income households forced into insecure, unaffordable and far too often substandard private rented housing; and, to our shame as a nation, just shy of 160,000 homeless children living right now in temporary accommodation. Our economy and the public services that our constituents rely on are also suffering, because as well as blighting countless lives, the housing crisis is consuming ever larger amounts of public money in the form of a rapidly rising housing benefit bill. It is also hampering economic growth and productivity by reducing labour mobility and undermining the capacity of our great towns and cities to realise their full economic potential.
The Government are under no illusions about the scale of the task before us or the challenges that must be overcome and the pitfalls avoided if we are to succeed. But we are absolutely determined to tackle this crisis head on. The previous Government, of course, took a different view. Not only did they fail to meet, even once, the target of 300,000 homes a year that they set themselves, but in a forlorn attempt to appease their anti-house building Back Benchers, they consciously and deliberately chose to exacerbate the housing crisis by making changes to national planning policy that have contributed to plummeting housing supply. We know that the changes required to start putting things right will be uncomfortable for some. We know we will face resistance from vested interests. But this Labour Government will not duck the hard choices that must be confronted to tackle the housing crisis, because the alternative is a future in which a decent, safe, secure and affordable home is a privilege enjoyed only by some, rather than being the birthright of all working people.
Let me turn to the changes that we are making to the framework. We received more than 10,000 responses to our consultation, alongside which my officials and I have held extensive engagement with private house builders, affordable housing providers, local authorities and other organisations from the sector. The views shared with us have been invaluable in helping to refine our initial proposals so that we are able to introduce an effective package of reforms.
Before I set out a number of important areas in which we have made changes, let me touch briefly on some of the proposals that we intend to implement unamended. First, we have reversed the anti-supply changes introduced by the last Government almost exactly a year ago. From the abandonment of mandatory housing targets to the softening of land supply and delivery test provisions, the policies that gave local authorities the freedom to plan for less housing than their nominal targets implied are no more. Secondly, we have made explicit the importance of growth supporting development, from labs to data centres, to supply chains and logistics. In the same vein, we have made clear that the default position for renewable energy deployment should be yes. Thirdly, we strongly promoted mixed tenure development, reflecting robust evidence that attests to the fact that such developments build out faster and create diverse communities. Fourthly, we have made a series of changes to bolster affordable housing delivery and enable local authorities to determine the right mix of affordable housing for their communities. That will support our commitment to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation.
There are four important areas where we have refined our proposals, and I will turn first to housing targets. As we made clear when launching the consultation in July, restoring a mandatory standard method for assessing housing needs is insufficient if the method itself is not up to the job. As the House will know, we proposed a bold change, increasing the total annual national target from 300,000 to 370,000, ending the reliance on decade-old population projections, and removing the arbitrary 35% urban uplift that resulted in a skewed national distribution that was disproportionately focused on London to the detriment of the rest of the country. We fully intend to maintain the level of ambition outlined in July, but we heard through the consultation a clear view that we should do more to target housing growth in those places where affordability pressures are most acute. We have therefore made the method more responsive to demand, redistributing housing targets towards those places where housing is least affordable, while maintaining the overall target envelope.
Next, let me turn to our reforms to the green belt. As the House knows, ours is a brownfield-first approach to development. As a result of a number of targeted changes we are making to the framework, and our proposals for a brownfield passport, we are prioritising and fast-tracking building on previously developed urban land wherever possible, but we know that there are simply not enough sites on brownfield land registers to deliver the volume of homes that the country needs each year, let alone enough that are viable and in the right location.
In the summer, we proposed that local authorities take a sequential approach to releasing land to meet their housing need: brownfield first, followed by low-quality land in the green belt and only then higher-performing land. To identify low-performing sites we proposed a definition of grey-belt land that reflected the fact that there are areas currently designated as green belt that contribute little by way of aesthetic, public access or ecological value. That approach received broad support through the consultation, but a strong desire was expressed to limit the room for subjectivity. We have therefore set out a clearer description of how to assess whether land meets the definition of grey belt, and we will be providing further guidance to local authorities in the new year to support them with green-belt reviews.
At the centre of our green-belt reforms lies our golden rules, which are designed to make sure that where green-belt land is released, the public derives real benefit from development on it, including more affordable housing to meet local need. In the consultation, we proposed a flat 50% affordable housing target, but we recognise that because land values vary across the country, the limited use of viability assessments should be permitted. Through the consultation, we have recognised that that approach risked uncertainty. If flexibility was needed in some parts of the country because land values were lower, the precise amount of affordable housing to be secured would become a protracted site-by-site negotiation. If a local authority did not allow flexibility, there would be a risk that sites were rendered unviable, with the result that no houses, affordable or otherwise, would get built.
Our final policy therefore takes a different approach to managing variation in land values. Rather than a single 50% target, we are introducing a 15 percentage point premium on top of targets set in local plans, up to a maximum of 50%. Because that means the target itself will be responsive to local circumstances, we will be restricting the ability for site-specific viability assessments until such time as we have amended viability guidance in the spring of next year. By prioritising pragmatism over purity, the golden rules we are putting in place today will give communities the confidence that they will be met and will maximise the number of affordable homes delivered across the country.
Another area where we have made changes is to the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The presumption sits at the heart of the national planning policy framework and means that where a local authority has under-delivered or an up-to-date local plan is not in place, the balance of decision making is tilted in favour of approval. We are determined to ensure that where the presumption applies, it will have real teeth. At the same time, we are clear that development consented through it must be consistent with the clear requirements in national policy relating to sustainability, density, design and the provision of affordable homes. The changes we have made deliver on both those fronts.
Finally, in the consultation we sought views on how our changes apply to local authorities at an advanced stage of plan making. Our proposed transitional arrangements aim to strike a balance between maintaining the progress of plans at more advanced stages of preparation, while maximising proactive planning for the homes our communities need. The core of our proposal—that we only hold back a draft plan where there is a significant gap between the current proposed housing requirement and the new housing target—was well supported. However, we are making three changes.
First, we have taken on board concerns that the transitional period was too tight, so we will provide local planning authorities with an extra two months to progress their plans, extending the transitional period from one month to three. Secondly, and again responding to an ask we heard repeatedly from councils, the transitional arrangements will apply where the draft housing requirement in the plan meets at least 80% of local housing need, rather than the numerical 200 homes threshold we originally proposed. In those instances, the plan will not be held back. Thirdly, where plans are adopted under these arrangements, and where there are existing plans based on the old targets due to run for a number of years yet, we want to see the level of ambition raised sooner rather than later. As a result, from 1 July 2026, we will expect authorities with plans adopted under the old standard method to provide an extra year’s worth of homes in their housing pipeline, helping to accelerate the delivery of new homes.
We recognise that we are asking much from many local authorities, and we are determined to support local leaders trying in good faith to deliver homes for their communities. That is why across dedicated local plan funding, the planning capacity and capability support announced at the Budget and income from raised fees, we will be injecting more than £100 million into the system in the coming year.
We are confident that the revised framework that we are introducing today will support significantly higher rates of house building and sustained economic growth. We have listened carefully to the views expressed in the consultation and adjusted several areas of policy accordingly; now it is for others to do their part. Developers must turn supportive words into action, bringing forward new sites and building them out at pace. Local authorities must embrace the challenge of higher targets and push for more and better development in their areas.
We have moved fast. We have not held back. We have not shied away from controversial decisions, or wavered in the face of those who have sought to chip away at our resolve. With focus and determination, we have pushed on to ensure that we are putting in place a planning system geared toward meeting housing need in full and unleashing economic growth. Change will take time as homes are not built overnight and our dire inheritance means that the climb out of the trough we are in will be a steep one, but by implementing this revised framework today, we have taken another decisive step toward a future in which everyone will enjoy a decent, safe, secure and affordable home in which to live.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. First, I welcome the ambitious target of 1.5 million homes in this Parliament. I think he may have unintentionally misled the House regarding the “dire inheritance” that he claims. Conservative Members are rightly proud of our record on housing delivery. [Interruption.] Really. Between 2013 and 2023, we saw a record level of new housing formations, greater than any other period since the 1960s. We delivered 550,000 affordable homes since 2010, including 63,000 in 2022-23 alone.
What we do not welcome is the war on rural England that the Minister is pursuing. Following on from the family farm tax and the withdrawal of the rural services delivery grant, we now see a massive shift to mass house building in rural areas and on green belt. We do not welcome the bulldozing of democratic accountability. We do not welcome the lowering of housing targets for urban areas, including a 20% reduction in London, which is already missing its targets by 50%. We also do not welcome an average doubling—a 100% increase—for predominantly rural areas.
The reality for local residents in areas such as Westmorland, Cumberland, North Yorkshire and the home counties is that they will one day wake up to realise that they will face targets of up to 600% increases. They will call their local councillor to ask them to oppose a specific application and be shocked at the response, which will be, “I am sorry; we no longer have the right to vote against an individual application.” They will be even more shocked if they become aware of what Labour said in opposition. Its Opposition motion on 21 June 2021 called on the previous Government to
“protect the right of communities to object to individual planning applications.”
The Minister is now taking that away.
Local residents will be more shocked again when they become aware that the Minister himself used that right in 2021 to object to an application for 1,500 homes on a brownfield site in his constituency. Indeed, the Secretary of State also used that right to object to a development in her constituency in 2017. Same old Labour: do as I say, not as I do.
The reality is that the Government will fail to deliver on their target. Members need not listen to me; they should listen to the chief executive officer of Homes England, who admitted in a leaked email that it is a two-Parliament objective rather than deliverable in this Parliament. The Centre for Cities and the Office for Budget Responsibility have both said that only 1.1 million homes will be delivered in England in this Parliament, and indeed there will be only 1.3 million homes across the UK, which is lower than we delivered in the last Parliament—another broken promise from Labour. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we will be there for the Minister and the Secretary of State when they fail to deliver on that promise.
This planning framework pushes development to rural areas, concreting over green belt, green fields and over our green and pleasant land, rather than focusing and supporting building in urban areas where we need to build the most. And to what end? Due to the loosening of restrictions on visa requirements such as the salary threshold, and the scrapping of the Rwanda deterrent, the majority of the homes that the Government deliver will be required for people coming into this country rather than for British citizens.
Labour has also consistently failed on affordable homes. Under the London Labour Mayor, new affordable housing in London is down by 88%, yet across England, the Conservative Government delivered more than half a million homes. They have already weakened their requirement for 50% affordable homes on the green belt by allowing the use of viability assessments. That change will mean fewer affordable homes.
The Labour Government have already failed first-time buyers. The Conservative Government doubled the number of those buying every year compared with 2010, by means of the stamp duty discounts, Help to Buy, right to buy and our affordable homes programmes—some of which helped the Secretary of State herself get on the housing ladder. Those have been axed by this socialist Government pulling up the housing ladder. They will build over rural areas while claiming it is grey belt land, but we delivered over 1 million homes in the last Parliament alone. It is vital more than ever that we build in the right places with the right infrastructure, but the Prime Minister has already admitted that he will bulldoze through the concerns of local communities. If the Government really want homes to be built where they are needed, they must think again.
Finally, how many of the Minister’s 1.5 million homes will be affordable? What does he expect will be the split for social rent, affordable rent and affordable homes to purchase, particularly given the use of viability assessments? On planning capacity, will he set out why his resourcing of planning authorities, which we broadly welcome, has risen from £20 million in his manifesto, to £46 million in the Budget, to £100 million today? How is that consistent with the Budget? Why is he deliberately making it more difficult for first-time buyers to buy a home? What percentage of the 1.5 million target does he expect will be needed for immigrant households?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for some of his responses, and for those questions. I am glad that he broadly supports the Government’s target of 1.5 million homes. As he will know, the previous Government did not achieve their target—300,000 homes a year when disaggregated—once in 14 years.
There were so many inaccuracies and misleading statements in that response, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the framework that we have planned, that I am not sure where to start. The assertion that we are waging war on rural England or that we have distributed housing targets predominantly towards rural areas is simply wrong. We are focusing—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman might wish to listen to the response and focus on the detail of the framework that we have published. We are focusing growth across our city regions. Housing need across mayoral combined authority areas will increase by over 20% compared with the current standard method. Similarly, on the green belt, it is not the case that we are allowing viability assessments—I was very clear in my statement. We are restricting the use of site-level viability assessments on green belt release until we have refreshed viability planning policy guidance in the new year, at which point we will consider exemptions for previously developed land and large sites.
We prioritise the importance of up-to-date local plans. We inherited a system from the previous Government of less than a third up-to-date local plan coverage. That is unsustainable. We want communities more involved at an early stage, shaping their local plans. That is the best way that they can shape development. The hon. Gentleman mischaracterises our working paper proposals on planning committees; as we discussed at length in the urgent question earlier in the week, we are simply talking about streamlining the planning system to ensure that trained, professional planning officers take the appropriate decisions, and elected members get to focus on the largest and most controversial applications.
I am not going to respond to the taunt about sites in my constituency.
Matthew Pennycook
Because I have outlined my position many, many times before. I objected to a 1,500-home scheme that I thought was poor quality—I thought we could do better. It is very interesting, I note to Opposition Members, that consent for that was given many years ago, but not a spade has been put in the ground. That is the type of speculative development we need to see less of. We need more planned development through the planning system.
I will briefly answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions. We cannot put a precise number on the proportion of homes under the 1.5 million target that will be affordable for the following reasons. We expect to see many more social and affordable homes come through developer contributions. Our golden rules, which apply to the release of land through the green belt, will ensure that the proportion rises—that 15% premium on local affordable housing rates. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, affordable provision is partly related to grant funding from Government. We will set out details of future investment in next year’s multi-year spending review, along with what the successor to the affordable homes programme looks like and the precise split between social rented homes and other forms of tenure. We have been very clear that we want to maximise the delivery of social value homes.
Details on planning capacity will be set out in the response to the consultation. The £100 million figure I cited is the amount of support in the round going into local plan support, planning capacity and capability support and other things.
On migration, the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the majority of homes that developers sell in this country are to British nationals; that most parts of the country have local allocation rules and residency requirements that mean that non-British nationals cannot access housing; and that only those who are eligible for no recourse to public funds can do so. He knows those rules. It is scaremongering; it is beneath him. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not really believe that, and that the House does not believe that either.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the greater detail on the changes to the NPPF that the Minister has outlined this morning. He is right: we have to be bold. As he has outlined, the social housing sector is in crisis. At the Select Committee’s recent evidence session, he mentioned a figure of around 160,000 children in temporary accommodation. Those children will be spending this Christmas away from their friends and families. For the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), the shadow Secretary of State to reduce this issue to migration is wrong. He should think about the many children who will be sleeping rough this Christmas. This is about how we improve housing and ensure that we build the right housing to help those children.
We need more social housing to get people off our waiting lists. Our councils are at breaking point, with some developers using the viability clause as a way of not delivering on the much-needed affordable homes that they have promised. Communities must be able to trust the planning process. Will the Minister assure the House that local councils will see a significant increase in the affordable homes programme next year to allow them to meet the Government’s housing targets?
Secondly, I want to touch briefly on the land classification outlined in the strategy, which could affect the way in which communities are able to shape local developments. Too often we see a disproportionate impact on high-end developments, which does nothing to help people to get on the housing ladder. Is the Minister confident that the update to the NPPF will ensure that new homes will be based in improved developments with amenities such as schools, GP surgeries and other accessible things, so that local residents can see tangible benefits in the developments coming forward in their area?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for those questions and for her broad support for the framework we have announced today. On social rented housing in particular, she is absolutely right. The previous Conservative Government’s record on social rented homes is absolutely dire. The figures speak for themselves. Not only did they fail to deliver new social affordable homes beyond anything more than 10,000 units a year, but they engineered the decline of social housing and ran down our stock through various interventions, including the slashing of affordable homes programme funding and increased generosity in the right- to-buy discounts, which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister did not benefit from. We have returned the discount to the rate at which she accessed housing. The Conservatives’ record on social rented housing speaks for itself.
On future investment in affordable housing and social rented homes, as I have said, we will set out details in the multi-year spending review next year. We want to prioritise the delivery of social rented homes given the important role they play in addressing the housing crisis, and in resolving the particularly acute end of that crisis in the form of temporary accommodation.
On the NPPF more widely, I can give my hon. Friend those assurances. The targeted changes to the framework we have made today will support the delivery of infra- structure. As I have already said, when it comes to the release of green-belt land, our golden rules will ensure that we get a higher proportion of affordable housing, and also infrastructure and amenities and access to green space through that additional public benefit.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats support the provision of new homes. Somerset West and Taunton district council in my constituency, under Liberal Democrat control since 2019, has approved thousands of new homes to the extent that the town is now one of the fastest-growing in the UK, with 9% population growth to 2021, partly because it is such a wonderful place to live. Somerset is now pioneering the first new council houses in a generation in parts of the county, many of them zero carbon. We welcome the policy change on renewable energy and the extension in the transitional arrangements, although I urge the Minister to consider, in exceptional circumstances, a six-month transition rather than three months. I know that Members on several Benches wish to see that on behalf of their authorities.
Trust in the planning system, like trust in politics, is not where it should be. As with bypassing planning committees, imposing housing numbers on councils takes decision out of the hands of elected councillors and local people, which is undemocratic. We would reverse that. Trust in planning demands that people know that our most precious green spaces are fully protected. Every authority should have the same level of green belt protection, plus precious green wedges and green spaces in their areas. Rather than Whitehall diktat, plans for new homes should be led by communities and our councils, and those homes should be genuinely affordable to local people. Councils such as Eastleigh have shown that where those new homes come with jobs, schools and public transport, community consent follows. We will not solve the crisis in care, for example, unless we have the homes for older and vulnerable people, supported by the GP surgeries and care services they require.
If any target is to be mandatory, therefore, it should be our country’s need for 150,000 new social homes per year and for low-cost home ownership through options such as rent to buy to give people a real foot on the ladder. That should be funded from capital borrowing, just as Labour Governments and, historically, Liberal Governments funded our stock of council houses in the past, including the use of compulsory purchase, before Conservative Governments sold them off hand over fist until soon there will be almost none left.
Top-down planning diktats risk a surge in speculative greenfield permissions of the kind that the Minister is concerned about, for homes that are out of people’s reach. Instead, let us fund, incentivise and focus on the social and affordable homes that we need: zero-carbon homes that tread lightly on the land, restoring nature and in doing so restoring trust in local people and the councillors whom they elect to take the decisions that most affect them and their communities.
Matthew Pennycook
I am not sure I detected a question there, but there were several points. I will endeavour to respond to at least a few of them. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s broad support for the framework and, in particular, for renewable energy deployment.
On the charge that we are bypassing local democracy and local communities, I refute that entirely. We are encouraging, in the way that the previous Government did, the adoption of up-to-date local plans that are the best means of shaping development in any particular part of the country. That is where local people and communities can get involved to determine what development looks like and where it goes, but it must be a conversation about what development looks like and where it goes, rather than whether it happens at all. Under the current system, as a result of the NPPF changes in December 2023 and the fact that we have less than a third up-to-date plan coverage, there is too much speculative development outside of plans, which communities are rightly taking issue with.
On social rented homes, as I have said to the hon. Gentleman previously, until he comes up with a less vague way of funding 150,000 social rented homes, we simply cannot take the point seriously. The Liberal Democrats got away with having no housing spending totals in their election manifesto. I applaud the ambition, but we take a more realistic path to boosting social and affordable homes, putting forward only what we know we can deliver within the spending constraints that we face.
Lastly, I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to reform how CPO works. We are taking forward the discretionary power to disapply hope value that the previous Government took through—I commend them for doing that in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. We need that power tested, but we need to go further and we intend to do so in the forthcoming planning and infrastructure Bill.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Following 14 years of neglect, indifference and, at times, downright obstruction by the Conservatives, housing in Newcastle is the No. 1 issue that constituents bring to me, and my inbox is full of heartrending stories of families unable to put a roof over their children’s heads. I therefore welcome the statement, and look forward to working with Newcastle city council to build the homes that my constituents need so much.
Will the Minister explain in a bit more detail how he will ensure that these homes are of the quality that my constituents deserve, and that the necessary infrastructure, particularly schools, will be built alongside them?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is right. The Conservatives can try to scrub the record all they like, but it speaks for itself. The so-called planning concern group in the last Parliament persuaded the previous Government to make changes to the national planning policy that allowed local areas to plan for fewer homes than their target required. That has led to a rush of plans coming in “under number”, some of which we will have to undo through changes in the framework.
As I have said, we are making targeted changes to the framework to support the delivery of infrastructure provision. The Government also support essential infrastructure, especially in the areas that are most unaffordable, through a range of spending programmes. On infrastructure-led development and quality, supported by our framework changes in the presumption for saleable development, we are determined that there is not a rush to 1.5 million regardless of what the units look like. They must be well designed, quality units, with the infrastructure, amenities and services that communities need in order to thrive.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Gagan Mohindra, a member of the Select Committee.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
As the Minister will know, Three Rivers district council, which has been controlled by the Liberal Democrats for many years, does not have an up-to-date local plan, and there is already a presumption for development. What would the Minister say to councils that either choose not to have a local plan or are unable to meet the housing targets?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman’s point is well made. We are determined to drive up the coverage of up-to-date local plans. We want universal coverage: that is the way to secure sustainable development in which communities can have confidence because they have been able to shape it.
When areas refuse to engage, we will take appropriate action. Today we are setting a 12-week deadline for local authorities to give us a timetable detailing how they intend to put local plans in place, through various measures relating to the transitional arrangements, and how the new six-year housing land supply will bite. We think we can incentivise authorities to come forward and put those plans in place. Where they do not do so, however, we will not hesitate to use the full range of ministerial intervention powers at our disposal. The last Government introduced deadlines and let them slip repeatedly, but we will not make the same mistakes. We will ensure that up-to-date local plans are put in place so that we end the speculative out-of-plan development that, as I said, communities across the country are rightly taking issue with.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I welcome the statement and especially welcome what the Minister said about affordable homes, given the dismal numbers that were provided under the Conservatives. Those 1.3 million people on the waiting list deserve a voice in our planning system too, and I only wish the Opposition would recognise that.
What approach will the Minister take when there are multiple local plans, for example the London plan and the London borough plans? How will the targets be worked out between those different plans?
Matthew Pennycook
As my hon. Friend may know, the new method produces a figure for London of nearly 88,000. That is more than double recent delivery, and it constitutes the biggest proposed percentage increase against delivery in any region in the country by a significant margin. We expect London to step up and improve its housing delivery record. As for my hon. Friend’s specific question, it will be for London and the Mayor to consider how the aggregate local housing numbers are distributed across the whole of London. Because there is a spatial plan in the form of the London plan, the targets for individual London boroughs need to be viewed in that context. The same cannot be said for other parts of the country.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Nothing in this statement outlines the new powers for councils to build development infrastructure—including roads, schools and GP surgeries—before new housing. What powers will my local councils of Broxbourne and East Hertfordshire get to build development infrastructure before these massive housing targets are forced upon them?
Matthew Pennycook
Local authorities are already required to put in place plans for infrastructure delivery, and to set out how that infrastructure is funded and should come forward. We have made a number of targeted changes to the framework today, to support the delivery of infrastructure. That will not be not the last word on our reforms to the housing and planning system, and we are considering what more we can do to ensure that we get infrastructure for developments up front, in the way that communities want.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
One in four Barking households is privately renting, which is higher than the national average, and 40% of residents are homeowners, which is 20% below the national average. The number of people in temporary accommodation is through the roof because of the housing crisis. My constituents will welcome the Government’s steps to address the housing crisis. Viability and land value considerations often hold up shovel-ready development schemes, which then cannot be built. The six infrastructure commitments that the Government have made since the general election are critical. Can the Minister give assurances that the Government will deliver infrastructure to ensure that land values increase, viability is met, and homes can be built?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Viability is stalling development in lots of areas in the country. We need to look at what support can be put in place for particular schemes—our new homes accelerator, for example, is providing planning capacity support and other forms of support—and at why some schemes, particularly consented or near-consented large schemes, are being held up. As I have said before in the House, we are giving further thought to how we examine these issues, and to what more we can do to ensure that consented schemes are built out in good time.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
This centrally driven intervention drives a coach and horses through green belt areas such as Aldridge-Brownhills and through local democracy. How will the Minister ensure that local communities are respected and have a voice, so that we build the right homes in the right places?
Matthew Pennycook
I return to a point that I have made several times during this statement. The onus is on local communities and elected leaders to put in place up-to-date local plans that shape where development is to take place. I know from previous conversations with the right hon. Lady that she wants brownfield-first developments—so do we. We have put in the framework published today a number of targeted changes to support the delivery of brownfield sites. We have also consulted, through a working paper soft consultation, on proposals for a brownfield passport to further accelerate and fast-track brownfield development. Local areas can look to bring forward and densify brownfield sites. However, in response to the point that there are not enough such sites, or that communities cannot work across boundaries with neighbouring authorities, we are saying, “Please look at the release of low-quality land within the green belt.”
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I salute my hon. Friend’s energy for and commitment to these targets. It is great to see that they are supported by the Prime Minister. The Environmental Audit Committee is looking at the new planning framework and its environmental consequences. I am pleased that, since the original consultation, there have been changes to strengthen environmental protections. Can my hon. Friend say a little more about how he will ensure that nature is not the victim of his passionate commitment? Brownfield sites are often very biodiverse, and trying to achieve the biodiversity net gain alongside all the other commitments simply means that they are not profitable. How will he ensure that those sites can be brought forward viably by both the private and public sectors?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. He is right: we have made a number of changes to the framework to further strengthen references to climate mitigation and adaptation. We have made a number of other changes relating to flood risk and sustainable drainage systems, and how we can support those through the planning system. On BNG specifically, I am more than happy to have a detailed conversation about our thinking on how to successfully roll out BNG across the country and ensure that it works not just on large sites, but on small sites in particular.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
In his statement, the Minister referred to the undermining of the capacity of our great towns and cities to realise their economic potential. Does he not realise that by effectively absolving the Mayor of London of his housing responsibilities, he is exacerbating the problem of inner-London boroughs, such as Lewisham and, dare I say, Greenwich and Woolwich, using the green fields of Kent as a dumping ground for their housing problems? We are fighting a rearguard action to protect our farmland from development, in the interests of our countryside and, more importantly perhaps, of sustainability. He refers to brownfield sites. What he has announced today is the undermining of the Secretary of State’s right to rule finally on planning issues after they have been to the Planning Inspectorate. She will now have no credibility at all.
Matthew Pennycook
I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that sort of hyperbole is beneath him, if I may say so. We are not absolving the Mayor of London of his responsibilities. The previous Government put in place a system whereby the arbitrary 35% urban uplift applied not merely to the core of a city region—as it does in every other part of the country—but to every London borough. That produced a fantastical figure that was completely divorced from reality. We have abolished that urban uplift and reset the standard method. That still leaves London with an incredibly stretching target of 88,000 homes per year, which is more than double recent delivery. We want to work in partnership with the Mayor of London, but we will be pushing him to increase his ambition for what can be achieved in London, and his delivery.
We place great importance on agricultural land and food production. The national planning policy framework remains clear that where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer-quality land should be preferred to those of higher quality. Those protections remain in the framework.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Thirty-five colleagues are bobbing, but the questions and answers are getting longer. Can we please keep them short?
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
On the Wirral, our housing shortage leaves thousands on waiting lists. The issue goes further, with children and grandchildren having to leave the area to get on the housing ladder. We want to build quality, affordable houses in the right places. We share the Government’s approach to building on brownfield first, so what steps can the Department take to support Wirral council in achieving that?
Matthew Pennycook
I refer my hon. Friend to my previous answers on our targeted changes to the framework to strengthen expectations around brownfield development. We are in the early stages of a consultation, through the working paper, on proposals for a brownfield passport, and we are exploring how we can go further to prioritise and fast-track the development of that land. We absolutely want to work with local areas to look at where brownfield sites might be densified and at how we can get the majority of development through that route, where possible.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Mid Sussex district council has a local plan, and it is well advanced in making its next local plan, which, significantly, has cross-party support from Conservative, Green and Labour councillors. We also have a design guide, and are delivering 1,000 houses a year, including 300 social and affordable homes last year. We are an example of what good planning looks like. We are even purchasing our own temporary accommodation. I invite the Minister to come to Mid Sussex and see for himself what good planning looks like.
Matthew Pennycook
I am afraid that I cannot give either, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will add the invitation to the list of requests for visits that I receive from Members across the House. However, I commend the hon. Lady’s local authority for its focus on quality and good design. We want to see more of that across the country.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I welcome the commitment to overall house building targets—we cannot hit a national target with clear local targets. I welcome in particular the commitment to social housing. Will the Minister confirm that that means social housing, not the affordable housing that the shadow Minister mentioned? There is a big difference there. The viability of brownfield sites is lower and section 106 contributions will be lower, so if we are to concentrate on brownfield sites, will the Minister make the point to the Chancellor that to deliver social housing in the numbers needed, she might have to reconsider the amount of social housing grant that she provides?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend has real expertise in this area. We are making a distinction between social rented homes—the most affordable type of affordable housing—and others, and we have sought to express that through a change to the glossary in the framework that separates social rented housing from other forms of housing. He is right that brownfield delivery involves additional challenges. We are very cognisant of those, and we are exploring how the variety of Government funds that support the delivery of brownfield sites might be improved as we go forward.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister has alluded to one of the challenges with planning permissions—namely that, on any one day, there are something like 1 million unbuilt permissions for new housing. Developers ration the supply in order to keep the price high, so will he consider, as I think he did in opposition, the principle of “use it or lose it”? At the moment a developer will get a permission, which is repeatedly sold on until viability means the site cannot be developed. If the planning permissions were either brought forward or lost if they were not used in time, we could get the houses and homes that people want.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman, like my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), has great expertise in this area. He will know that local authorities already have powers to issue a completion notice to require a developer to complete a stalled development. To bring greater transparency and accountability to this area, we seek to go further by taking the necessary steps to implement build-out reporting. I assure him that I am giving a lot of attention to what more we might do on build-out, because developers have made commitments to increase the pace of build-out across the country. We need to make sure they follow through with that.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With an example of a short question, I call Barry Gardiner.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his statement and, in particular, on the importance he places on the presumption in favour of sustainability and getting the design of developments right.
My hon. Friend is a champion for the natural world, and I am aware that he is sympathetic to the need to include biodiversity measures in all new builds, such as swift bricks, which are an essential nesting habitat for the survival and recovery of cavity-nesting birds. Will he provide this much-needed boost for a declining population that has sadly been placed on the critically endangered red list? Will he ensure that these simple requirements are not only in the NPPF but are translated into the national development management policies to ensure they have statutory weight?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we have added text to the NPPF to encourage the incorporation of features to protect threatened species, including swifts, but also bats and hedgehogs. We will consult on the NDMPs in the spring of next year.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The town of Wimborne in my Mid Dorset and North Poole constituency has doubled in size, with new homes built on three sides right up to the Stour. These homes are pretty much out of reach for local people, and they come with no infrastructure. Shops were supposed to be included in one development, but the developer claimed it could not get them filled, so now we have another care home. Meanwhile, Aldi has made a planning application for a green-belt site to which everyone will need to drive. What can the Minister do to force developers to deliver the infrastructure they promise, so that developers cannot play the system?
Matthew Pennycook
There are measures in the framework that will help to achieve the objectives that we both seek. The Government are also committed to strengthening the existing system of developer contributions, so that we hold applicants to the promises they make as part of section 106 agreements, while arming councils to better negotiate with them in the first place.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council submitted its draft local plan for examination in July but, under the new targets, it has planned for only 53% of its housing need. Can my hon. Friend elaborate on the steps the Government will take to work with local authority areas at this stage to make sure they fill that significant gap?
Matthew Pennycook
In the formal Government response to the consultation, which will be published at the end of this statement, we set out very clearly how we are dealing with local authorities at an advanced stage of plan preparation—both those that will meet the regulation 19 stage requirement and those that will not —and how we will help those with up-to-date plans to top up their housing supply so that they come closer to the new standard method. I share my hon. Friend’s wish that her local authority takes steps to close the gap.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will the Minister reaffirm the principle of “infrastructure first” in order to get homes built? In Tendring and Colchester, we are planning to build a 9,000-home borders community project, but it can go ahead only if the A1331 is completed, and it has to be funded.
Matthew Pennycook
I support that objective, but I gently say that the previous Government had 14 years to address concerns in this area. I remember repeated calls from Conservative Members at the time that the previous Government should get serious about this. We will. There are measures in the framework that support infrastructure delivery, but there is more work to do.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. Last week, I met my constituent Mr Anwar Hussain, who lives with his wife and five children in a two-bedroom house. Doctors have told him that his eight-year-old autistic daughter needs her own bedroom. Mr Hussain tells me that he has been on emergency banding for a larger house with more bedrooms for two years, and he is still waiting. Does my hon. Friend agree that we desperately need to improve our social housing, and can he please confirm that the Government’s plans will help people such as Mr Hussain?
Matthew Pennycook
That question sits slightly outside the framework, although, as I said, there are targeted changes to support the delivery of new affordable homes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have to do more about the decency of the existing social housing stock. We will be consulting on a new decent homes standard in the new year, as well as introducing Awaab’s law to clamp down on the most severe hazards.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
Labour’s new housing target for Harborough is a 40% increase, and the target for Oadby and Wigston has doubled. Yet we can see that the overcrowding problem is worse in urban areas, and the gap between population growth and housing growth is worse in those areas, too. We can see the environmental arguments, too.
However, the Minister has announced today that the new target for London is about 11% lower than the old one. In the original round of numbers, Nottingham was down 21%, Birmingham and Leicester were down 31%, and Coventry was down 50%. Can he tell me what the numbers are now for those midlands cities? Are they all still going down, even as the targets for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston are going up?
Matthew Pennycook
I think the hon. Gentleman slightly misunderstands the situation for urban authorities. The housing targets are going up across metro areas.
Matthew Pennycook
I have been very clear about this. We have dropped the arbitrary 35% uplift introduced by the previous Government, which bore no relation to housing need. Metro area targets are going up. The hon. Gentleman will find out from the specific targets, which have been produced by our redistribution of the formula within that envelope, what the new numbers are for his two local authorities.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I listened to the Minister on the radio this morning and I listened to his statement, and I welcome his comprehensive steps to tackle the housing crisis. While I work with colleagues across the House—Opposition Members know that—I thought the shadow Minister’s speech was beneath him. It is the kind of gutter politics we should not be engaging in.
As we seek to tackle the crisis, we must do things with people, not to them. I gently say to the Minister that communication and engagement will be vital to getting this right. I invite him to confirm from the Dispatch Box, for constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme, that productive agricultural land will not be the default in his brownfield-first approach to development.
Matthew Pennycook
As I made clear in my response to the shadow Minister, our approach to agricultural land remains the same. Ours is a brownfield-first approach. We want to maximise delivery on brownfield first, wherever possible. Only when that type of delivery cannot come forward—where brownfield sites cannot be densified, or where cross-boundary strategic co-operation of the kind we intend to introduce is not possible—will we ask local authorities to review their green belt, with a view to identifying and releasing the lowest-quality, most poorly performing land within it.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is a thoughtful and diligent Minister who shares my disdain for the identikit, soulless, ubiquitous housing estates that have been built during his lifetime and mine. I welcome the NPPF’s commitment to design codes that provide
“a local framework for creating beautiful and distinctive places”.
Will he write to every local authority to make it clear that design is a key planning determinant, and is absolutely salient? Will he also write to the Planning Inspectorate to ensure that, when local authorities turn down an application on the basis of poor design, the inspectorate will back them up?
Matthew Pennycook
Well-designed places remain at the heart of planning policy; as the right hon. Gentleman will know, an entire chapter of the NPPF remains devoted to well-designed places. The changes we are making to the presumption today will ensure that when it comes to national policy on design, those expectations need to hold in the balance of decisions that the Planning Inspectorate makes. There is much more we can do outside of policy. In the new year, my Department will bring forward updates to the national design guide and national model design code. As part of those changes, we will make clear our expectations about what local authorities can do to improve the quality of design.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Chris Curtis, who I should have called earlier as a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee—my apologies.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
That is okay. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Thanks to the failure of the Conservative party, over 150,000 children will be waking up on Christmas day in temporary accommodation. If that is a record to be proud about, I have absolutely no idea what would make Opposition Members feel any shame. May I get two reassurances from the Minister? First, business needs certainty, so will he assure me that we will not see the chopping and changing we saw from the Conservative party and that we will stick by the policies? Secondly, the issue is not just about the planning rules but about capacity in our local councils, so what will he do to speed up the process of getting more planners into our local councils to add capacity to the system?
Matthew Pennycook
We need consistency in national policy. We had too many changes to the national planning policy framework under previous Governments. We intend this to be the big change in terms of substantial policy development. There will come a point next year when we will look to consult on NDMPs, and we will have to make changes to the framework to account for the evolution of those. As I said, today’s statement sets out the big changes we intend to make, and we want them to hold and to be delivered through this Parliament.
On local planning capacity and capability, I made reference in my statement to the £100 million of funding that is being injected into the system, in particular as part of the transitional arrangements to help local authorities that will fall foul of the requirements set out in the new framework today.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
As a former house builder, I know some of the challenges about viability. I welcome the Minister and the Government’s focus on affordable housing targets and viability assessments, but there is a basic mathematical calculation about affordable housing: 20% of something is better and more than 50% of nothing.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman makes a somewhat cryptic statement. Perhaps the point he is driving at is related to golden rules. One of the changes we have made that puts pragmatism above purity is dropping the straight 50% requirement across the country, and looking at how we can get more locally sensitive rates by putting in place a 15 percentage point premium on local affordable housing targets. In the round, we think that will provide more certainty and maximise the delivery of homes coming through that route.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Cherwell district council’s housing waiting list quadrupled over the past decade under the Conservatives, which is why I committed to my constituents in Banbury during the general election campaign that I would make addressing the housing crisis a priority. We all recognise that planning reform, which the Conservative party ducked during its time in office, is crucial to fixing the housing crisis, but does the Minister agree that it is also crucial to helping us get the growth that we want in our economy, because it is good for businesses, whether they are sandwich shops or high-tech engineering firms, across the country?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is right that the situation we are in, with an acute and entrenched housing crisis and an ailing planning system, is not just blighting lives but holding back our economy and the way our great towns and cities can maximise their potential. This is a growth-focused national planning policy framework, and we are very proud of it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Unless questions are kept short, colleagues will not be able to get in, so think about everybody in the Chamber.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
I know that the Minister is a man of considerable integrity, so can he be honest with my constituents about the fact that the combination of mandatory targets, a massive increase in those mandatory targets and the fig leaf of the grey belt policy means that in a constituency like mine, which is almost entirely green belt, apart from that which is developed on, there will be massive new development, an expansion of London sprawl and a change in the character of the area forever?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his compliment at the outset of his comments. I do not agree with him for the following reasons. We are not abolishing the green belt but preserving it. We think it has played a hugely important role over recent decades, not least in checking unregulated urban sprawl. On his constituency, I say to him gently that I do not know how he can know the definition of grey belt when we have just published it. He does not know how much grey-belt land there is in his constituency, but in parts of the country like his, the answer lies in cross-boundary strategic planning, so that we can sensibly plan for housing growth, rather than every local area having to account for those numbers on its own.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
As has already been mentioned, there are 1.3 million people on the social housing waiting list and there will be 150,000 kids in temporary accommodation this Christmas, but the number of under 30s who own their own home is half what it was in the last generation. Does the Minister agree that it will take serious and sustained action over the course of this Parliament and beyond to turn that around?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Contrary to the crowing by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) about the Opposition’s record on home ownership, the rates are stagnant and they are particularly bad for the younger generation. We have a generation locked out of home ownership. We are taking action in that area, not least through our plans to take forward a comprehensive and permanent mortgage guarantee scheme. One of the largest contributory factors, although not the only one, at the heart of why housing is unaffordable, is our failure over many decades to build enough homes of all tenures. Going forward, the framework will support our target of 1.5 million new homes.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
The Government have announced that housing targets for Reigate and Banstead will increase significantly. We will move from an advisory target of 644 houses per year to a mandatory and completely unrealistic target of 1,264—a 96% increase. A large proportion of my constituency is green belt. If all areas must play their part in building the homes we need, why is the Minister reducing housing targets for London and other urban areas, while increasing them in rural areas like mine?
Matthew Pennycook
I have made clear the point on urban areas and how the 20% increase across the board means we are asking more of all parts of the country. I say gently to the hon. Lady that she speaks as if there are no housing pressures in her constituency. People want homes in her constituency to rent or to buy as much as in any other part of the country. Yes, the targets are stretching but they are achievable, either through brownfield development from the release of low-quality grey-belt land within the green belt, or through cross-boundary strategic planning.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Representing a large and rural constituency, I am constantly contacted by families who are concerned that members of their youngest generation are having to leave Northumberland to find the homes they need. That is just one example of the Conservative party’s war on the countryside. Will the Minister confirm that the new framework is the only way that we can get the homes that are needed, and ones that are appropriate, into our rural communities so that a generation is not forced out of rural Britain?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To be clear, the reforms to the planning system that we are making today are not the only part of the answer; delivery of homes is an entirely different challenge from bringing forward planning permissions. We need to over-supply planning permissions into the system to get the number of homes we need in his constituency, and across the rest of the country.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
I wrote to the Secretary of State in November concerned about the impact on local authorities, such as South Gloucestershire, that are at an advanced stage of bringing forward plans to deliver much-needed homes. I welcome the extension of the transitional period, but I remain concerned that areas whose figures have increased will be vulnerable to planning by appeal, while they get the new consents lined up. Will the Minister explain how authorities that are doing the right thing will be protected from their strategy being wrecked by speculative applications, while their plan goes through the process for adoption?
Matthew Pennycook
I gently say to the hon. Lady that the expectation of having an up-to-date local plan in place is nothing new. Authorities have known for some time that they should be doing that. It was a failure of the previous Government that they did not use the powers at their disposal to ensure there was more up-to-date local plan coverage. Those areas that do not have up-to-date local plans in place will be vulnerable to development taking place outside the plan process, but we are committed to supporting those who share our ambition and are working in good faith to get a plan in place to be able to do so.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
Can the Minister set out how today’s announcement will help our small and medium-sized enterprise house builder market and bring forward more sites suitable for SMEs to develop?
Matthew Pennycook
There is more to be done in this area, and SMEs and small sites can make a huge contribution to the 1.5 million home target. There are changes that have been published today in the framework that will help SME builders, not least the focus on mixed- tenure sites that we know build out faster and where SMEs can play a big role going forward.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Minister intends to impose thousands more houses on my constituency, when there are already not enough school places, not enough doctors and congested roads. Will he at least look at ways in which financial arrangements can be established that would mean that developers can be made to fund necessary infrastructure ahead of house building and sale, rather than waiting for months and possibly years after completion?
Matthew Pennycook
As I have said, we are giving a considerable amount of thought to what more we can do, in addition to the changes being made today, to ensure that the right infrastructure comes forward. I am happy to give the right hon. Gentleman’s point serious consideration.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The Minister knows, because we have discussed this before, that my constituency of Dartford is already getting on with the challenge of building new homes. Ebbsfleet garden city, the first garden city in a hundred years, aims to build 10,000 new homes over the next decade, with 50 new parks and open spaces, as well as a network of green corridors. I am delighted that the Minister has confirmed he will be visiting shortly. What more can we do to up the levels of affordable and social housing in new developments like Ebbsfleet so that everyone has the chance to live in them?
Matthew Pennycook
I look forward to my visit to Ebbsfleet, which is now building out at a faster rate than it was. We welcome its contribution. I have already referenced the changes we intend to make to strengthen the existing developer contribution system to get more out of section 106 agreements. There is more we can do in that area and, of course, through Government investment in affordable housing. We will bring forward more details in the spending review next year.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
My constituency of Cheltenham is already built up to its boundaries and is working with its neighbours on the joint local plans referenced by the Minister, in part to deal with a housing waiting list of more than 2,500 bequeathed to us by the last Government. We also have a big, sprawling town centre and plenty of empty space. What is the Minister’s message to councils that have that combination of challenges?
Matthew Pennycook
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman’s area is working in co-operation with its neighbours. As he knows, we have in place a duty to co-operate; it has not been particularly effective and we think we need to go further on strategic cross-boundary planning. To those parts of the country that wish to densify their town centres, we fully support that and are open to any conversation in particular areas about what more they think needs to come forward to allow them to bring forward plans to rejuvenate town centres and bring more residential development back into them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
He is always slightly out of my eyesight, but I call Martin Vickers.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
In reply to an earlier question, the Minister spoke of streamlining the planning system. In my 26 years as a councillor and 14 years in this House, I have heard successive Governments talk about streamlining the planning system, by which they mean taking more central control. It results in frustration among ward councillors, frustration among their constituents who feel that they are not able to participate properly and frustration for Government because, in effect, they fail to meet their targets, as I am sure this Government will. Does the Minister accept that one way of involving local communities, other than in the local plan, is to allow local councillors to work closer with their communities and have some influence over individual major developments? In that case, we would have better quality and the Government would meet their targets a lot quicker.
Matthew Pennycook
Where appropriate, local councillors, with advice from trained planning officers, should of course have a say on major outline applications. Some of the proposals we are asking for views on—we are asking for nothing more than views at an early stage, on a working paper—are about ensuring we get planning officers taking the right decisions using their expertise, with members focused on the largest and most controversial developments. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman has ever sat on a planning committee, but can he say, hand on heart, that every reserved matters application, as technical as some of them can be, should come to full planning committee? We think there are ways to streamline the system that do not involve the removal of local control and that adhere to the plan-led system philosophy that we are taking forward and value very much.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement. Across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we clearly have an ageing population. I believe there is a desperate need for dedicated apartments for those in the over-55 age group, which would free up homes, as well as social housing, back into the market. Will the Minister consider having discussions with colleagues in the Cabinet and, I suggest, the Northern Ireland Assembly to secure funding for the over-55s complexes that are needed not only in towns but in rural areas?
Matthew Pennycook
The previous Government, as the hon. Gentleman may know—again, I commend them for it—appointed an older people’s housing taskforce
“to look at options for the provision of greater choice, quality and security of housing for older people.”
That taskforce recently published its report, with a series of recommendations that we are engaging with. However, we need to give serious consideration as to how the planning system evolves to take into account demographic changes that we know we need to adapt to.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
May I suggest to the Government that this subject really warrants a full-day debate and not just a statement with questions and answers? For now, however, may I ask about one straightforward matter? Will the Minister look carefully at the relatively small number of places, including East Hampshire, with a planning area that is part-in, part-out of a national park and at the case that housing targets should be set separately for those two parts of the planning area?
Matthew Pennycook
The right hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. There are local authorities around the country where the boundaries are such that they stray into areas where environmental protections are in place, such as national parks and other things. Local areas will need to engage with the mandatory higher housing targets that we are bringing forward when coming up with local plans. Those local plans will be tested by the Planning Inspectorate to see whether there are hard constraints of the type he speaks to and therefore whether a plan is sound on that basis. Hard constraints will still be taken into account in the development and examination of local plans.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
In an earlier answer, the Minister confirmed that the Government support an infrastructure-first approach. Will he work with colleagues in the Treasury and the Department for Transport to ensure approval of A10 West Winch housing access road funding, which is essential to unlock thousands of homes that are in the local plan on the edge of King’s Lynn?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman’s request has been put on the record and I will make sure that my ministerial colleagues are made aware of it.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister today launched the NPPF in my constituency of Huntingdon, at Alconbury Weald. However, that development was planned and built under the previous Government and phases 2 and 3 will see a further 4,000 homes and significant brownfield development at scale, but it has nothing to do with the revised NPPF. It is a shame the Deputy Prime Minister did not travel the extra couple of miles down to the Envar medical waste incinerator approved by the Minister on her behalf, against local wishes, a couple of months ago.
The Minister talks about guaranteeing infrastructure. When I asked the Government about a new east coast main line station to support the 6,500 homes at Alconbury Weald, they fobbed me off with talk of an internal review. How will the NPPF unlock the infrastructure that large developments desperately need?
Matthew Pennycook
I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answers on that point.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The Minister has been in the Chamber for well over an hour. He will no doubt recognise the strength of feeling towards this subject, because it has taken so long to talk about building homes. I will give Members on the Front Bench a short moment to swap over very quickly for the next statement.
Qualifications Reform Review
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will now make a statement on the outcomes of the review of qualifications reform at level 3.
The priority for this Government is to build a skills system that will drive forward opportunity and deliver the growth that our economy needs. The post-16 skills system in England that we inherited from the previous Government fails both of those tests. In particular, the qualifications landscape is too confusing and fails to provide the clear routes to success that is needed by learners and employers. We heard strong arguments that the previous Government’s plans to remove level 3 qualifications and to limit the flexibility for schools and colleges meant that they risked leaving students with too little choice and too few opportunities.
This year, we have paused the defunding of qualifications and have undertaken a review of the qualifications that are set to have their funding removed, to see where we need to retain alternative qualifications, such as applied general qualifications or BTECs, and to consider how long we need to keep them in place. We undertook extensive stakeholder engagement, delving into the detail of qualifications with employer representative bodies, colleges, practitioners, awarding organisations and industry experts.
We recognise that certainty is very important to education providers, to students and to their parents and guardians. I reassure the House that our decisions make the position clear up to 2027. We are clear that students deserve high-quality qualifications that meet their needs, and that we must continue to develop and improve qualifications, so that they provide for the needs of students and employers.
The curriculum and assessment review will take a view on qualifications in the long term, as part of its wider consideration of how we prepare all young people for life and work, but there are some areas where we need to act in advance of its recommendations. The first change that we will make is that we will not tell providers and students which types of qualifications they can and cannot mix together. It should be for colleges and sixth forms to work with students, employers, mayors and higher education to devise the best mix for each individual and deliver the skilled young people that their local economy needs.
We will therefore not be applying the previously proposed rules of combination. There are a confusing number of qualifications in the system, and through this review, we have already identified more than 200 qualifications with low or no enrolments. We will remove funding from these in line with already published dates. This gives students and employers a simpler range of qualifications to choose from.
T-levels provide an excellent qualification option, which should be available to more learners. We introduced three new T-levels this September, and a further T-level in marketing is to be introduced from September 2025. It was fantastic to see the energy generated by this year’s T-levels Week, which highlighted the huge benefits that young people are gaining from T-levels, and their enthusiasm for the qualification. The unique industry placement aspect of T-levels is a real draw for students and is all too often not offered by other qualifications.
We have recently introduced new flexibilities to support industry placement delivery, to enable more young people to benefit from the opportunities that T-levels provide. It follows, therefore, that where learners wish to study a large qualification in a T-level route, the T-level should be the main option for them. We have moved away from blanket restrictions, such as automatically defunding any qualification that overlaps with a T-level. Instead, we have taken a practical, evidence–led approach, looking at the qualifications route by route. This will ensure that we can be confident that students have high-level choices.
On this basis, we have concluded that we will not proceed with defunding qualifications on published lists in agriculture, environment and animal care; legal, finance and accounting; business and administration; and creative and design before 2027. Following our review, we will retain funding for 157 qualifications that were due to be defunded by 31 July 2025.
In engineering and manufacturing, we will keep funding for the qualifications that were previously identified for defunding until 2027. This will allow time to update the occupational standards that are designed by employers and that underpin this large and complex route, and to establish new qualifications that meet the needs of learners, providers and employers.
In the digital sector, we are working with the T-level awarding organisation to make assessments more manageable, and plan to have the necessary changes in place for the next academic year. We are also making T-level placements more flexible, expanding the option for remote learning. This will be particularly important in the digital route. We will keep funding for the six existing large digital qualifications until 2026, to allow time to embed these key improvements. Beyond that, we will also keep funding for 13 smaller digital qualifications, so that learners have a range of choices until reformed alternatives are available.
On health, science and social care, the previous decision to defund social care qualifications left a gap, as there was a heavy T-level focus on health and science, rather than on social care. We will therefore keep funding for nine qualifications in health and social care until new qualifications in the care services route have been developed. We expect that to happen in 2026-27. We are also keeping funding beyond that for 11 qualifications in science-related subjects to give learners even more options.
On education and early years, we have heard strong support for the T-level, and so we will remove funding from existing large and medium qualifications as planned in 2025. This will direct learners who want to study a large qualification to the T-level as the highest-quality option. We are also retaining funding for six smaller qualifications to support specific occupations, such as teaching assistants, giving learners a smaller alternative.
Construction is a key part of this Government’s mission, and I am delighted to report that two of the construction T-levels continue to grow and offer high-quality options for learners. The on-site construction T-level is also providing valuable education, industry experience and a positive route into employment for those who wish take it. However, its success has been limited because of a lack of overall demand for a larger qualification at level 3. We have, as a result, concluded that the needs of learners and the economy are best met through apprenticeships and other classroom provision, and decided to cease taking new enrolments for the on-site construction T-level. Those already taking it will be able to complete it as planned and progress into positive destinations post-graduation.
To meet the economic needs of this important sector and to ensure that we can support our missions around high-quality housing, we are also keeping one large qualification in site carpentry, and in 11 other medium and small qualifications.
We must continue to improve opportunities and the quality of qualifications. We will keep qualifications only until they are no longer needed, so that learners can do the T-levels that they need to do. We will invite awarding organisations to submit further new level 3 qualifications in the spring, to continue the process of reform.
We are currently considering whether proposed T-levels in catering and beauty therapy meet the needs of learners and the economy, and we will update the sector in due course. I can confirm that any new T-level in these areas will not be rolled out until at least 2026.
These changes are a fair reflection of what we have heard, and offer a balanced approach that supports our missions of spreading opportunity and supporting economic growth. We want high-quality options, strong choices and a simpler system that is easier for learners to navigate. The approach and timescales that I have set out today represent a pragmatic and achievable journey to where we want to be. We are putting the needs of learners and our economy at the heart of how we move forward. I commend this statement to the House.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement.
For many years, people have worried about the huge number of different qualifications in further education. For many years, people have wanted us to be more like Germany and called for new, higher-quality, higher-funded, simpler qualifications. T-levels, introduced under the previous Government, are an attempt to do exactly that, with a higher unit of funding and much more work experience. Finally, we have a clear, prestigious qualification mirroring A-levels on the academic side. As the Minister will know from talking to Lord Sainsbury, part of the vision was to use T-levels to simplify the landscape, which everyone agrees is too complex. I think the sector will heave a sigh of relief that today’s announcement is finally out—we were getting to the point where literally any decision would have been better than continued indecision—but it leaves some huge unanswered questions. The Minister says that things will be clear up until 2027. In other words, we will be back here again in two years. We had a pause and a review. We will now have a longer pause and another review. At some point, the Government will have to decide. The sector wants certainty, but we know from the statement that it will not get that yet.
The Government must spell out some kind of vision for how they plan to simplify the landscape of qualifications, which for my whole lifetime everyone has agreed is far too complicated and fragmented. The Minister said in her statement that the qualifications landscape is too confusing, even as she announced that the Government have decided to keep more qualifications, particularly overlapping qualifications. I do not want to be too mean to her—these issues are not easy. In Government, we had the Wolf review. More recently, we removed a further 5,500 qualifications that had sustained low take-up, but what is this Government’s vision to simplify the landscape? Never mind the detail, what is the rough vision, and when will they set it out? If it is not T-levels and what the previous Government were planning to do, what is it?
There is also a lot more work to be done to improve T-levels. As the Minister said, the Government will allow part of the work experience to be delivered working from home, but we need much more than that. What is the plan to reduce drop-out rates, and make T-levels more appealing and easier to deliver? One of the great things about T-levels is the need to produce so much work experience—about 50% more than previous qualifications. That makes them much harder to deliver. What are the Government doing to help colleges to deliver them? On a point of process, the Government—extraordinarily, I thought—refused to publish the terms of reference for the review that has just concluded, even in response to freedom of information requests from FE Week. Will the Minister agree to publish the terms of reference now that the review has concluded? There is no reason for them not to be in the public domain.
No qualification structure will work unless the review gets the funding landscape for technical education right, so will the Minister set out the funding implications of her announcement? The Government promised that they would protect public services from the national insurance increase, but first universities and, this week, nurseries and early years providers have discovered that that was a false promise. The university fee increase has been entirely eaten up by the increase in national insurance. Now, early years providers say that the failure to compensate them for the national insurance increase is “catastrophic” and will mean that
“countless nurseries, pre-schools and childminders will be left with no option but to raise costs, reduce places or simply close their doors completely.”
So far, the Government have refused to come clean about the cost to the further education sector of the national insurance increase—a piece of information that this House deserves to know. The Government have it, but they will not release it. When staff in non-academised colleges complain about their different treatment on pay compared with academised colleges, the Government say that there will be £300 million for post-16 education, but they will not say how much of that will be eaten up by the increase in national insurance. I hope that today the Minister will finally give this House the information that it deserves to know. The Government have the information, and this House and people in the sector deserve to know it.
It is early days, but what we are looking at is ongoing uncertainty over these qualifications, no clear vision to bring about the simplification that the Government say they want, and no proper plan yet to support T-level students and providers. The House is not allowed to see the terms of reference of the review that has just concluded, or know how much the national insurance increase will cost the sector. For students and teachers alike, we have to do better than this.
Janet Daby
I thank the shadow Minister for his many points. The reason the review was so pertinent and needed to take place was because of the confusion around T-levels and how much work needed to take place—work that the Conservative Government had a lot of time to do. This Government believe that T-levels are an excellent qualification that should be available to more young people. Qualifications that overlap with T-levels will be able to co-exist while we continue to develop and improve qualifications, so that they provide for the needs of learners and employers, and support the transition to T-levels as the large technical qualification of choice. The Conservative Government’s rushed plans would have left young people looking to move into crucial sectors such as engineering or social care without options. Instead of blanket restrictions, the review will deliver on the Government’s ambition to fix the foundations of the economy and deliver growth.
As the shadow Minister mentioned, T-levels are still in the early stage of implementation, and the retention rate is improving. We expect that trend to be maintained as they continue to bed in. Career guidance for potential students is key, and we are raising careers advisers’ awareness of the benefits of T-levels. The shadow Minister will be aware of the announcement in the October Budget of £300 million of additional revenue funding for further education and £300 million of new capital investment. That settlement reaffirms and expands the Government’s commitment to skills by providing an additional £3 million for further education to ensure that young people are developing the skills that the country needs. In addition, the Government have provided £300 million of new funding to support colleges to maintain, improve and ensure the suitability of the FE estate, and address conditions and capacity issues. We will set out in due course how that will be distributed.
There are many areas in which the Government are making advancements, and we are very aware that students need to be supported. Combinations of learning are absolutely the right thing for them. We remain ambitious for students. I will endeavour to get back to the shadow Minister on the terms of reference.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Education Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I pay tribute to everyone who works in further education—a vital sector that makes a transformative difference, and whose importance is often not properly recognised. Vocational and technical courses and qualifications are a critical part of our education system, yet schools, colleges and students have faced great uncertainty as a consequence of the previous Government’s decision to defund a number of applied general qualifications. I welcome the additional certainty that the Minister has provided by committing to maintain some AGQs and pause any further changes until 2027.
The landscape of vocational qualifications is indeed too complex and confusing, but the cliff-edge approach adopted by the previous Government had significant adverse consequences. My Committee has heard evidence that the previous Government’s plans have already had material impacts, because some colleges have modelled the proposed reduction in courses and now face potential insolvency as a result. What support will the Government provide to colleges that have already planned and committed to their qualification offering for September 2025, based on the previous Government’s decision to defund, and now face further changes?
The Committee has also heard evidence of the success of T-levels for those who complete them, particularly in areas such as healthcare. However, T-levels account for just 10% of all vocational courses, and continue to have a worryingly high drop-out rate. What further work are the Government planning between now and 2027 to reform T-levels and make them accessible to a wider range of students, including students with special educational needs and disabilities, before any further changes to AGQs are made? My Committee understands the value and potential of T-levels, but it is vital that in pursuing this route as the predominant option for technical and vocational training, the Government are not locking some young people out of the opportunity to learn, succeed and thrive.
Janet Daby
I join the Chair of the Education Committee in praising many colleges, the sector, and teachers themselves. She is right to mention the track record of the previous Government. We very much want to support students in their learning, and especially colleges. Where colleges find that they have to change course, or where there are issues with courses, I invite them to make that known to the Department, to see what support can be provided. The £300 million that has been invested in this area should go some way to providing it. T-levels need much focus through positive communication, and we need to ensure that young people enrol in the right courses. There is a series of events and webinars to inform schools, colleges and other professionals working in educational settings about the outcomes of the review. The Department will publish further information, advice and guidance in relation to 16-to-19 study programmes in the new year.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. In the years since the Conservatives’ first botched moves towards prematurely scrapping a range of vocational qualifications, the Liberal Democrats have repeatedly warned of the consequences of that ill thought-through, counterproductive policy, so it is to be welcomed that the Government have heard our and the sector’s concerns. The announcement is a welcome step forward to protect student choice and local decision making, and it is a more pragmatic, rather than ideological, approach. It was clear that the decision to defund was premature. T-levels, while a welcome innovation, had not had enough time to bed in to allow an informed decision, and that risked too many young people being left without appropriate options. Now the Government are providing clarity up to 2027, will the Minister lay out the processes for monitoring and reviewing the impact of those changes until then? Will she lay out the timeline for the longer-term curriculum and assessment review in greater detail?
I have one particular area of concern in the statement, and that is around early years education. Research last year showed that rather than embracing the T-level in education and early years, students overwhelmingly opted for the overlapping qualifications earmarked for defunding. Now we hear the Government will go ahead and proceed with that defunding. Given that reality, how does the announcement square with the Government’s focus and rhetoric around prioritising early years? How will the Government improve recruitment and training in that sector if it is not meeting students’ needs where they are? The point is reflective of a broader question on the announcement, which is: what are the Government’s overarching guiding principles as to which courses will be funded and which will not? The rationale laid out by the Minister suggests they are working on a case-by-case basis, but in the interests of long-term stability and clarity, should the Government not be laying out their principles for how they will approach those decisions more strategically?
Finally, as students face a welcome range of post-16 options—as we have heard, it is a confusing landscape—it is essential that they have excellent support in making those important decisions. How will the Government ensure that all students have access to high-quality careers guidance?
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Member for the many points she made and for acknowledging the Government’s pragmatic response. It was recognised that the previous Government were not focused on social care and childcare, so we needed to relook at those areas and ensure that level 3 and level 2 placements were available. She will be aware that we are conducting the curriculum and assessment review, and the qualifications reform will be connected to the wider review, which will be published next year. There are various other ways that qualifications reform is being monitored in terms of the national audit. We are reviewing the process on an ongoing basis. As well as seeing where the uptake is from students—this is where Skills England will come into play—we are looking at ensuring that organisations and employers are involved in the types of training and courses available for young people, so the connection is very much there. We will follow through with more detail in due course.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The certainty that the statement provides will be an early Christmas present for the further education sector. Last month, I visited Bracknell and Wokingham college, a fantastic FE provider in my constituency where students learn everything from green construction to nursing, electric car maintenance to career guidance, which shows the breadth of opportunities available through the FE sector. Incidentally, those are all skills that will underpin the Government’s missions. The FE sector is vital not only in breaking down barriers to opportunity but as a vehicle for growth, providing the green skills that are necessary to our economy and to support those missions. What more support can the Government put in place for the FE sector, in particular around the difficult issue of pay settlements for FE teachers?
Janet Daby
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the many important contributions of the FE sector. Pay is not currently set by the pay review bodies, including for FE, and the Government do not set recommended pay in further education. With that said, my noble Friend the Minister has full knowledge of the needs and crucial role of the FE college sector.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
When the Minister’s other noble Friend—the distinguished Labour peer Lord Sainsbury—conducted his landmark review of technical and vocational qualifications, he found that they were not only multitudinous and heavily overlapping but had become divorced to a large extent from the very sectors of industry that they were supposed to serve. The overhanging qualifications reform is a massive power grab that the new Government are carrying out, creating a body called Skills England and abolishing the independent institute that oversees technical education standards. Skills England is not even a separate body; it is part of the Department for Education management structure. Under the legislation going through Parliament, the Secretary of State will take to herself the power to oversee standards in technical education. That would not be acceptable for A-levels so, as I asked in Westminster Hall the other day, how can it be possibly acceptable for T-levels? What does that say about this Government’s commitment to parity of esteem?
Janet Daby
I will ask my noble Friend the Minister to get back to the right hon. Gentleman on that point.
May I make a correction to what I said in my statement? Qualifications in agriculture, environment and animal care, legal, finance and accounting, business and administration and creative design will not be defunded before 2027, not 2024.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am minded of that old adage—I suppose I am old enough to remember all these things—that when you ask a fish to climb a tree, it does not make the fish stupid; it just cannot do it. My concern with the qualification review is that we will not have the breadth of scale that allows for student choice and accessibility, and it will try to pinpoint people into roles that they cannot be successful in. How can the Minister ensure that those gifted in academia will have that clear path, and those gifted with job skills will find their place as well, alongside those still searching for their calling who are looking for wide subjects to keep many doors open for their future?
Janet Daby
We are keeping 157 of the courses that were outlined to be defunded. That will be reviewed on an ongoing basis depending on uptake. Our focus is very much on economic growth, and our mission is for growth and ensuring that young people have opportunities in T-levels and other qualifications to ensure that they are able to get the jobs that are desperately needed in our country. We are not removing the rules of combination. More variation should support 16 to 19-year-olds to have access to the jobs they wish to do in the future.
Prison Capacity Strategy
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before we come to the statement on the Government’s 10-year prison capacity strategy, I note that it was published yesterday, the day after Justice questions in the House. This timing was unfortunate, as publishing it a day or two earlier would have given hon. Members an opportunity to put topical questions to Ministers on the new strategy, so I am very pleased that the Minister has come to the House today to make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I hear your comments. With your permission, I will make a statement on the 10-year prison capacity strategy and annual prison capacity statement that the Government published yesterday. As the House will be aware, publishing these documents makes good on a pledge made to this House by the Lord Chancellor in July when she came before the House to set out the emergency measures that we were forced to take to prevent our prisons from filling up entirely.
Let me begin by setting out some context on prison places. As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, on 4 December, the National Audit Office published a scathing report, “Increasing the capacity of the prison estate to meet demand”. That report is unequivocal in its criticism of the previous Government’s approach to the criminal justice system, including their failure to deliver on their commitment to build 20,000 additional prison places by the mid-2020s. Only 500 additional cells were added to the overall stock of prison places. While the previous Government continued to promise prison places, there were significant delays to projects—in some cases, they ran years behind schedule—and a failure to address rising demand has left the system thousands of places short of the capacity it requires.
The expected cost of the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service’s prison expansion portfolio to build the 20,000 additional places is currently estimated to be £9.4 billion to £10.1 billion, at least £4.2 billion higher than the estimate in the 2021 spending review carried out by the previous Government. None of this was revealed by Ministers at the time; it only came to light when the Government were elected in July of this year.
It is now clear that even the original mid-2020s commitment was not sufficient to keep pace with the expected demand on prison places, according to the last Government’s own projections. This put the viability of the entire system in jeopardy. Had we run out of prison places, police would not have been able to make arrests and courts could not have held trials. It could have led to a total breakdown of law and order in our country, with all the associated risks to public safety. That is why we were forced to take emergency action, releasing some prisoners earlier than they otherwise would have been—in most cases, by only a few weeks or months. That bought us precious breathing space, but if we do not act, our prisons will fill up again. We must therefore act, including by building more prison places as a matter of urgency.
Integral to our plan for change is ensuring that we have the prison places we need to lock up dangerous criminals and keep the public safe. The 10-year prison capacity strategy sets out how we will deliver that. The strategy is detailed, setting out our commitment to build the 14,000 places that the last Government failed to deliver as part of their 20,000 prison places programme, with the aim of getting that work completed by 2031. It further sets out what we will do: where, when and how we will build new prisons and expand existing ones through additional houseblocks, refurbishments and temporary accommodation.
The strategy is also realistic. As the House knows, prison building is an extraordinarily complex and expensive undertaking. In particular, the planning process to get sites approved for development is complicated and time-consuming. That is why our delivery plans include contingency prison places, which will provide resilience in our building programme should a project become undeliverable or provide poor value for money that cannot be taken forward. We are also ambitious; the strategy sets out how we will work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to streamline the delivery of prison supply, including important reforms to the planning system and delivering on our commitment to recognise prisons as nationally important infrastructure. It is also this Government’s ambition to secure new land, so that we are always ready should further prison builds be required in the future.
We are committed to improving transparency, now and in the future. As such, when parliamentary time allows, we will legislate to make it a statutory requirement for the Government to publish an annual statement on prison capacity like the one we have published. That annual statement will set out prison population projections, the Department’s plan for supply, and the current probation capacity position. It fulfils our transparency commitment for 2024 and, crucially, will hold us and future Governments to account on long-term planning, so that decisions on prison demand and supply are in balance and the public are no longer kept in the dark—as they have been—about the state of our nation’s prisons.
Finally, we are being honest with this House and the public about what must happen next. Building enough prison places is only one part of a much wider solution; as the Government have already made clear, we cannot simply build our way out of these problems. In the coming years, the prison population will continue to increase more quickly than we can build new prisons. That is why in October, we launched the independent sentencing review chaired by the former Lord Chancellor, David Gauke, alongside a panel of experts including the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett. That review will take a bipartisan look at an issue that has been a political football for far too long, punted about by both sides.
The aim of the review is to ensure that we are never again left in a position where we have more prisoners than places available. It will help us to ensure that there is always a prison place for dangerous offenders, that prisons help offenders turn their lives around and bring down reoffending rates, meaning fewer victims, and that the range of punishments for use outside of prison is expanded. The review will make its recommendations in the spring. The Government look forward to responding as quickly as possible so that we can begin to implement any necessary policy changes urgently.
When this Government took office just five months ago, we inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. Instead of dithering and delaying, we have taken the difficult decisions necessary to stop the criminal justice system from grinding to a halt altogether, which could have led to a total collapse of law and order in our country. However, this is not an overnight fix, and the journey ahead of us is long. This 10-year prison capacity strategy and annual statement, along with the independent sentencing review, are critical steps on that journey. The last Government left our prisons in crisis, putting the public at risk of harm. We will fix our prisons for good, keeping the public safe and restoring their confidence in the criminal justice system.
I commend this statement to the House.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her remarks. I also thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling out what was quite obviously an attempt to avoid scrutiny this week. I also thank the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), for his efforts to ensure that we had a proper statement today.
I begin by making one thing absolutely clear: if Labour MPs think that spending the next few years talking about our record in government is going to stop this Opposition from holding them to account, they are dead wrong. There will be no free passes for them on these Benches. It is already clear to the British public why the Government desperately want them: they are floundering and they know it.
I say to the Minister that I will happily spend all day comparing records of Governments and inheritances. Labour MPs and the Minister decry our record of having had to release 5,500 prisoners early, but the last Labour Government released not just 5,500 or even 10,000 prisoners early. By the end of their time in office, they had released 80,000 prisoners early. That was the state of the system when Labour was in charge, and that does not even include the systematic erosion of the punishment element of our justice system brought about by Labour’s introduction of blanket halfway release for essentially the entire prison population. Labour did not call it early release, but that is what the British public know it to be.
That was the record of the Labour Government that we had to try to turn around. I am proud of the fact that we began to unpick that record by reducing early release for the most serious offenders from halfway to two thirds, and that we introduced a whole-life tariff for premeditated child murder and increased maximum sentences for child abusers and others. Let us be absolutely clear: the root cause of the problem that we now face is a spike in the remand population. We have approximately 7,000 more people in prison on remand than we normally would. That unprecedented spike has occurred as a direct result of covid, and the Government know that.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Will the shadow Minister give way?
Dr Mullan
No—you cannot give way on a statement.
In fact, prior to covid, we had got the Crown court backlog down to a lower level than it had been under the last Labour Government, another record of which we can be proud. To try to tackle the problem, we increased sitting days and introduced Nightingale courts, and contrary to what the Government have said, we were clear that we would carry on doing everything possible to bring that number down. We did not refuse the judiciary extra sitting days, as this Government have done, nor would we have refused them.
We had agreed a floor on sitting days, not a cap, and negotiations were ongoing. If the judiciary had come to us and asked for more sitting days, we would have responded to that—and not by saying no, which is what this Labour Government have done.
In the prison population estimates that sit alongside this plan is the proof that the Government truly have already given up on fixing this problem. Not only do their projections not target the remand population being brought down, but they show it going up, which means more victims waiting for trials and more prisoners released early. We should be building more prison spaces, and under our leadership we actually increased prison capacity at the fastest rate in living memory. That was not so we could accommodate more people on remand, but so we could go even further in ensuring that offenders are properly punished and victims get justice.
The Government want to talk about the last 14 years, but I am afraid this plan leaves me asking what they were doing for those 14 years. They came into office telling the British public they had it all worked out. What have they done on sentencing? They have asked someone else to do a review. What have they done on how we prosecute murder? They have asked someone else to do a review. What ideas have they come into office with for tackling the court backlog? Absolutely none. Today, as the Minister knows, we have simply had a reannouncement of our planned prison building programme, with four new prisons, all of which were already announced or under way before Labour took office. This is not a bold new strategy; it is a continuation of work started under the Conservative Government.
There are of course some important questions for the Minister. First, given that we did not do so, why have the Government refused additional Crown court sitting days to the judiciary? Secondly, why do their prison population figures project an increase in the remand population? Thirdly, given that they are committed to building more prison spaces whatever the sentencing review says—they will have to decide that; they cannot park responsibility with an independent review—will she commit to continuing our programme of increasing the amount of time that the most serious offenders stay in prison? Fourthly, missing from the prison population figures is any transparency at all about the number of foreign offenders, so what are their estimates for the foreign offender population in our prisons in future years?
The Government blame us for their early releases, but the situation was nothing compared with the scale of the early releases they themselves oversaw when they were last in office. They released prisoners they should not have done, they botched the legislation and had to come back to this House to correct it, they let people out without tags who should have been tagged, and they have given up on fixing the fundamental issue of the remand population. The Leader of the Opposition has said that
“we did not get everything right in government”,
and she knows there are no easy answers to these challenges, only trade-offs. However, this Government are making it clearer and clearer how not to do it, and we on these Benches will be there every step of the way so that the British public know exactly that.
Alex Davies-Jones
Yet again, zero humility from the people who put us in this crisis—it is absolutely staggering to think that that is what the Opposition want to tell the British people. There was no apology for the crisis they left us. When we took office in July, we were just days away from a complete collapse of our criminal justice system because of the inheritance we received from the previous Government. The fact is that this Government are taking action. We have increased Crown court sitting days—there are 500 more—to ensure that we have capacity in the system, and magistrates’ sentencing powers have been increased from six to 12 months, freeing up 2,000 more days in the Crown court.
I am glad the shadow Minister mentioned foreign national offenders, because like him I believe that we need to be doing more to deport the foreign national offenders in our jails. However, there is a difference between him and me, because this Government are actually doing something about it—less rhetoric, more action. We are on track to deport more foreign nationals from our prisons than at any time in our recent history. Since coming into office, this Government have deported more than 1,500 foreign national offenders, which is more than at this time last year, and who was the Immigration Minister then? Oh, that’s right: it was none other than the shadow Secretary of State for Justice himself. If it was that easy, why did he not do it after 14 years in Government? This Government are taking action to ensure that we have a criminal justice system that is fit for purpose.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I welcome the prison capacity strategy. Given the crumbling condition of much of the prison estate, it is right that the Government are pressing ahead with the delivery of modern prisons. I also welcome the explicit linking of this strategy to the independent sentencing review, and the recognition that, without changes to sentencing policy, prisons could be full again in a year’s time, which would mean extending early release. Does the Minister agree that a long-term reduction in prisoner numbers in a way that best protects the public requires a strategy for rehabilitation to reduce reoffending, and when will the Government share their proposals for achieving that?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee for his questions. I am aware that the Lord Chancellor is due to give evidence to his Committee next week, and I am sure she will outline those steps in more detail. The capacity strategy that we have published is just one step in our plan, as well as going forward with building more prisons. We need every single element of our justice system to be working, and that includes the independent sentencing review. We look forward to the recommendations coming next year, so that we can take them forward and we never have to be in this position again. We look forward to setting out our plans in due course.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement, and I thank the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), for the point of order that I think helped to bring the Minister to the House with this statement today.
Years of neglect under the previous Conservative Government have left our prisons overcrowded and unequipped to provide the tough rehabilitation required, which has let down victims and survivors in my patch and across the country. In fact, as recently as this week, the Conservative Opposition let down those victims and survivors by voting against the measure to exclude people such as stalkers and murderers from the early release scheme.
The result of the Conservatives’ incompetence is the SDS40 scheme—the standard determinate sentences early release scheme—which has seen thousands of ex-offenders released early to unlock emergency prison places. The Minister knows my concerns about that scheme, particularly in relation to domestic abuse, and I hope she will support my proposals to patch it up. Will she, however, confirm what the criteria will be for reviewing the scheme next year?
Ultimately, Liberal Democrats believe that we need a sustainable solution to tackling this problem, because more prisons mean more offenders, more offenders mean more victims, and more victims mean more failure. With 80% of people in prison being reoffenders, we know that reducing reoffending must be the key. I know that from having spent my career before reaching this place supporting kids out of crime and gangs, so why, in a prison capacity statement of over 1,000 words, was reducing reoffending mentioned just once? Will the Minister reaffirm her commitment to that effort, and can she provide more details on how she will reduce reoffending to protect victims and survivors across this country?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesman for his comments, and he is right to raise the issue of reoffending. It is important to note that we have prison capacity available to protect the public, to lock up high-risk offenders and to ensure we have public safety measures available, but we obviously see tackling reoffending as a serious priority. We are looking at it across Government and pulling every lever available to us. Every Department must come together to tackle it, and part of that is the independent sentencing review. As he knows full well, however, when we have a prison population that is running at boiling hot, we cannot get into our prisons and do rehabilitation work. Yesterday, I was really pleased to visit His Majesty’s Prison Downview and see the vital work being done with the women in that prison, which is really important to achieve rehabilitation on the outside, prevent reoffending and protect the public.
On SDS40, the hon. Member will know that we had to take immediate action within days of coming into office to protect the public, and to ensure we had places in our prisons to lock up high-risk offenders and keep the public safe. Legally, we could only exclude offences, not offenders, and we did introduce a wider set of exclusions than under the last Government’s early release scheme. All offenders released under the scheme are on licence and are subject to recall. We are working to ensure that we never again get into the position of having emergency releases, and that we have prison places available and can work on rehabilitating our prisoners so that they can serve a vital role in society.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I was just going to refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a qualified solicitor, and I am also a member of the Justice Committee under the excellent chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter).
I thank the Minister for the statement and the commitments she has made. I must admit that my head is still spinning from the extraordinary response from the Tories’ spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), given their absolute failure over the last 14 years to build the prison places that they legislated for, so we will have no more of that hypocrisy.
I welcome the publication of the 10-year prison capacity strategy, which I know the Justice Committee will scrutinise carefully. Concerningly, however, it notes that we could run out of prison spaces by as early as November 2025. Aside from the findings of the independent sentencing review, when they come, what other steps does the Minister anticipate the Department taking to bridge the potential gap in prison places?
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend will know that we are straining every sinew to ensure we get this right. This is a whole-system approach. Justice is a system, and we need every part of it to be working for it to work correctly. My colleague the Prisons Minister in the other place is due to visit Texas to learn from the interesting model there, where offenders earn time off their custodial sentence for good behaviour. Texas has cut crime by a third. We are also looking at new advances in technology to see how they could help. For example, in Singapore artificial intelligence, combined with surveillance cameras, monitors offenders and spots moments that could escalate into violence. That is also being done in the Netherlands. A lot of options are available to us.
The other thing we are doing in the immediate term is increasing the sentencing powers of magistrates courts from six to 12 months’ maximum imprisonment for a single triable either way offence. That will also help us to bear down on the large remand population by ensuring that those on remand are sentenced far more quickly.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
This strategy does little more than commit to deliver the 14,000 places that the previous Government committed to delivering, except that it will cost more and take longer. To what extent have the Government factored in optimism bias when working out the delivery timeframe?
Alex Davies-Jones
Honestly, the display from the Conservative party is staggering given the inheritance we were left with, and there is still no humility whatsoever. We have published a realistic strategy for how we plan to deliver this, with contingency timelines built in, offering real solutions. As I said, this is less of the rhetoric than we got from the Conservative party, and more actual action on delivering these places. You failed to build—[Interruption.] The Conservative party failed to build these places, but we are going to deliver them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Exactly. The Minister knows that “you” would refer to me, and that would not be appropriate.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The Conservative Government’s dereliction of duty meant that they failed to deliver 20,000 promised prison places, which exposes the hypocrisy in any Conservative claims to be the party of law and order. I welcome the new Government’s 10-year prison capacity statement. Does the Minister agree that publishing an annual statement on prison places will allow transparency, accountability, and affirm that Labour is the party of law and order?
Alex Davies-Jones
I could not agree more. The Labour party is being honest with the public about the situation that we inherited. We are publishing our plan to be transparent about how we will deliver, and we will commit to doing that annually to ensure that the public are never again left in the dark about the state of our prisons.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
Since this Government introduced their early release policy, we have seen criminals who should be in jail out on the streets enjoying themselves with champagne, with one even thanking the Prime Minister personally. Instead of letting those dangerous people out of jail, it would be much better to sort out the remand backlog and the increase of 7,000 in the number of prison places taken up by people on remand. Instead, the Government are capping the number of sitting days. The Minister says that the number of sitting days is adequate. At what point will the number of prisoners in our jails waiting on remand be returned to the pre-pandemic level? What is the date by which that will be achieved?
Alex Davies-Jones
I have outlined the actions we are taking to tackle the remand population in our prisons. We are dealing with the inheritance that we received from the previous Government. We have increased Crown court sitting days and increased sentencing powers for our magistrates courts. We will publish our plans in due course, and we are being transparent with the House. The Lord Chancellor will be in front of the Justice Committee next week, and I am sure she will be happy to answer those questions then.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Having listened to some of the contributions from Conservative Members, I cannot quite believe my ears. They are coming to this place and suggesting that they should be proud of leaving this Government a justice system with fewer than 100 places in men’s prisons across England and Wales. Would a better response to the statement not have been a much simpler, one-word answer—sorry?
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Sorry seems to be the hardest word for the Conservative party. This Government have started as they mean to go on. That is why within the first six months we have already delivered nearly 500 places, and pledged to continue building the remaining places of that 20,000-place prison building programme. We have also launched the independent sentencing review, in parallel with our 10-year prison capacity strategy. That review will ensure that sentences deliver better outcomes for prisoners and protect the public, and that we will always have space to lock up dangerous offenders.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
The Minister likes to talk about inheritances, but if she checks the record, she will discover that prison overcrowding was higher in 2008, 2009 and 2010 than it was in 2024. It is true that we brought back longer sentences for the worst offenders. That was the right thing to do. It is also true that crime came down.
There are two enormous areas that the Minister needs to work on—or perhaps I should say continue the work we were doing in government. One is the population on remand and the length of time people spend on remand. The other is at a different point in someone’s sentence, and the length of time they wait for a Parole Board hearing. We need more capacity to replace the older capacity with newer prisons, which are more conducive to rehabilitation and to getting people on to a stable path and into work.
I welcome the Minister’s continuing with the previous Government’s programme. I just hope it is more successful than when Gordon Brown’s Government tried to build the Titan prisons. If they had been built, we would not be having this conversation at all.
Alex Davies-Jones
I believe the right hon. Gentleman was the prisons Minister in the previous Government, so he will know all too well the impact that this situation has had, yet they failed to build the amount of prison places we need and there is no apology, yet again, to the British public for the crisis we have inherited. We need a resilient and functioning prison estate to ensure that prisoners have the opportunity to be rehabilitated, as the right hon. Gentleman said. We are tackling our remand population, increasing the sentencing powers of magistrates, and building those new prison places he mentioned. As I said, we are taking action and delivering on our promises, whereas the previous Government failed to deliver.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
The Minister is aware of my view that it is folly to build new prisons to increase capacity. All we will do is create more prisoners and more overcrowding—it is a supply-led industry. Will she confirm what new ideas will be incorporated into the new prisons? Rehabilitation, not incarceration, is the key to addressing criminality.
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. We cannot build our way out of this problem, and the prison population will only continue to increase more quickly than we can build new prisons. That is why the 10-year prison capacity strategy is just one part of that prolonged solution. The second part is the independent sentencing review, which we have outlined. Focusing on preventing reoffending is crucial to this Government’s mission to build safer streets. For example, the Government have committed to halving the prevalence of violence against women and girls and halving knife crime within a decade, and I will work closely with Ministers across Government to ensure that we deliver on those bold ambitions.
LGBT Veterans: Etherton Review
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Lord Etherton’s independent review into the treatment of LGBT veterans.
In July last year, Lord Etherton’s report on LGBT veterans shone a much needed light on a dark period in Britain’s military history: an era between 1967 and 2000 when LGBT people were banned from serving in our armed forces; an era when homophobic bullying, harassment and abuse were widespread; an era when LGBT personnel were demoted, dismissed, or driven out of the forces because of their sexuality. The testimony of those who gave evidence to Lord Etherton’s review and who have courageously campaigned for justice are truly harrowing. The very values of a tolerant western democracy that we expected those forces personnel to defend were denied to them. It was profoundly wrong. I have been determined as Defence Secretary that we will continue the work of the previous Government to deal with the injustices suffered by so many LGBT personnel.
I am grateful to Lord Etherton for his work and for his report. I am grateful also for the support of Fighting With Pride and the coalition of more than 20 charities that back its work. I am grateful to them for providing the Government with invaluable guidance and advice on a range of restorative actions, some of which I am able to announce today. I am also grateful for the very small team of officials who have worked from the outset within the MOD on this area. I am grateful, too, for how Members from all parts of the House have come together to recognise the injustice and to support the actions that first the previous Government and now this one are willing to take.
This is unfinished business for Labour. We lifted the ban in 2000. We argued for the Etherton review in the Armed Forces Bill in 2001. We welcomed the Etherton review’s recommendations and publication. In opposition, we called on the previous Government to deliver on the previous Defence Secretary’s pledge for a debate in this House to, as he said,
“make sure that the House properly debates the report and the Government’s response to it”.—[Official Report, 19 July 2023; Vol. 736, c. 921.]
Today, this Government delivers on that commitment, and it is an honour for me as Defence Secretary to open the debate.
In doing so, I will update the House on the actions we are taking as a new Government to right the historic wrongs to LGBT veterans. First, among the remaining recommendations made by Etherton, I can announce today that we are establishing a financial recognition scheme. When that scheme goes live tomorrow, it will mean that almost all of the 49 recommendations made by Lord Etherton will have been delivered. Recommendations 28 and 29 in his report specifically refer to financial award —a tangible payment—to reflect Government accountability and our determination to recognise these historic failings.
I am pleased to announce today that we are launching an LGBT financial recognition scheme, with a total budget of £75 million. That is 50% higher than the level recommended in the Etherton review and the cap set by the last Government. This financial recognition scheme will open tomorrow, one year to the day since the previous Government responded to Lord Etherton’s report.
The scheme provides two types of payment to recognise the discrimination and detriment suffered by LGBT personnel under the ban. The first is for those who were dismissed or discharged. It will be available to veterans who were dismissed or administratively discharged, including officers instructed to resign because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or their gender identity under the ban. The payment will be at a flat rate of £50,000. The second is for those who were impacted in other ways. This LGBT impact payment is open to all those who experienced pain and suffering under the ban, including harassment, intrusive investigations and in some cases imprisonment. The impact payment will be assessed by an independent panel, with tariffs ranging between £1,000 and £20,000 to make the awards fair and proportionate to each individual. The two payments will run concurrently as part of a single financial recognition scheme. We have also set aside funding from the MOD to support those charities that can advise applicants on the schemes.
As a result of the additional funding we have allocated, payments can reach up to a maximum of £70,000 for those who were most impacted and most hurt and who qualify for both awards. The scheme will remain open for two years, and applications for payments from the scheme from terminally ill veterans will be prioritised. All payments, from both schemes, will be exempt from income tax and will not affect benefits that applicants may receive. The scheme will open tomorrow morning, and fuller details will be online at that point. I hope that our decision to listen to the views expressed on the last Government’s plans, to uplift the value of this scheme and to deliver it within one year of the recommendations being accepted demonstrate our profound regret and our determination to do right by our LGBT personnel.
Today, I can make three additional important restorative announcements. First, those who were administratively discharged based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation will be able to apply to get their records set straight. As a result, the ban will be shown as the reason for their discharge, finally removing any blame or dishonour on their record for those who have served. Secondly, we will restore the ranks of veterans who had them reduced as a result of the ban, ensuring that they regain the rank they rightfully earned in service. Thirdly, while not within the scope of Lord Etherton’s review, which covered the ban between 1967 and 2000, we also want to acknowledge any LGBT veterans who served before 1967 and who may have suffered under the ban. We are taking further action to recognise their service and contribution. As a result, these veterans can now apply to have their administrative discharges qualified, their rank restored if it had been reduced, and their certificates of service reissued. Former officers may also apply to have their service details published in the Gazette as part of the official record.
Working on these restorative measures and meeting affected veterans have not been easy, but they have shown me how much progress our modern armed forces are making. There has been a change in culture and a change in prevailing attitudes, and Britain’s military today is more inclusive and more tolerant than in the past. Each of the services has held presentation ceremonies to welcome LGBT veterans back into the family, where they have always belonged. While there has been change, and there has been progress, there is no place for prejudice in the modern armed forces. We still have more to do to reinforce zero tolerance of any discrimination or abuse anywhere in defence.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I have a constituent who was not a member of the armed forces, but a member of the secret service. He lost his job in the 1980s because he was gay. There is no compensation for him at the moment. I suspect it may not be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, but does he not agree that there should be parity of treatment across the forces? We rely on our secret service as much as we do our armed forces. Surely what is fair for them should be fair for those who have given their time and risked their lives in the service of our country.
John Healey
My right hon. Friend makes the powerful point that this discrimination, harassment and abuse—systematic in some cases—is not and was not confined in the past to the military. That concern has been raised by civilians at times within the wider defence field. I and Ministers in this team are as concerned about it there as in the military, but I think she will appreciate that we ask those who put on a uniform for our country to take on a special role, to step forward and to be willing to give their lives to defend the rest of us. When those basic values that they fight for and that our country stands for are denied to them as part of their service, that is a deep injustice, and Lord Etherton’s report gives us the basis for recognition and restoration. That is the focus of my concern in this debate.
In September, the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) and I were proud to present the first Etherton ribbons to veterans, as a way of acknowledging the mistreatment of those affected by the ban.The Government are delivering for defence and delivering for LGBT veterans.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I am intervening on my right hon. Friend because I have to chair Westminster Hall in an hour, so I cannot take part in the debate.
My constituent not only lost his career in the Royal Air Force but was subjected to abuse when he was arrested, including constant internal examinations. He was beaten, he was kicked and he was spat at. He was marched across the parade ground to his billet, where his personal belongings were gone through. He was humiliated. Was that sanctioned by the Ministry of Defence at the time? Was it sanctioned by senior officers, or were those individuals working on their own? They acted like sadistic animals towards my constituent. Something needs to be done to investigate that.
John Healey
My hon. Friend has been one of the most consistent and forceful voices on this historic abuse and demands for the Government now to provide some justice. He has raised that case in this House before. I do not know whether his constituent gave evidence to the Etherton review. If he did, he would have been one of over 1,100 individual LGBT veterans who served and had stories to report to Etherton, often of the sort of abuse that my hon. Friend talked about. It was based on that experience that Etherton made his recommendations. It was based on those recommendations that we make these announcements today. It is from tomorrow that we will open the scheme to start assessing and then making payments that recognise that injustice.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for making a really passionate speech. My constituent Ed Hall, who is in the Gallery, was one of the founding members of the legal campaign to lift the ban. Ed was sacked from the Royal Navy for being gay in 1988 and founded the first legal challenge group in 1994. When I met him, he spoke about people who had been investigated, about humiliation and stigma, and about people who were sacked. Many were made homeless simply because of who they loved and their sexuality. Will the Secretary of State join me in commending my constituent Ed Hall for his tireless work? It has helped to deliver justice today for so many LGBT+ veterans, and which is, as Ed has said,
“A close to the shameful chapter in recent British military history”.
John Healey
My hon. Friend makes a moving and powerful intervention. Although courageous, relentless, energetic groups such as Fighting With Pride have in many ways led the charge, that was opened up by the stance of courageous individuals such as her constituent who had suffered but were prepared to speak out about their experience, which gave voice to the experience of many more.
The whole history of social change and progress in our country is based on brave individuals who at the outset will not stand for injustice, will not stand for that sort of harassment and will speak out. They start the movement that can bring pressure on Governments and others to change. The case that she cites stands for a number of LGBT veterans: people who served this country and were not served well by our military at that time. I hope that her constituent and her constituent’s family will welcome the announcement, and I hope that they will be able to take advantage of the schemes that we will open up tomorrow.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
I welcome the tone and tenor of the Secretary of State’s speech. I wonder if he could assist the House in setting out the steps that the Government intend to take to ensure the reliability of gathering data about the size of the cohort who are affected and may be eligible for the compensation scheme.
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible point. The shadow Defence Secretary will know—he and his colleagues started this work before the election—that one of, I would argue, the strengths of the announcement and the scheme we are able to put in place today is the close work we have done with veterans’ groups and Fighting With Pride, as well as with historians and those with access to records, to make our best assessment of the number of veterans who may be affected and may be eligible, and may therefore want to take advantage of these financial recognition schemes. We have set the budgets for the schemes and set the levels of award in the light of them. We will see how that goes.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement, and in particular the additional funds found to support charities who will help LGBT veterans with their applications. One of my constituents wrote to me with a most harrowing story about how his career in the armed forces ended with an investigation by the Royal Military Police. He said that every aspect of his life had been greatly affected since the initial investigation, with his housing, employment, health and family life all having suffered as a result of the ban, which was ruled illegal in 1999. Will my right hon. Friend outline when eligible LGBT veterans impacted by the ban can expect to receive their financial recognition?
John Healey
They can expect to be able to get the full details from 9 o’clock tomorrow. They can expect to be able to complete the details and respond to the information required from tomorrow. I am conscious that, for many of these veterans, time is ticking, and I am determined that the scheme will not take long to make its proper decisions. Therefore, soon into the new year, LGBT veterans who are confirmed as eligible should expect payment.
I look forward, by the way, to the large number of contributions that there will be in the debate. As I wind up, I want to emphasise two or three points. This is a Government delivering for defence. This is a Government delivering for LGBT veterans. On behalf of the Government, I want to apologise without reservation for the pain and injustice caused during this dark chapter of our armed forces’ history. The treatment of LGBT veterans was a moral stain on our nation. It is shameful that those who put themselves in harm’s way to defend our country were treated in such callous and unjust ways.
Our Government will now right those wrongs of the past. That is why we are providing financial recognition to veterans. It is why we are making sure that payments will be fair, proportionate and prompt, and it is why we are delivering on the remaining recommendations of the Etherton report. We will learn the lessons from that report. We will never forget the pain and trauma that LGBT veterans were subjected to between 1967 and 2000. We will root out any remaining prejudice and abuse wherever it rears its head in the forces and we will look to build a more diverse, stronger military that better reflects the society that it serves and protects; a military in which everyone can serve without fearing injustice or discrimination. That is the one nation mission that the Government are committed to: a modern, representative, unified armed forces, proud to keep Britain secure at home and strong abroad.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Let me start by sincerely thanking Lord Etherton and his team for undertaking this hugely important review, commissioned under the previous Government and taken forward by the present one. As in any such situation, the financial quantum will come under scrutiny, but the Opposition recognise that the £75 million announced today is 50% above Lord Etherton’s recommendations, and we support and welcome it.
In my ministerial and shadow roles, this is the first time that I have spoken on the issue of homosexuality in the armed forces, not having had responsibility for veterans at the Ministry of Defence. I regard it as a great personal honour to stand here and put on record my reflections as shadow Secretary of State. First, I recognise the terrible pain, humiliation and degrading treatment experienced by far too many people who simply wanted one thing: to serve their country.
Secondly, alongside the Secretary of State, I echo the previous Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), and the former Secretary of State Ben Wallace, in apologising unreservedly, given our position as a party in government for a significant part of the time that the ban remained in the military, long after the law for the rest of the country had changed. Thirdly, ultimately this is about recognising that the values of freedom, patriotism and public service are not confined to any part of society, but are common to all. We stand stronger as a nation and our armed forces are best served if we recruit every talent from every possible walk of life.
Lord Etherton has shone a bright light on a shameful, historic wrong, and I am grateful to everyone who submitted a response to the call for evidence. I appreciate that for every person affected, that would have been very difficult—dare I say traumatic. It was right that on the day that Lord Etherton’s report was published in July last year, at Prime Minister’s questions my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton said that the ban was
“an appalling failure of the British state”.—[Official Report, 19 July 2023; Vol. 736, c. 897.]
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Earlier this year, a veteran from Bailden in my constituency contacted me. Victoria served in the women’s Royal Army Corps, but was dismissed due to her sexuality. She was subjected to imprisonment and mistreatment, which many would consider abuse. As a result, Victoria has suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder for over 40 years. I welcome the Government’s commitment to raising the compensation funds to £75 million for veterans such as Victoria. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman supports that, and I ask him to join me in welcoming today’s historic announcement, which completes the important work that the Conservative party began when it was in government to deliver on the recommendations of the Etherton review.
James Cartlidge
Victoria and all those with first-hand experience, or anyone who has read the testimonies or received constituency correspondence, such as that mentioned by the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), will know how harrowing and horrific those experiences were. They are at the front of our minds as we debate this subject. I join the hon. Lady in welcoming what the Government have announced today.
As the report makes abundantly clear, the ban on LGBT people serving in the military saw brave service personnel face awful sexual abuse, violence, harassment and bullying. Lord Etherton’s report also found that invasive investigations undertaken into individuals’ sexuality caused long-lasting and severe impacts for some. It found that many veterans subjected to the ban developed mental health issues including PTSD, and experienced difficulty with their employment, finances and homelessness, as we have heard. They found it hard to form long-term relationships due to shame and trust issues and, perhaps inevitably, some turned to alcohol and drugs. Compounding that, due to an absence of transition support, many veterans felt isolated.
Tragically, the stress caused by the ban means that we have lost LGBT veterans to suicide, and others have contemplated it. When meeting campaigners I was struck by a particularly powerful point: what they want most of all is to feel a full and equal part of today’s veterans family. As a House, I know we speak with one voice in saying to everyone affected: you are as much a veteran as anyone else who served this country.
The financial package announced today will not undo the past, but it means that both parties in government have taken significant steps to deliver redress. Important progress has been made in recent years to improve the experience of LGBT personnel, particularly in terms of training. The Home Office’s disregards and pardons scheme was set up to ensure that those who received a conviction for same-sex sexual offences can have that conviction wiped. The Office for Veterans’ Affairs awarded £250,000 last year to LGBT organisations to provide support services for impacted veterans. That was on top of the £45,000 provided in 2022 to help organisations gather evidence for the review.
In office, we launched the Etherton review and accepted the intent behind each and every one of Lord Etherton’s recommendations. We were committed to implementing them in good time. We set deadlines and made good progress, and we will support the Government as they conclude that work. We understand that 38 of the 49 recommendations have been delivered—the Veterans Minister is welcome to correct me in his wind-up, but I am sure that we would all welcome his providing clarity on the timeline for delivering the remaining recommendations.
For all the work of the previous Veterans Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), it was never going to be straightforward coming up with a deliverable package of financial compensation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) said in his intervention, there is the crucial issue of gathering data, which is complicated. That being so, I welcome the two-pronged approach to the scheme, and in particular the fact that payments will be exempt from income tax, although I believe that means that the timing is linked to the passing of the Finance Bill.
My understanding is that those affected will be able to apply under the dismissed or discharged payment scheme from tomorrow but, inevitably, the impact cohort will take longer due to the involvement of the independent panel. I urge Ministers to keep us posted on how the scheme works in practice. As the Secretary of State said, time is ticking and we all want to see this resolved and money awarded as soon as possible. We fully support the plans to restore rank and amend official reasons for discharge, and ask the Minister to clarify when those affected will be able to ask for that to take place.
Finally, I pay tribute to the many colleagues who have campaigned on this issue with passion and persistence, and to those in the last Government for their work getting us here, particularly Ben Wallace, Johnny Mercer and the previous Veterans Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire. Finally, I pay tribute to Craig Jones, Caroline Paige and Ed Hall of Fighting With Pride, for their extraordinary effort to campaign, raise awareness and deliver this change. They have helped to ensure that a tangible righting of a deep wrong is now happening in practice, underscoring the equal place for people of all backgrounds in our veterans community and our armed forces.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. As Members can see, a large number of speakers wish to contribute to a very important debate. I have no plans as yet to impose a time limit, but perhaps Members might be respectful about the number of interventions they take.
Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)
I warmly welcome today’s debate, and I thank the Defence Secretary and the Veterans Minister for the way that they have gone about this, working with LGBT veterans and charities such as Fighting With Pride, and building on the work of the previous Government. I know that the Defence Secretary and the Veterans Minister care deeply about this issue. The Defence Secretary rightly said that this was unfinished business for Labour, and the Veterans Minister assured me when I first raised this matter with him many months ago that the scheme would be up and running by the end of the year. We can put that under the “promises kept” part of the Government’s record, and I am grateful for that.
This is a profound injustice and a moral stain on the nation, as the Defence Secretary rightly said a few moments ago. Thousands of servicemen and women over many decades were interrogated, persecuted and punished for their sexuality—people who only wanted to serve our nation, but were let down in the most profound way. A constituent of mine in Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven told me that he felt “washed in shame” at the way he was discharged, imprisoned and discarded by the RAF, despite his exemplary service record. Thousands more veterans fall into that bracket, some of whom we have already heard about this afternoon and, hopefully, we will hear more about.
Those people lost their career, their pay, their pension and often their family and friends, but also, as the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) said, their sense of self, value and belonging. The emotional, psychological and physical impact is still being understood. That is the central point of this debate and the injustice we face—how do we ever go about rectifying something on such a scale? Harder still, how do we put a value on it and a process around it?
I thank Lord Etherton for his work on this issue over many years, and recognise that the Defence Secretary and Veterans Minister have worked incredibly hard to build on the work of the previous Government to deliver this hugely welcome financial recognition scheme, which will be set up tomorrow. I know it will be welcomed by veterans in my constituency and others across the country. I will do everything I can to encourage the many LGBT veterans in my constituency to apply for it, as I hope other Members will, and as I know the Defence Secretary will.
I welcome the increase in funding that has been allocated—a 50% increase is not insignificant. This is a significant commitment from this Government, and it is welcome. I also welcome the creation of two clear funding schemes: first, for those with formal discharge and dismissal; secondly, importantly, for the many who never suffered that discharge and dismissal, but who suffered much wider loss—emotional, financial and physical —as many Members have spoken about.
As the Defence Secretary has said, it is also incredibly important that the option of restoring rank and removing the record of discharge has been brought forward—a point raised by many LGBT veterans I have met in my constituency surgeries and around Brighton Kemptown. It is, in some senses, as important as the financial measures announced, so I welcome that, too.
However, if I may be so bold, I would also welcome clarity on a couple of points. First, what estimate has the Ministry of Defence made of the number of people likely to apply for each of the two tranches under the scheme? Secondly, what estimate has been made of what the average payment is likely to be? No two cases are the same, as the Defence Secretary said earlier. Of course, the headline figure of £70,000 is very welcome, but how many people does the Secretary of State believe will ever receive that? How many are likely to fall into those two tranches? I would welcome some clarity on that.
Thirdly, how does the Secretary of State respond to the concern that by keeping a hard cap on compensation—albeit a significantly increased one—many applicants will ultimately receive quite low sums, particularly given the level of injustice that we have all stated? Fourthly, will he explain why there is a two-year cap on applications, and what the Government will be doing to ensure that all who are eligible will come forward and will be able to apply? As we know, and as we have all heard from looking at this over many months, many people are only just willing to come forward on this issue. It might take much more time to reach the many people who have suffered this injustice. I am slightly concerned about that cap, and I would welcome some clarity on it.
I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know there is a lot of work to do to get these schemes up and running and to get the compensation out as quickly as possible. Today is an incredibly welcome step on that journey. As we have heard, it has been a very long journey for many people—decades in the making—and time is running out to deliver justice. Above all, I thank those who have made that journey possible, especially the extraordinary LGBT veterans whom I have had the pleasure of meeting in the past five months, and Fighting With Pride, which has done so much for so many to achieve the progress we are discussing today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I will just make the point that it is imperative that Members be present for the opening statements of any debate if they wish to be called—perhaps particularly so for those on the Front Benches.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
We are here today to discuss the implementation of the recommendations laid out in Lord Etherton’s independent review into the treatment of LGBT veterans, following the unjust and appalling treatment of LGBT+ veterans who served in our armed forces under the shadow of a discriminatory and dehumanising ban. It is not just a matter of historical injustice, but an ongoing fight for dignity, recognition and fairness for those who gave so much to our country and were repaid with shameful betrayal. We must also recognise all those who served before 1967, and the injustice they faced before that time.
Between 1967 and 2000, thousands of LGBT+ personnel were dismissed or forced out of the military simply because of who they were. The anti-gay ban had and continues to have an enormous impact on people’s lives; careers were destroyed, lives upended and futures taken away. LGBT+ veterans were outed to their friends and family without their consent, facing extreme stigma. Not only did they lose their jobs, but they had their medals removed and were stripped of their pensions. In some cases, a conviction made it impossible for people to move on and rebuild their lives due to the barriers a criminal record creates when trying to find employment. It is indefensible that those who put their lives on the line for our country should continue to be treated with disregard.
The independent review by Lord Etherton lays bare the devastating impact of this discriminatory policy on LGBT+ veterans and makes 49 recommendations to address those wrongs. While progress has been made, this process is far from complete. The Government must ensure that all the review’s recommendations are acted on as swiftly and comprehensively as possible.
Let me share two harrowing examples from constituents of my colleagues, which illustrate the enduring trauma caused by this policy. This morning, I met Michael Sansom, who sits in the Public Gallery today, who is a constituent of Monica Harding MP. He joined the Royal Air Force—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. As a Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Lady, first, should be on the Bench when I am on my feet. Secondly, we must not refer to colleagues by name in the House but by their constituency.
Helen Maguire
My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Michael joined the Royal Air Force at just 16 years old, filled with pride and ambition, and served with distinction for five years before his life was shattered in 1992. After innocently sharing details about attending London clubs, Michael became the target of a covert investigation: his barracks were searched in a humiliating manner, exposing deeply personal items such as a romantic letter; he was extensively and inappropriately questioned about his personal life, offered electroconvulsive “conversion” therapy, and underwent what at the time was described as a “medical examination”, but would today be called sexual assault.
Ultimately, Michael was charged with homosexuality and detained for 14 days before his discharge, during which time he was subjected to cruel physical and verbal abuse. Following his discharge, Michael lost not only his career, but his home and his sense of purpose. He was left homeless, battling severe depression and rejection from his family. Despite his immense contributions to lifting the military ban, Michael continues to struggle with the deep scars of his past. He now seeks justice for himself and others who endured similar horrors. The current compensation scheme, capped at £70,000, is an inadequate acknowledgment of the profound harm suffered by individuals such as Michael. Michael said to me that he was proud to serve his country, and his country was ashamed of him.
David, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), also served in the RAF during the 1980s, fulfilling a lifelong dream. However, his career was marred by persistent rumours, bullying and verbal abuse. Despite never being charged, he was subjected to constant surveillance and intimidation. After years enduring shame and distress, David left the RAF following an interview with his commanding officer, who bluntly stated that there was no place for him “in this man’s RAF”. To add insult to injury, David had to buy his way out of the RAF. He spent years unable to live openly as himself, and has faced diminished career prospects and a significantly impacted pension. Like Michael, David finds the proposed compensation deeply disappointing, and urges the Government to reconsider their approach.
These stories are not isolated incidents. They represent a systematic failure that affected thousands of LGBT+ veterans. Lord Etherton’s review revealed the immense toll this policy took on mental health, with 87% of LGBT+ veterans reporting that their dismissal impacted their mental health, and 75% stating that their finances had been affected.
The Government have accepted 38 of the 49 recommendations made in the review, which I acknowledge, and have also acknowledged the need for compensation. I am also pleased that the total budget for the compensation scheme has now been increased. However, the flat cap of £50,000 for dismissed or discharged applicants is inadequate. Veterans charities have rightly called it “inadequate and unacceptably low”. For people who lost their careers, homes and futures, it is a small offering. Justice demands better. It is unconscionable that veterans such as Michael and David are left fighting for recognition and fairness after already enduring so much. The LGBT impact payment of between £1,000 and £20,000 is also unacceptably low for what one veteran described as “state-sanctioned sexual assault”.
The Liberal Democrats are unequivocal in our stance: LGBT+ veterans deserve full and fair compensation for the harm they suffered. We call on the Government to reassess the compensation scheme, ensuring that it truly reflects the gravity of the injustices endured. We welcome the four non-financial measures outlined by the Secretary of State today for veterans who served before 1967, but it is vital that all 49 recommendations of the Etherton review are implemented swiftly and comprehensively, including the return of medals, clarification of pension rights and the establishment of a memorial to honour LGBT+ veterans.
Justice delayed is justice denied, and the Government must expedite support for elderly or ill veterans such as Joe Ousalice, who served with distinction for 18 years but now fears he may die before seeing justice. Joe deserves to have suitable compensation swiftly. He dedicated his life to serving our country and asks for very little in return.
This debate also reminds us that discrimination in the armed forces has not been limited to LGBT+ personnel. The 2021 Atherton report highlighted the pervasive challenges faced by women in the military, including bullying, harassment and sexual assault. Some 62% of female veterans reported experiencing some form of abuse during their service. Such systemic issues are unacceptable and undermine the very values our armed forces are meant to uphold. We must ensure that the recommendations of the Atherton report are fully implemented and that diversity, inclusion and respect become cornerstones of military culture.
The armed forces represent the best of our nation. They are made up of individuals who have pledged to protect us, often at great personal cost. For too long, LGBT+ veterans were denied the respect and recognition they deserved. It is time to right that wrong. The Liberal Democrats stand firmly with our LGBT+ veterans. We will continue to fight for fair compensation, the implementation of all recommendations from the Etherton and Atherton reports, and a culture of inclusivity in the armed forces. Let us honour the sacrifices of these brave individuals by delivering justice swiftly.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving an update to the House. I also thank him for showing a clear understanding of the hurt and pain suffered by LGBT veterans over the years. It is important to acknowledge that no amount of financial compensation will ever wipe the painful memories away. However, these are clear steps towards cleaning the stain on our nation that these violations have caused. As Lord Etherton says in his independent report, the failure to get this right
“risks prolonging the sense of injustice rather than achieving closure.”
This debate, of course, goes beyond financial redress. It is about correcting an injustice lived by veterans who lost their livelihood and their place in society. It is about acting to repair long-lasting damage that cost many men and women their physical and mental health. It is about giving people back their sense of pride and freedom. They defended our freedoms, while we were denying them their own.
One such individual is a constituent of mine whom I sat with in November as he explained the very real horrors he suffered. He joined the Royal Navy in October 1979 shortly before his 17th birthday. He trained originally as a naval airman, and then later as a marine engineer. In 1982, after three years in service, he was accosted in the middle of the night by four military police, placed in a blacked-out van and taken to the Royal Navy hospital, Stonehouse. There, he was forced to strip and was subjected to what he calls “an invasive medical procedure” carried out by Royal Navy doctors. In front of an audience of military police, this physical abuse was just the start. With his uniform given to forensics, he was issued a dirty dressing gown, driven to a cell block and placed in a strip cell. He encountered silent guards. He was given his meals on the floor. He was accompanied to the toilet and to the showers.
The silence continued for three days. My constituent was never offered any legal advice, nor any legal representation. He was interrogated several times by senior officials, who told him they saw him as a threat to other servicemen because of his homosexuality. He was told he would be detained until such time as they believed it safe to release him. He was not charged with any offence, nor was he aware of when he would be released. For 20 days, he was consigned to a strip cell with the light permanently on, and with silent guards banned from talking to him.
During that time, my constituent’s father contacted the Ministry of Defence in London to say that his sister, who had leukaemia, was now being kept on a life support machine. His father wanted to give him his chance to say goodbye, but was told he was at sea. When my constituent was released into the custody of the regulating branch of HMS Drake, he was told his sister had passed away.
Months went by and, while not detained, my constituent was classed as an “offender at large”. On 28 March 1983, without warning, every available rating and officer not on duty at HMS Drake was ordered to gather in the gym. Alongside others who had also previously been detained for being homosexual, he was ordered to dress in full dress uniform. They were then marched into the gym. There, in front of an audience of hundreds, an officer with sword drawn stood in front of him and removed his cap. The captain of HMS Drake read out numerous charges in full graphic detail—charges that had never been put to him. His description of the shouts, insults and threats from a baying crowd was awful to listen to. No attempt was made to silence the crowd. He was then dismissed from the service with immediate effect. He was handed his civilian clothes and dumped on the streets of Plymouth far from home with £54 to his name.
The long-lasting effects of that experience were—his word—“catastrophic”. Drug and alcohol addiction plagued his life for almost 30 years, with a vicious cycle of precarious work and unemployment. At this point, I want to quote directly from him:
“I carried with me a sense of great shame, for not only was being gay seen as criminal still in the armed forces, but something you were almost forced to declare you had been dismissed for from the armed forces every time you applied for work. Further to this, I spent those 30 years of self-destruction believing I deserved the treatment I received, for I had been caught and as such blamed myself for the mess my life became.”
Only 30 years later has he been able to recover a sense of pride, self-worth and self-confidence. He subsequently went to university and gained a first-class honours degree in English literature and creative writing, and recently obtained a master’s research degree in English literature, both at the University of Chester.
That is just a snapshot—a small part of the physical and mental health impacts that the LGBT ban had on my constituent’s life. We have an opportunity to bring an honourable end to this dishonourable attack against members of our own armed forces. The way LGBT armed forces personnel were treated does not reflect today’s armed forces. I welcome the fact that Lord Etherton and the Ministry of Defence have worked together with an incredible community of veterans to achieve this announcement today.
Finally, I urge the Government to continue to work with the community to promote the scheme and ensure that every veteran affected by the ban receives the compensation they deserve.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. It might be helpful if I provide a small business update to hon. and right hon. Members. The second debate that was scheduled for this afternoon will now not go ahead. That gives this very important debate the full time up until 5 o’clock, which will certainly enable me to get all Members in.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Soon, many of us will be held rapt by television’s “SAS Rogue Heroes”, which returns to screens soon. The series will focus on the elite unit as, back from initial success in the desert war, it faces the much sterner challenge of Ayrshire, where it was briefly based until it went into action in Italy and occupied Europe. With legendary founder David Stirling languishing in Colditz, the focus will be on new commanding officer Blair “Paddy” Mayne. Mayne should by rights have been decorated with the Victoria Cross, our premier gallantry award, for his action rescuing pinned-down troops in Oldenburg, Germany, in 1945. Yet the award was downgraded. This was perhaps because of Mayne’s enthusiastic off-duty drinking and his penchant for punching senior officers, but it might also have something to do with the suggestion that he was a homosexual.
It is quite remarkable that such a martial giant should be doomed to be “the bravest man who never won a VC” over something so entirely irrelevant, yet today we must confront the reality that outmoded views of LGBT people persisted in the military for far longer than they ought to have done. Nothing can be done now to right the wrong done to Blair Mayne, but the Government are addressing the suffering of people very much alive today. Take my constituent Alan, once a teenager proud to serve in RAF blue. He told me:
“Arrested for being gay, I was sexually assaulted by the Special Investigation Branch and made to endure horrific, humiliating treatment during a gruelling three-day interview. As a 18-year-old kid, I lost all contact with my family and attempted to take my life five times due to the way I was treated. The long-term effect this has had on my mental health and family connections has not been easy.”
The Government are in a position to deliver the element that veterans such as both Blair Mayne and my constituent Alan would recognise as vital to all military operations: speed. As we have heard, the clock is ticking and time is moving on. The Minister for Veterans and People, the hon. and gallant Gentleman who will sum up the debate, is no stranger to combat, but he may yet find the Treasury a difficult opponent when it comes to the timings; indeed, he may need the courage of Mayne to prevail in that struggle. We must all hope that this scheme is streamlined and delivered apace, in a way that the Post Office Horizon compensation system was not.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
I thank Members on both sides of the House for the many compelling and moving speeches that we have heard so far today.
When I made my maiden speech in this Chamber during the general debate on remembrance, I spoke of the bravery and personal sacrifice of all those who have served and continue to serve our country in our armed forces. When reading the testimonies in this review of veterans who have relived their trauma, pain and suffering in the pursuit of justice, we are once again reminded of that bravery and personal sacrifice. There can be no doubt in anyone’s mind that they belonged in our armed forces, and that in banning them we did a great disservice to them and to our country.
The policy of banning LGBT people from serving is rightly referred to as a stain on the history of the UK’s armed forces, but the evidence of the culture of homophobia, bullying, blackmail, sexual assaults, abusive and humiliating investigations and medical examinations —as if being gay were a disease to be remedied—goes beyond a mere stain, and is, at its very mildest, a shameful and reprehensible chapter in our history. These are people who wanted to serve their country and did serve their country, yet all that their country served them was a P45, dismissing or discharging them not on the basis of their performance, but on the basis of who they were. Although after a dreadfully long 33 years the policy was eventually lifted, we know that, as with many abuses, our LGBT veterans—the victims of this policy—have suffered appalling consequences for the rest of their lives.
That is what makes this review and this debate so important. We must recognise that these are not dark tales of times gone by, and that this injustice is still having a real effect on people to this very day—people like my constituent Chris, who bravely gave evidence to Lord Etherton’s review board about his own dismissal in 1984. He came to one of my first constituency surgeries and moved me almost to tears, and I was proud to march alongside him in this year’s Remembrance Sunday parade. Chris served in Northern Ireland; he volunteered for the Falklands; he received an air officer commanding commendation; he gained promotion to corporal on his return to the UK; and, while originally enlisted for six years, he had aspirations to serve our country—to serve his country—for much longer.
However, once Chris’s secret was out, and after six months of not knowing what was going to happen to him, during which he was placed in the psychiatric wing of a military hospital, medicated daily, considered a security threat and investigated by the special investigation branch, he was dishonourably discharged despite a glowing report of his service career. He was booted out and left to fend for himself with no support as he grappled with the rapid transition to civilian life, financial hardship, and suicidal thoughts.
In meetings and correspondence with me, Chris has talked of his pride in being a member of the armed forces and the love that he had for the Air Force. He has said that when his secret was out, it was not just his career that was dashed, but his life as well. That point is important: this injustice was not just a career setback, but something that ruined lives and took away time and opportunity that can never be given back. While we are thankfully a different country today—in no small part owing to the last Labour Government’s lifting of the ban—it is right that we address the wrongs of the past, and I must therefore turn to the subject of compensation. No amount of money can undo the wrongs of the past, but I am delighted that the Government have announced a 50% increase in the total compensation fund from £50 million to £75 million, with those affected able to receive up to £70,000, and a flat rate of £50,000 for all those eligible for the LGBT dismissed or discharged payment.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Veterans who suffered from this abhorrent abuse, including a constituent of mine who is up in the Gallery today, suffered the most shocking experiences of brutal rape and assault, and bravely want their story to be told. Does the hon. Member agree that funds should be allocated among the victims on the basis of the severity of their cases, as a small recompense for the vast horrors that they have had to endure and, psychologically, continue to endure?
Tom Rutland
I agree with the hon. Member.
Referring to previous cases and the range of amounts awarded, the review states:
“An amount which falls below that range…risks prolonging a sense of injustice rather than achieving closure”.
I am glad that the Government are not taking that risk. I am also glad that Government recognise that some veterans impacted by the ban are seriously unwell. It is right that those individuals will be prioritised, and that money is being set aside to fund key charities to help LGBT veterans with their applications, which can be submitted from tomorrow.
However, this is not just about money but about pride in service. Given that many LGBT veterans had their ranks taken away and were dishonourably discharged, I wholeheartedly welcome today’s announcement that ranks will be restored and discharge reasons amended so that they reflect and honour the service of veterans who were impacted.
Finally, I want to add a personal comment. As a citizen of this great country, I know that the freedoms and opportunities I enjoy have been secured by the bravery and sacrifice of our armed forces, and as a gay man, I know that the rights that I can almost take for granted were hard fought for, and hard won, by those who went before me, who spoke up against injustice and campaigned for change—often at great personal cost, and often with the knowledge that they might never know, experience or benefit from the change and the future that they spent their lives working towards. Today gives us a chance to thank both those groups, and to recognise that they are not distinct but overlapping, because there have always been people like Chris, gay and serving their country. Chris served his country with pride at a time when his country was not proud to take him for who he was. Today, he can hear his Member of Parliament, and so many others, say, “We are proud, we are thankful, and we are sorry.”
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
As has been said today, it is almost extraordinary now, in 2024, to think that for so long the UK armed forces upheld a ban on LGBT+ personnel. The ban allowed for the legal discharge of LGBT+ individuals from their duties, and in some cases it meant that people were criminally prosecuted. LGBT+ veterans were outed to their families and friends without their consent, forced to endure stigma and discrimination. They lost their jobs, and had their medals and their pensions taken from them. Some were criminally convicted simply for being themselves. This has made it nearly impossible for them to rebuild their lives, as they have faced significant barriers to finding employment and moving forward.
My constituent Stephen Purves, from Haywards Heath, is among the thousands who were so deeply wronged. Stephen was the last RAF officer to go to prison for being gay. He served—indeed, endured—six months in a civilian prison, and he did so solely as a result of being himself. To add insult to injury, he was stripped of his pension. He was court-martialled and dismissed in disgrace from the RAF in 1985. He should have received a pension from the age of 38; he did not.
Financially, Stephen was left in ruins. He has had to work far harder to make ends meet ever since. That financial insecurity, coupled with the difficulty of finding employment with a criminal conviction, is just one of the reasons he was left mentally scarred. He tells me that those scars remain. He has been left to battle with the mental health repercussions of this scandal for decades. As well as the obvious and severe stresses and strains of the financial situation that he was left in, he has endured stigmatisation, isolation and social exclusion.
It is indefensible that those who served our country and put their lives on the line for our safety and freedom were treated in that way. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are committed to ensuring that LGBT+ veterans receive the justice that they deserve. That absolutely includes guaranteeing fair compensation for every affected veteran. I welcome the increased compensation announced today, but I am sorry to say that I do not think the maximum award of £70,000 is sufficient, given the other compensation schemes announced by the Government, including for the Post Office Horizon scandal. I do not think that that compensation is sufficient for someone like Steve, who lost his career and his liberty, who went bankrupt, and who suffers to this day. I urge the Government to go further.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
In the 1980s, aged 18, my constituent Robert moved from Scotland to sunny Weston-super-Mare to pursue a bright career at RAF Locking, which was then a vital part of the RAF’s technical training, radio and radar network. However, not long after moving to Weston, Robert was questioned by the special investigations branch about being a practising homosexual. Very soon after that, his career in the RAF was over, and the shame and embarrassment cast a long and powerful shadow over the rest of his life. Robert was unable to return to Scotland because of the hostility and rejection associated with being gay. After being treated so terribly by the state that he was working so hard to protect, it took Robert a long time to be able to live a happy, healthy and fulfilled life.
For so many gay people over many generations, moving away from the home and family was a way of finding acceptance, or at least anonymity, and an escape from judgment and shame. For Robert, like for so many others—myself included—Weston-super-Mare is a place of sanctuary and healing. Our town looks after people, and I am very proud of that.
Over the past decade, the RAF and our other armed forces have become international beacons of inclusion, demonstrating that who we are is no barrier to serving our country. Today’s announcement is a profound statement of who we are as a country and, importantly, it reminds us that we are stronger and better defended because of that openness and candour.
There are some things, however, that only a Government can and should do. The independent review by Lord Etherton is a powerful move towards justice, and so many people are grateful to him for his diligence and compassion. Today’s announcement follows the Government’s commitments to the victims of the contaminated blood and Post Office scandals. Those are profound acts by the state to apologise to and rebuild trust with those who have waited far too long for fair treatment.
I am grateful to the Defence Secretary, the Minister for Veterans and People, Fighting With Pride, and the previous Government for their work to right this wrong. I hope that the thousands of affected veterans, including my constituent Robert in Weston, will receive meaningful justice.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Like the Front Benchers, I want to start with an apology. I am sorry that anyone had to go through this. As has been said, the compensation does not make up for the treatment that victims received or fix the situation. It still happened, and I have been pleased to hear, from everyone who has spoken so far, the recognition that it happened but should never have happened. I will talk a little about some of the speeches that have been made, but first I have a number of questions for the Minister about the compensation scheme.
I listened carefully when the Secretary of State talked about how the scheme will work. I understood from what he said—although I may be wrong, so it would be helpful if the Minister clarified—that there will be two pots. One pot will be for flat payments of £50,000 to people who were dismissed or discharged. The Secretary of State used the words “instructed to resign”. A little clarity on what that means would be helpful. If people were sat down and told, “You must resign,” does that count as an instruction, or would it be an instruction only if they were given a letter formally telling them to resign? Where is the bar by which the flat payment of £50,000 is judged?
The Secretary of State seemed to suggest that the other payment was for two different groups. It is for those who have suffered hardships in addition to the discharge—imprisonment or additional discrimination, for example—but I was not sure whether it is also open to those who were not discharged but did suffer discrimination as a result of their sexuality. Does it fulfil those two purposes of being both a top-up payment and a payment of recompense for those who experienced more minor suffering than a discharge? Some clarity would be helpful.
The scheme’s two-year time period has been mentioned. Although I appreciate that people need to know the closing date, it would be helpful if the Government committed to undertaking some sort of review at, say, the one-year point to ensure that the scheme is operating as intended, that as many people as possible have applied and that the process is going smoothly. This would allow the Government to say, “We think two years is adequate, because we reckon that 90% of people have applied in the first year,” or, “We don’t think two years is appropriate, and we therefore think the scheme should be extended to ensure that everyone who is entitled to this compensation can get it.”
Will people who are currently overseas be able to apply? The hon. Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward) talked about people losing their sense of self, and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) said that some people had to flee because they wanted to leave their trauma behind, and may now be overseas as a direct or indirect result of their treatment. Will they still be able to apply to the compensation scheme and to receive compensation, regardless of where they currently live?
Can the Minister assure us that the charitable support will have a geographic spread? For instance, if there are charities that work only in England, will other charities be funded to provide support to veterans in other parts of these islands? The citizens advice bureau in Aberdeen has something like a 14-week wait for people to get any advice. Although it is a national charity, it has different waiting times in different places. Will the Minister look into whether the charitable support has the geographic spread to ensure that everyone can get the help and support they need?
We have heard about people’s sense of self, and about what they lost as a result of either being discharged or having their life made so difficult that they could no longer remain in the armed forces. The immensely powerful speech of the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Elaine Stewart) set out the trauma her constituent went through, and it echoed the evidence given to the review.
It is very difficult for us, sitting here, to listen to such accounts, never mind for all those people who had to go through those horrific experiences. People lost not only their career or their standing in the community; they lost a part of themselves when they were told, “You cannot be both a soldier and gay.” These people had dreamed forever of joining the armed forces, and they served with incredible bravery and honour, only to be told, “We don’t want you.”
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Does the hon. Lady agree that it is not just the loss of a job or a pension, but the loss of shared values? These people felt rejected, as they could no longer do things that other veterans are able to do together.
The hon. Lady talks about people who fled the country, but Karen in my Mid Dorset and North Poole constituency was betrayed by another LGBT service member who was seeking to protect themselves. Some personnel avoided their own discharge by betraying someone else. Does the hon. Lady have any thoughts on that?
Kirsty Blackman
It is not my place to comment on individuals who perpetrated such abuses, nor to judge whether these were systemic issues or whether personal gain was received. However, I understand that people want redress. The Minister has recognised that, above and beyond the pot of money specifically for those who were discharged, there is another pot for those who faced additional hardships.
One of my constituents has been in touch to say that he had intended to be in the armed forces for life. That was his plan and he had never wanted to do anything else; his aim was to be a member of the armed forces. When he was ejected, his hopes, dreams and sense of self were all gone from him, and recovering from that trauma is incredibly difficult. I appreciate the work that the Minister and the Secretary of State have done, as well as the work done by the previous Government, in order to ensure the compensation scheme has come forward, and I appreciate that the amount of money in the pot has been increased.
I have already asked some specific questions, but on the family of veterans, it is incredibly important that there is follow-through. For example, previously, the medals sent to some LGBT veterans were posted in the normal post and fell through the letterbox on to the carpet, along with bills from BT and energy suppliers. I do not think that was appropriate or provided the same recognition that other people received when they got their medals. More can be done to ensure that being part of the family of veterans is not just warm words, but a reality. People should be provided with a welcome, as well as being told that they will provided with a welcome to that family.
I thank the Minister and everyone who has spoken today. I thank all the organisations and individuals who have been fighting for this outcome. I also thank those who have not been brave enough to tell their stories, and who are going through such difficult times that they are not able to do so. Those who are in the Gallery today have been able to give voice on behalf of themselves, but also on behalf of their friends and colleagues who are not able to tell their stories to us today or to the review. I thank those who have told their stories for being the voice for the community.
I hope the Minister is able to answer some of my questions, in order to ensure the compensation scheme works as the Government intend and gives an amount of recompense for the extreme trauma and suffering that people have been through.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that, in response to the Etherton review into the treatment of LGBT veterans, additional amounts of compensation will be offered to all victims, and a second tier payment will be offered to those most severely affected. That is most welcome, but it is so very late and it will never be enough to compensate our LGBT veterans for the treatment they suffered while trying to serve our armed forces, and the abandonment they felt once they had left.
As Craig Jones wrote in his book, “Serving with Pride”, which shares some of the tragic stories of LGBT lives blighted by this shameful period of military history:
“With quiet dignity, most have endured. These are veterans deserving of our compassion for the adversity they have faced and the courage they have shown all while waiting to be heard and acknowledged. After all they have been through, it is quite remarkable that for most, their loyalty to the armed forces has endured and still today many simply seek acceptance and recognition amongst their comrades.”
Today, I would like to tell the story of a brave and committed solider that I had the honour to meet. My constituent, a veteran from 50 years ago, carried the heavy burden of shame of being dismissed from the services for being who they are, rather than being thanked for all that they did. Gunner Ashton joined the Royal Artillery in 1969, became the best small arms shot and served in Germany, defending us from the cold war threat. He achieved top technical ratings as a surveyor, was tipped for promotion and spent four months in Northern Ireland at the border and by the Falls Road in Belfast, where he was shot at, bombed and saw his comrades fall: such bravery and courage, such distinguished service and commitment, such capability and achievement. May I place on record the pride and recognition that Gunner Ashton so richly deserves?
Gunner Ashton, however, served three years before being medically discharged. Ex-Gunner Ashton disappeared back up north into obscurity, never knowing he was a victim of the gay ban, not knowing he was a veteran and, certainly, never having been thanked for his service. What a sad end to a promising career and a sad indictment of the armed forces’ disgraceful treatment of our LGBT officers at that time.
I am glad to say that that is not the end of the story. Gunner Ashton was courageous enough to seek help to become Claire Ashton, the same kind, compassionate and capable person that she has always been. When I met her in our constituency, I was immediately impressed with her dignified approach, her thorough and detailed account, her excellent service record and her steely determination to seek recognition for the thousands of her comrades who had suffered this injustice and who deserve our recognition.
Finally, after 50 years, ex-Gunner Ashton heard the Prime Minister apologise to our LGBT officers last year and launch the reparations and compensation scheme. Finally, Claire received her veterans identity card and a small veterans badge. Finally, ex-Gunner Ashton was recognised as a veteran and for her remarkable contribution to the Artillery. Claire joined the ex-service organisation that supports LGBT personnel, Fighting With Pride, and was given the honour of carrying its standard at last year’s Royal British Legion festival of remembrance at the Royal Albert Hall in front of the King and Queen, among 50 veterans from the organisation, standing shoulder to shoulder with thousands of our other veterans.
Claire’s finest hour, however, was when, wearing her small veterans badge at the Cenotaph, a passer-by noticed the badge and said simply, “Thank you for your service.” That was the first person to do so; it had taken 51 years. I would like to be the second person to thank her for her service and to ask that it be recorded in the Houses of Parliament.
Claire Ashton is here today, having travelled on the train at 5 am from Shrewsbury. She is in the Gallery, watching the debate, and I hope that she feels the respect and admiration of this House for her contribution to our armed forces. [Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear!”] I also hope she feels our earnest endeavours to put right this terrible wrong.
I asked Claire Ashton if she had a message for the Minister and for this House. She asks that we understand that, in order to recruit and retain good recruits for our armed forces, we need to treat our veterans with the dignity and respect that they deserve. Serving personnel will ask, “What future do I have in our forces?” and new recruits will hesitate if they do not feel welcome. We have an opportunity to learn the lessons from the past and ensure that strong recruits and excellent officers are supported and nurtured to reach their full potential and thrive in our armed forces. It is a matter of fundamental welfare for serving personnel and veterans to feel safe and valued. Indeed, as Claire Ashton, who will have the last word, reminds us:
“That is all we want, to feel valued”.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
We have heard some very powerful stories today. It is not every day that my constituency surgeries lead me to well up—I am normally as hard as nails—but I recently had the pleasure of meeting Craig Jones MBE, one of the founders of Fighting With Pride. He talked so powerfully about his own and other veterans’ stories of pain and injustice, but he also spoke of honour and pride. It was deeply moving to speak with him.
During our meeting, the word “honour” came up time after time, as Craig described his LGBTQ+ colleagues in the armed forces who suffered so much under the ban which, we must reflect today, was lifted only in 2000. In the period before that, thousands and thousands of LGBTQ+ service personnel were removed or forced from service and many, as we have heard, were physically or sexually abused. Craig told me that many of his colleagues felt “washed in shame” because of what happened to them.
In those days, simply admitting to being gay was dangerous and had far-reaching consequences, which we must compensate for today. Although homosexuality was decriminalised for civilians in 1967, it remained a criminal offence in the armed forces. These people faced imprisonment. We must compensate fully for that.
Craig described moving to Brighton, saying that our city was the only place in which he and his partner felt safe. On the day that the ban was lifted, he came out as gay and, after a few more years, he left the forces. He helped found Fighting With Pride, and took part in that excellent campaign that led to the Etherton review and the actions that we are pleased to welcome today.
But I do not think that this is finished. As other Members have said, the financial scheme is crucial; it must provide full compensation. It appears that Lord Etherton was unable to go higher than the recommendation in the review of a cap of £50 million, and was unable in his terms of reference to recommend a financial scheme that was unconstrained. This £75 million is a rise, but, as others have said, it is not high enough. Fighting With Pride has said that £150 million would be a more realistic estimate if it is to provide real justice to the people who might come forward.
In the interests of real justice, I do not believe that we can cap this number at all. As the Royal British Legion has said in response to the earlier proposed cap, the cap provides an incentive for the Ministry of Defence to limit the number of people applying for compensation, in opposition to the aim of achieving fair recompense. Moreover, Fighting With Pride today asked whether the flat rate of £50,000 would really be able to compensate for the pensions that would have been earned by all those people who were discharged early.
As Craig pointed out to me, this has been a “discreet” community. We still do not know how many people could come forward having been harmed by these unjust policies in ways not envisaged by the strict types of payment described in today’s statement. For the wider impact payment, we are talking about harassment, invasive investigations and imprisonment. I would welcome some clarity from the Minister today as to whether this could go further. People may have resigned because they felt that they could not come out; because they were not able to live in the way that they would choose to live. They have still suffered harm. They have been unable to fulfil their full potential, which is genuine harm.
We have spoken about shame and honour in the stories that we have told today. There could be people who wanted their colleagues to preserve their honour to help them not feel ashamed and who wanted to be discharged for stated other reasons, so that nothing in the written record would confirm that they had suffered from the harms for which the flat-rate payment is envisaged, but who have none the less suffered exactly the same harm. I would welcome some clarification on whether you might go wider, and be willing to be challenged—
Siân Berry
Sorry. Would the Minister be willing to be challenged on those terms in the future?
This compensation must bring the full comfort and security in older age that is enshrined in the armed forces covenant. It must bring true justice for the community that was shamed so shamefully. These payments must be looked at again.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
I start by thanking the Secretary of State and my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister for Veterans and People for their intense understanding of this issue and of the whole veterans’ community. This debate comes at a critical juncture in the story of these people—these people of service who have been let down by our nation. That is a great source of national shame, as other Members have said. Although progress has been made, we must ensure that these veterans, some of whom have suffered immensely at the hands of the state, are compensated adequately. I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State’s announcement today, especially around the financial arrangements. It is delivery as promised and it is a victory, which has been a long time coming for these people.
As a gay man in this place, I am all too aware that we stand on the shoulders of campaigners, activists and giants of the LGBT rights movement, who have come before us. For over three decades, individuals who served, or wanted to serve, this country were shamed, or risked being shamed, expelled, imprisoned, and put on a register of sex offenders in some cases. Their lives were destroyed for the sake of their sexuality.
Being LGBT is not a weakness; it is a strength. We train, fight and serve as hard as anyone else. Like carbon kept under the earth’s crust for a long time, diamonds emerge in our hearts because of those experiences. These are the people who have built our forces over the years. We owe them a great debt. I am glad that this discrimination, which was once accepted—indeed, institutionalised—is over. Our forces are better for it, and our country is stronger for it, but for so long the values that we hold dear of respect, duty, service and honour were not upheld for these people, who were let down, such as my constituent Steven, without whom— I have told this story before—I would not be raising this issue. This is a man who lobbied me from day one of my selection as the Labour candidate, and rightly continues to lobby me to this day. He was expelled on suspicion of his sexuality. His life was taken from pride in what he was doing to ruin.
In my recent Adjournment debate, we heard truly heartbreaking and harrowing stories of service, and betrayal of that service by those in power at the time. As I said in that debate, I pay tribute to Fighting With Pride, which has been at the forefront of this campaign, alongside other colleagues in the Chamber. Individuals such as Craig Jones, my friend Carl Austin-Behan, and the noble Lords in the Gallery, Lord Etherton and Lord Cashman, who have been a part of this over a long period, have done so much to raise awareness of the unique challenges faced by LGBT veterans, and veterans more broadly.
As the Minister knows, financial redress is key to justice for these veterans, but the capped £50 million allocated was plainly inadequate given the level of trauma and destruction that these people experienced, be it mental health crises, substance abuse, homelessness, destitution, disownment by families, being labelled sex offenders, being victims of suicide and more. The scary thing is that this is not ancient history. People have come to me with stories from the late ’90s, when I was a kid. It is not that long ago.
I am glad to hear today’s announcement, because frankly, true justice has always required a more substantial financial commitment that acknowledges the suffering and delivers fair and meaningful compensation. While I welcome the Government’s actions, particularly around the scheme itself and the two-pronged approach, I have some questions on the cap, especially for the second element of the scheme. I understand the flat-rate approach for the first tranche, but on the second tranche, people who have experienced complete horrors, of which we will probably hear more in the debate, I wonder whether a cap of £70,000, although that is a substantial amount of money, is enough redress.
The Secretary of State mentioned that a committee will assess case-by-case the experiences of such veterans. I wonder whether the experience of that committee might leave it better placed to decide the level of redress, perhaps within an overall cap. I understand that, particularly in the view of the Treasury, this is not always possible, but it is best to have the maximum amount of flexibility in dealing with specific cases, some of which are completely harrowing. Lord Etherton’s review offered a crucial road map, and the noble Lord has done veterans, and indeed our country, a great service in bringing us to this point. Completing the recommendations in full will ensure that veterans, regardless of their orientation, are treated with respect and fairness, and from the Government’s perspective, it will honour the contract that was started with these men and women so long ago—a contract that was broken on the Government’s side.
Lastly, I welcome the restoration of rank and the amendment of dismissal reasoning, and thank the Minister for listening all the way through this process. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward) has long been a champion of this issue; I think he mentioned it to me on the first day we were here. I know it has been a long listening exercise for the Minister. There is still a little further to go to ensure that there is maximum flexibility for our veterans, but I know he is doing his best to champion the issue and right this wrong. Today can be considered a great victory for these fighters. I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for taking the time, and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to contribute.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
As a retired RAF police officer, I was particularly moved by stories where my own branch seemed to have acted so zealously. Perhaps it is appropriate that I apologise on behalf of the RAF police. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) made the same request on behalf of the Royal Military Police.
I am glad that the debate is being held at length in the House after it was deprioritised by the previous Government. Perhaps it would have required Olympic-standard political gymnastics to show empathy with the victims of the LGBT ban, apologising to those victims as did Prime Minister Rishi Sunak while manufacturing—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I made the point earlier that we do not in this House refer to serving Members of the House by name. He remains the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton.
Cameron Thomas
Thank you for correcting me, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) did so while the mother of Brianna Ghey was on the estate. I appreciate that is a bit of a change in tone from the rest of the debate, but it is important that we recognise that the rhetoric we use in this House has a cultural impact across the rest of society.
The Government should be proud that they brought the debate before the House. They have my gratitude, and I know there are people present who were directly affected by the ban, including Lesley Davison, who travelled from South Devon to be in the Public Gallery. Our LGBT veterans should have been able to serve their honourable careers fully and retire simply as veterans, but they were unfairly discarded by the Ministry of Defence in line with the laws of the very country they served. The Ministry of Defence described this as a “moral stain” on the armed forces, but it is also a stain on the history of our country.
One haunting testimony comes from a constituent of north Shropshire. It is an account of how hundreds of gallant, proud and selfless service personnel were hunted by the military police, arrested, interrogated and often imprisoned for even an assumption of their sexuality. Take a moment, if you would not mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, to imagine the line of questioning of an interrogation into one’s sexuality. To anyone who was affected by the ban in any way, I believe you and I am sorry.
By the time I joined the Royal Air Force in 2000, the ban had been lifted, but the legacy of the ban and of the political culture at the time was a toxic mentality that remained in plain sight for several years. I recall my initial trade training at RAF Cosford. One particularly notorious training team threatened to call ahead to my future unit and have my head “caved in” once I arrived for merely daring to voice support for the LGBT community. I was 17. I am sure that such intolerance continues to persist in small pockets of narrow-mindedness that exist beneath the surface today, but I am proud that the RAF I left in 2023 is, indeed, a greatly transformed and more inclusive organisation.
I am now simply a veteran. During the general election campaign in June, I joined some local veterans for a communal breakfast in Tewkesbury. They were decent, honest and selfless, and they met regularly and welcomed me as their own. But before I was introduced to the group at large, one person pulled me aside and whispered, “Don’t worry about the he/she. We just ignore it.” It turned out that “it” was transgender Royal Navy veteran Gina Shelton, who had served in the closet as a man despite internally identifying as a woman to avoid persecution by her own friends and colleagues. I spent a few minutes speaking with her. She was seated clearly separately from the rest of the main group, and I could not help but feel moved by her courage and dignity as she spoke matter-of-factly about her circumstances, but with an affection and understanding for those fellow veterans who even now disowned her. She took responsibility for the way she was now ostracised, which I admire but reject. I otherwise enjoyed the company of my fellow veterans. I should reiterate that these are decent, honest people, but meeting Gina reminded me that changing minds is the greatest challenge before us, and that challenge will endure long after legislation.
The Liberal Democrats have always stood with the LGBT+ community, and are proud to have brought the equal marriage Act into law while in government. I am proud that those treated unjustly by the LGBT ban have now been able to speak their truth. It is difficult to put a monetary figure on such an injustice, but having considered the Secretary of State’s announcement this afternoon, we still call on the Government to stand with the Royal British Legion and Fighting With Pride and uplift the fund to £150 million. Finally, let these veterans’ legacy not be one of tragedy. Let Members of this House learn the lesson that the previous Government never did: that the language we use in this place has real-world consequences.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
This is an important day for a whole generation of ex-service personnel in my constituency and across the UK who lost everything they knew because of a policy that was discriminatory and wrong. I pay tribute to the charity Fighting With Pride and the coalition that has led this campaign with the dignity of ex-service personnel, in the very best of that tradition. We speak a lot in this House about the tremendous debt and respect we owe to our armed forces. That is something we in Aldershot and Farnborough feel very deeply, as people from our community have served in every major conflict that our country has faced over the past 200 years, yet the stories we are hearing today remind us that that respect is about not just words but deeds. I thank Lord Etherton for his work and the Government for listening, responding and taking action.
I will use my time in today’s debate to draw the House’s attention to the sister ban of this policy, for which the Government are rightly compensating people—the ban on people living with HIV joining or serving in our military. That ban was not repealed in 2000; it was repealed in 2022, and even now, there are loopholes that are still being exploited. So regressive were the rules that people were banned from joining the armed forces even if they were HIV-negative but were taking the HIV prevention drug PrEP. Regrettably but not surprisingly, opportunities to revise these rules were missed in 2008, in 2016, and yet again in 2019. Even as the British Government accepted the “can’t pass it on” science about people living with HIV in relation to treatment in the years that followed, no change was forthcoming. Those who were already serving personnel were labelled as medically not deployable.
It took the Terrence Higgins Trust, the National AIDS Trust and a remarkable Hampshire resident, Lieutenant Commander Oliver Brown MBE, to right this wrong. Oli was cycling through London when a brick hit his bike and he hit a wall. He was taken to a London hospital, and—as is finally becoming custom, due to the last Government and the £27 million announced by the Prime Minister last week—he was routinely tested for HIV. He discovered that he was positive. As his broken arm was being fixed, Oli had to come to terms with a stigmatised diagnosis and worry not about whether he would live or have his family’s support but about whether he had a job or a place to live. When he told his employer, the Royal Navy, he was labelled and held back. Thankfully, he found similar guts and spirit to those of Craig and Fighting With Pride, and became a relentless campaigner on this issue.
In June 2022, the rules were finally swept away not just for the LGBT community, but for anyone living with HIV. Days later, the Civil Aviation Authority did the same, and removed all barriers to pilots living with HIV on medication. That is why everyone involved was so surprised that the Military Aviation Authority gave itself an extra two months to remove the ban, and the obligations imposed then have still not been fully fulfilled. People living with HIV are still not able to join the armed forces as air crew or controllers. It would be a great thing if, off the back of this debate, my hon. Friend the Minister committed to investigate this issue, and agreed to meet Oliver Brown, the Terrence Higgins Trust and the National AIDS Trust to find a path forward on this issue.
We need to turn our military culture from just an absence of bans to one that promotes HIV and sexual health testing, with people being encouraged to take charge of their sexual health. The military needs to be a place where HIV stigma has no home. Our amazing HIV charities are on hand to help, and the UK could be the first fast-track military in committing to the goal of zero HIV transmissions, zero preventable deaths and zero HIV stigma. To meet that global goal, we need our armed forces to do their bit. If we achieve it, it will be the first time we have stopped the onward transmission of any virus without a vaccine or a cure. We cannot fail. Today is a great day, but the fight for equality is a journey, not a destination.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I am very pleased to be able to speak in this debate as one of the newly elected co-chairs of LGBT+ Labour, and it is a great honour to follow a number of hon. Members who have given very powerful testimonies from veterans. It is very difficult to follow that and to do justice to this issue. There is much interest in this debate and in the review of LGBT veterans. As he mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) recently held an Adjournment debate on this topic. He raised the issues that the ban had caused those who were dismissed, and we have heard about many of those issues in the words of the veterans themselves.
People were dismissed under the bans, and there were broken family relationships, poor mental health issues and a marginalisation driven by the shame of being thrown out of the military. In his debate, my hon. Friend rightly highlighted that this had an impact not only on LGBT people, but on those merely suspected of not being heterosexual. It also had an impact on all those serving given the climate of fear and discrimination that it drove within the military. He said in that debate that, as a young gay man, it seemed an alien world, but of course this is discrimination not from a century ago, but from our lifetime and within living memory.
Looking at the history of this campaign, which was the focus of much energy in the 1990s, when I was in the early days of my political campaigning, it is worth noting that there was an attempt 28 years ago to change the law so that lesbians and gay men could serve in the military. In the debate at that time, the then MP for Liverpool, Garston, Eddie Loyden, intervened on the Minister, who was defending the status quo. As Eddie explained, he was one of the few remaining Members in the House at that time who had served through the whole of the second world war. The question he put to the Minister, which I remember watching at the time, is worth repeating. Speaking of world war two, he said:
“I was in no fewer than seven troop ships carrying men and women to the four corners of the globe to fight on behalf of the nation. There were no questions about homosexuality then…If there was a war tomorrow, there would be no discrimination against homosexuals or lesbians. They would be dragged in just as they were in 1939.”—[Official Report, 9 May 1996; Vol. 277, c. 507.]
Of course, there was plenty of discrimination pre-1967 and at the time of that debate, but Eddie was making the point that this policy was based not just on discrimination, but on hypocrisy. It was hypocrisy in that distinguished service was duly undertaken, and was often honoured and recognised with medals, only to be disregarded and thrown aside when the question of someone’s sexuality was raised. Far too many people suffered from that policy, and the opportunity to end it earlier was lost as the Government of the day asserted that it would undermine military effectiveness if LGBT people were allowed to serve.
My West Ham predecessor in that debate, Tony Banks, was heard to shout “Rubbish!” at that assertion. He was of course right. Someone is a good soldier based on their skills; bravery and good service are not dependent on someone’s sexuality. History has since proved that it was rubbish, as over the last 25 years, since the change in the law, the military has continued to operate with distinction and LGBT people have played their part with honour within it.
That attempt to alter the law failed, and it took until 2000 for the change to take place, which led to continued discrimination and suffering for serving personnel, as we have heard. Those targeted lost not only their job but their reputations and rank, and until the 1990s—a quarter of a century after the decriminalisation of homosexuality in civilian life—they faced criminal convictions and jail time. It is perhaps worth noting how much has changed since that debate of 1996. Then we had only one openly gay MP, Chris Smith, and the idea that Parliament would now have so many LGBT MPs would have seemed impossible to believe. Most of the freedoms and privileges that the LGBT community now enjoy were yet to come. Indeed, many of them were beyond the possibility of even campaigning for.
This House has changed, the law has changed, and society has changed too. It has changed for the better, but the impact of the policy and the ban has a long tail, and veterans are still dealing with it today. That is why Lord Etherton’s report is so important. This is a live issue that we must resolve, and I welcome the progress we have made as a society and the progress on delivering the recommendations. I very much welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State about the financial redress being made available to veterans. When I spoke recently to a veteran they raised the issue of financial redress, as the impact of dismissal from the military has had a big impact on many, some of whom are now of an age when the issue of support is pressing. It will come as welcome news that we are making further progress on that, and that applications will open immediately. We must ensure that all those eligible can easily apply.
It is also welcome that veterans will see the restoration of their rank, and their service record amended. I very much welcome the fact that pre-1967 veterans are also being considered. It is important to ensure that we deliver on all recommendations in the report, so that all those who have served and faced discrimination can now wear their medals and remember their service with honour and pride, and so that we can wipe away the hypocrisy that tried to tarnish their service to their country. It is important that we support veterans in that, but also that we work to create a culture of dignity and respect for those veterans, to value them as a society, and to respect their service to their country and expunge the legacy of discrimination.
As so many Members have already done, we should pay tribute the campaigners who have fought hard for this campaign, many of whom are in the Public Gallery. That includes those who stood up and led the legal campaigns of the 1990s, and in more recent times the campaigners from Fighting With Pride. We are here because of them, and this debate is built on their hard work. We have an opportunity finally to draw the legacy of that shameful policy to a close and place it fully into the dustbin of history. It is an opportunity we have to take. I am grateful that the Government are rising to that challenge, and we must ensure that we rise fully to the needs of that community.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Today is a moment to acknowledge the historical injustice endured by LGBT veterans, and to reaffirm our collective responsibility as a House to right the wrongs of the past.
I will share a story of one of my constituents, Professor Andrew Hartle, a man whose life epitomises the resilience and achievements of LGBT veterans against the odds. Andrew joined the Royal Air Force in the 1980s, full of ambition and a desire to serve his country. His early years in uniform were marked by excellence. He rose swiftly through the ranks as a medical officer participating in search and rescue missions and serving in the first Gulf war. But while Andrew was fulfilling his duties he was living a double life, weighed down by a constant fear of being discovered. At a time when being openly gay in the armed forces was not just taboo but illegal, Andrew faced an impossible conflict: to live authentically, or to preserve the career he loved.
In 1996, Andrew was outed in a tabloid newspaper with the horrifying headline, “RAF doc’s gay fling with an AIDS victim”. Andrew was suspended, subjected to demeaning accusations and eventually forced to resign. For seven agonising months, he was left in limbo, isolated from colleagues, forbidden to access his NHS place of work and ostracised by an institution he had dedicated his life to serving.
Andrew continued to face prejudice throughout his career. NHS administrators demanded he take an HIV test against his will. That was just one of many humiliating incidents that he experienced after leaving the military. Despite that discrimination, and the obstacles he faced, Andrew became the first openly gay consultant anaesthetist, working at St Mary’s hospital, a world-class hospital serving many of my constituents in Kensington and Bayswater. He rebuilt his life and career, became a trailblazer in his field and has been a powerful advocate for justice.
However, for Andrew and for so many others, the scars inflicted by the gay ban remain. As Andrew reflected in his own words:
“Coming out as I did was not my plan…My mental health deteriorated, and I buried the impact of my outing and dismissal.”
Andrew was one of the fortunate ones, however. He is here with us in the Gallery today, and he spoke so powerfully on the radio this morning. Many others were not as lucky, so I welcome the Government’s announcement today that they will move from apology to action.
The apology given last year by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), was long overdue and was right. He was right to describe the ban on LGBT people serving in the military as
“an appalling failure of the British state”.—[Official Report, 19 July 2023; Vol. 736, c. 897.]
He was right to highlight the abuse, harassment and discrimination that many suffered, but words alone are not enough. This Government have been clear that they will tackle historic injustices head on, from Horizon to Grenfell, and from infected blood to the horrific legacy of the ban on and mistreatment of LGBT veterans. With today’s announcement, we take a meaningful step forward to support the veterans who suffered at the hands of the British state.
I welcome the scheme’s focus on simplicity and speed of payment, which are vital for veterans who have waited decades for justice. I also welcome the Secretary of State’s clarification that those reparations will be ringfenced, ensuring that veterans will not lose access to tax or benefits as a result. This moment would not have been possible without the tireless advocacy of organisations such as Fighting With Pride, so I thank them for their dedication in supporting LGBT veterans and for their crucial role in securing today’s announcement. I also thank Lord Etherton for his review.
Andrew’s story reminds us of the immense personal cost of injustice. His courage, perseverance and achievements should inspire us all. Andrew has waited 27 years, but some have waited as long as 50. Tragically, many veterans have died without ever seeing justice. As we approach 12 January, the 25th anniversary of the lifting of the ban, we must also focus now on the task ahead of us: to locate and support all eligible veterans to come forward and to ensure no one is left behind. I hope that the Minister for Veterans and People can provide further detail on that strategy in his closing remarks. We must honour those who served in silence, who lived in fear, and who were ostracised simply for being themselves and loving who they loved. That is not merely an act of kindness, but a moral obligation, and I am proud that this Government are resolute in their determination to deliver it.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I am humbled by the testimonies that have been shared by my friends on both sides of the Chamber, but I was particularly moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley). The testimonies that have been shared show us how ashamed we should be that our country treated so many people so badly for so long. Make no mistake: we have had LGBT people in our armed services for as long as we have had armed services, and I am proud to call many of them my close friends. They have shared their harrowing stories with me, but what always shines through is their loyalty to their service and their country.
Today’s debate makes me proud to be a Labour MP. I remember the Labour Government lifting the ban on LGBT soldiers in 2000. I celebrated that with my friends. Labour argued for the Etherton review, and I thank Lord Etherton for his work. Now, as a Labour MP, I welcome the recommendations. I will fight for every LGBT veteran to get the compensation that they deserve.
The historical treatment of our veterans was a moral stain on our nation. It was wrong on every single level. We will never know how many good men and women were too afraid ever to apply to serve their country, or too afraid ever to come out to this day. So many LGBT soldiers had their hopes and aspirations cut short despite their commitment to serve our country. They were left feeling ashamed, demoralised and humiliated when they should have been proud, like I am, to be a member of the LGBT community.
We cannot undo the damage of the past, but we can ensure that those who were affected receive what they are owed. I pay tribute to all the veterans with us today, and to Fighting With Pride, which has supported LGBT veterans for years and pushed Governments to do better. I also pay tribute to Kelly Holmes, whose recent personal account was difficult to hear but typical of so many women I have spoken to.
I encourage every LGBT veteran to apply to have their rank restored so that they can feel pride again in the service they gave to our country. It is time to renew the nation’s contract with all those who have served, and delivering Lord Etherton’s recommendations is just a small part of that. I hope that today is another historic landmark in the fight for equality for LGBT people in this country. I will support any veterans to get the compensation they deserve to restore their dignity and pride for their service for our country.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
I welcome Lord Etherton’s review and thank all the organisations and campaign groups that contributed to it, including Fighting With Pride. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) rightly said, this is welcome, but it is so late. I also place on the record my thanks to my constituents in Suffolk Coastal who raised the issue with me directly and have worked for years to support their former military colleagues who have suffered at the hands of this abhorrent and humiliating practice. In particular, I thank Kalvyn Friend, who contributed to the review and has engaged with me directly on the issue. He and his colleagues Terry Skitmore and Simon Wallington were perceived as gay in the ’90s and late-’80s and were treated appallingly as a result.
It is important that we acknowledge that there are many former armed service personnel who did not live to see this justice come about. Either they died natural deaths after the ban was removed or, devastatingly, they took their own lives. Many of those who are still living have attempted to die by suicide or have thought to do so. I have heard appalling stories from campaign groups and charities.
The Etherton review has exposed harrowing stories of members of the armed forces and how they were treated by the very institution they were prepared to give their life for. I also thank the Royal British Legion, which among other charities and campaign groups provided evidence to the review and has highlighted stories from former veterans—men and women—who faced at best humiliation and at worst degrading and appalling acts of intimidation, as well as needless discharge from the armed forces. In some cases, they faced imprisonment and no access to their military pensions, as we have heard.
I reiterate that the cultural and operational justifications for the ban, as described and endorsed by the Ministry of Defence at the time, have rightly been criticised in Lord Etherton’s report as an
“incomprehensible policy of homophobic bigotry”.
It is crucial that we learn from those past mistakes and that the principles of equality and respect that underpin our society are taken forward.
In 2002, I attended Welbeck military college. After I left, I joined the Territorial Army, serving in the Royal Logistics Corps. This was just a few short years after the ban was lifted, but the shadow of the policy was still evident. Serving personnel were terrified of being found out, still living their lives in the shadows. At college, I had teachers and physical training instructors who had lived with and lived through the ban, having been personally affected by the homophobic policies or having seen at first hand how friends and serving colleagues had been bullied out of the Army and lived their lives in the shadows. Unsurprisingly, many have suffered from mental health problems brought on by living and working in an institution that had previously tried to hunt them out for being gay or bisexual.
Even though the ban was lifted by the time I left Welbeck college and the TA, I saw how the culture lingered for LGBT colleagues. We have heard today that although the ban was lifted in 2000, the culture and the practice were still evident among serving personnel. When I was there, colleagues still felt that they had to hide their sexual orientation and that it was still something to be ashamed of. They were not proud or open in the way that we are today and that we take for granted in society now.
The impact of this abhorrent practice cannot be overstated. The lifelong scar it has had on so many who gave so much to our nation is a stain on our military history and more widely on our society. The review rightly recommends that compensation would be an appropriate means of redress. I am delighted that we have increased the compensation from £50 million to £75 million. If that had been left unchanged, it might have equalled as little as £12,500 per claimant. I urge the Government to make sure that the payments are made quickly and without delay. It is important that we do what we can to make sure that the compensation is released quickly to those who deserve it.
I welcome this announcement, and once again I thank all those who contributed to the review and who took it forward. The work being done to implement the recommendations will go some way to recognising the past failures of the Ministry of Defence.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
It is a privilege to participate in this important debate and to hear many moving accounts from both sides of the House. My constituency plays a crucial role in our nation’s defence, ranking seventh in the UK for the veteran population. Torpoint, a wonderful town that is home to HMS Raleigh, has the third highest number of veterans of any community in the UK, with over 14% having served our country.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for today’s statement, and to Lord Etherton for his crucial work on this topic. I am also grateful to the Minister for Veterans and People for visiting Torpoint recently to meet veterans from across the constituency. The visit was an important demonstration of Labour’s commitment to our armed forces and our veteran community.
Today, we reflect on a deeply regrettable chapter in our history. As we heard, prior to 2000, being a member of the LGBT+ community was considered incompatible with service in the armed forces. As a result, LGBT individuals—or those perceived to be—could be dismissed or forced to leave the military, robbing them of careers, livelihoods and dignity. I welcome the Government’s announcement of support for our veterans. It is a historic step towards righting these wrongs. By increasing the funding—and, in fact, exceeding that recommended by the review—for the LGBT financial recognition scheme, the Government continue to show an unwavering commitment to supporting our veterans.
I acknowledge the brilliant work of Fighting With Pride to support the wellbeing of LGBT+ veterans, armed forces personnel and their families. Its efforts, alongside those of the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes, Stonewall, SSAFA and many others, are invaluable. I have heard from constituents who have been personally affected by this injustice, and I am so grateful to them for their work and for sharing their stories with me.
I am immensely proud of our LGBT+ serving personnel and veterans from South East Cornwall and across the nation. Their resilience, despite the adversity they faced, is a testament to their strength and dedication to keeping us safe. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, and I hope to hear more in due course about the progress being made on this vital topic.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I am grateful for your forbearance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I very much welcome the announcement made by the Secretary of State today, although its arrival is almost as late as my own arrival in the Chamber this afternoon, for which I apologise.
The ban on LGBT people serving in the armed forces until 2000 was a failure of the state; the delay in announcing reparations is another failure, which is in danger of eroding the public’s faith in politics to deliver for people. I see no point in in blaming the previous Government. In fact, I commend the work of the previous Government and of Lord Etherton, and of our own Government in bringing forward this scheme so swiftly. However, just as we saw with the Hillsborough scandal, the infected blood scandal and the Post Office Horizon scandal, we must move more quickly to compensate people. I concur with the hon. Members for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) and for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who emphasised that the scheme must be delivered swiftly and in a measured way. A long delay simply prolongs the agony of the many veterans who have waited decades for an apology and for the formal financial reparations announced today.
I have a constituent, Janice MacIver, who served in the British Army and was caught up in this dark period of our history in the 1990s, some 30 years ago. From 1992 to 1994, Ms MacIver served with the Army Intelligence Corps in Hong Kong and England. There was nothing wrong with her work or her service to the country, but, on 30 June 1994, she was unceremoniously and dreadfully kicked out of the British Army and sent back from Hong Kong simply because of who she was.
Many veterans affected by this scandal have lost their homes, health and peace of mind because of the awful treatment meted out to them. Ms MacIver is a resilient individual, as islanders tend to be, and she managed to get herself back on her feet. She served her country in another way, as a police officer, with a career of public service spanning two decades. However, as we have heard today, some people never made it that far.
What was done to Janice MacIver happened 30 years ago, but she was one of the first over the threshold of my Stornoway constituency office when I was elected. What happened to her still stings, still hurts. She did get a letter of apology from the head of the Army, which she appreciates, and a new beret, and the Intelligence Corps are to welcome her back to base in a ceremony next month. It is fantastic that Janice’s sister is flying from Australia to be with her and support her at that event.
The new levels of compensation are very welcome, but for Janice and many other veterans, it is not just about the money; it is about having proper acknowledgment and acceptance that what was done to her—the way she was treated by her country after serving her country—was wrong. This announcement, I hope, will go some way to repairing the damage done. I hope that with this, that sad episode will be done and dusted, but it ought to be recorded and acknowledged in Army records and museums. It belongs in the past.
What happened to Janice and to thousands of other veterans was wrong, which is so evident. It is widely acknowledged, and it is a shame it has taken so many years to put it right. However, I am glad of today’s announcement, and hope that LGBT service personnel and veterans can now say, finally, that they have served with pride.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
James Cartlidge
With the leave of the House, I am winding up this debate as well as opening it, as you can see, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are only two of us, and there is a Bill Committee sitting at the same time—there are some things we cannot physically get around in that situation. I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for letting me wind up. It enables me to pay tribute to some incredible speeches today, all of them moving, in which Members have shared the many traumatic cases of their constituents. They underline exactly why the Government have made this announcement today, based on the review that we launched in government.
Some specific themes were raised. The hon. Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward) spoke of time running out. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Elaine Stewart) also spoke about the issue of time and the urgency of getting this resolved. My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter), spoke of how she wanted to see payments getting out quickly and without delay. I am sure we all agree and echo that sentiment. I am sure the Minister will provide clarity where he can, in particular on the second payment, the LGBT impact payment, which will presumably have a longer process given the presence of the panel. Perhaps he could give some indication of the timings he expects in that regard.
The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) reminded me that we should thank our serving LGBT personnel and not just talk about veterans. Of course, they serve in a very different military and a very different military culture. We wish them well and thank them for their public service.
There were many moving cases mentioned. What struck me in particular was the reminder of the impact—literally, the impact—on those people concerned. The hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) spoke about the case of a constituent who was imprisoned. In the case mentioned by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tom Rutland), they were put in a psychiatric ward because of being LGBT. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) spoke about his constituent attempting suicide and being sexually assaulted. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock said that we denied people their freedom while they were defending ours. I paraphrase, but I thought that was an excellent statement.
There were other cases which we might say had some kind of happy ending, or at least they went on to do other things which we should honour. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) spoke about the very moving case of someone who I understand is in the Gallery. Gunner Ashton obviously had a very difficult experience, but then went on to carry the banner of the Royal British Legion at the Royal Albert Hall remembrance evening. I was at the most recent one and it is an incredible occasion, so I pay tribute to her.
The hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) spoke about a constituent who became a very senior clinician. We heard from the hon. Gentleman for the Western Isles, if he does not mind me calling it that—the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton)—who spoke about his constituent who obviously suffered a great trauma but became a police officer. He called it the resilience of islanders. I think we have seen that resilience in other cases spoken of today.
The hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) said that she believed there had been LGBT soldiers ever since we have had an army. Again, I paraphrase, but she is probably absolutely right—although, of course, Lord Etherton has not quite gone back that far in his review. Echoing that theme, the hon. Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser), in a very enjoyable speech, made the point that so many would have served in world war two. We should remember that and pay tribute to them, because that sacrifice gave us our freedom which means we are here today. He also made a very good point, which I think I made in my opening speech. When we talk about military skill and the bravery of people who serve in our armed forces with distinction, those features are irrelevant to background and sexuality. That is a very good point indeed.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), who I believe is a former RAF policeman, made the point that the RAF has changed significantly. It is important that he mentioned that point. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), along with the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater, reminded us of the importance of the HIV issue and the additional associated stigma in that regard. She made the laudable point of calling for zero HIV stigma in the armed forces today. I wonder whether the Minister would want to comment on that.
Finally, the hon. Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) had an Adjournment debate recently on this subject, so he exemplifies the great persistence we have seen from a number of colleagues in this House on this subject. A few are not here at the moment, which may be because of a slightly premature end, but hopefully they will see in Hansard that I have paid tribute to their speeches. There were lots of excellent contributions.
I will conclude by saying this: as the Secretary of State said in his opening speech, in addition to implementing the recommendations of Lord Etherton’s review, we must ensure we thoroughly learn the lessons of this deeply sorry and regrettable episode in our defence history. They are two separate things and it is crucial we do both. Terrible things were wholly unjustifiably inflicted on brave and committed service personnel with lifelong repercussions for those affected, as we have heard from cases up and down the country. It is incumbent on all of us to reflect on this having happened in our country. All those who put themselves forward for service must be treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve.
We should all share in the mission to correct this historic wrong, because we all know that every person affected will have shared equally the same values of freedom, patriotism and public service as anyone else in the armed forces. Today we salute them, and, as far as we are able, we take further significant steps to restore full and formal recognition of the role of LGBT veterans serving our country.
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
What a debate we have had today. We have heard some exceptionally harrowing and, indeed, inconceivable stories of events that have taken place in our lifetime. On that note, and on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, I wish to apologise to all those affected by the ban. The way in which the MOD mistreated LGBT personnel between 1967 and 2000 is a flaming injustice that has burned for more than five decades. It is an injustice that was acknowledged by Lord Etherton’s excellent report last year, and, as I said during our debate six weeks ago, it is an injustice that put the MOD on the wrong side of history. It is an injustice that the last Government worked to heal, with the support of Members in all parts of the House, and for that we thank them. When the scheme opens tomorrow at 09:00 hours and we finally begin the important process of offering financial recognition of the pain caused, we will turn a page and start a new chapter in defence history.
This Government have taken the decision to increase the amount that can be disbursed by the scheme by 50% more than the plans that we inherited. Not only will those dismissed or discharged from service receive a payment; those who were impacted more broadly by the ban will do so too. However, it is important to acknowledge at the outset that no amount of money can undo the hurt and pain caused, and no process can genuinely quantify the impact on earnings. This is a financial acknowledgment of wrongdoing and regret by the state, and while I know that it will not fully satisfy all, I hope that it will help to bring affirmation, and some closure, to those affected. The scheme will also address two more of Lord Etherton’s 49 recommendations—including rank restoration and rewriting those records—leaving just seven to be completed, which remains a major priority. I thank all Members on both sides of the House for their comments and the harrowing stories that they related, and I will now try to address some of their specific questions.
Let me say first to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward) that we are working exceptionally hard with Fighting With Pride and 10 other charities to ensure that we advertise this scheme as broadly as possible across the community. Indeed, this debate itself is one way to get that message out. We have 24 months of the recognition scheme, primarily because of the prerogative powers but also following the recommendations of Lord Etherton’s report. We have allocated £90,000 to help charities to assist the veterans with their applications, because we acknowledge that some of the processes may not be as simple as others. We are also asking for a reverse burden of proof on the access of the £25 million financial total. Predicting the number of cases that will come forward will be exceptionally difficult: experiences will differ, time served will differ, and therefore the amount of recognition will differ as well.
As we heard from the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), facing the Treasury is perhaps much safer than facing the enemy. Nevertheless, I thank those in the Treasury, and the broader team in the Ministry of Defence, for working so hard—championed by the Secretary of State for Defence—to deliver the extra £25 million, a 58% increase on what we had previously. Speed of delivery is essential, and we have gone for both speed and breadth: the speed to deliver the scheme as fast as feasibly possible, and the breadth to ensure that compensation is delivered to all those affected by the ban, both dismissed and discharged. Those who may have been impacted by the ban, but not necessarily recorded—this was mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman)—will also be able to apply for these resources.
We appreciate the comments of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), as well as his work prior to our coming into government. I hope that LGBT veterans now feel, more than ever before, part of the veterans family, thanks primarily to the restorative measures in Lord Etherton’s report, which have gone so far to delivering that. We have now implemented 42 of those 49 recommendations, and I think we will close them out by 2027. Responsibility for some of them does not sit with the Government, but we are working hard with the Office for Veterans’ Affairs and other Government Departments to close them out as quickly as possible.
I will cover two of the points raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven now, but will address others later. Overseas applicants can apply; the scheme is open to everyone. We will have a look at the geographical spread of charitable support. Although we do not have a huge amount of control over it, we will ensure that it is balanced and will work with the Office for Veterans’ Affairs to deliver it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) mentioned the important subject of HIV. I can confirm that we are on the case. Although there is no blanket ban on HIV-positive personnel flying in the armed forces, the Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that our policies that impact on people with HIV are regularly reviewed. I and the Minister for the Armed Forces in particular are closely considering HIV policies relating to aircrew, and we will get back to my hon. Friend in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan), and the hon. Members for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), for Aberdeen North and for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) mentioned a concern about the cap. The financial recognition scheme is a response to a gross injustice—we acknowledge that. It was designed to be a tangible acknowledgment of wrongdoing and regret, and was never intended to compensate for loss of earnings, but I accept that there will always be people who feel, for good reason, that we have not gone far enough.
Ben Maguire
A North Cornwall constituent of mine was attending the debate from the Public Gallery but has had to leave because of the outrage that he feels. Does the Minister agree that greater financial compensation should be given to veterans such as my constituent, who suffered such enormous harm, including gang rape and severe physical assault that resulted in lifetime disabilities?
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Member for that question. We have tried to balance demands for individual circumstances to be fully recognised on a case-by-case basis with the demand for speedy resolution. We have arrived at amounts that reflect the practice of relevant employment tribunals, and payments made for harm and suffering in the service complaints process, which also align with similarly sized payments awarded by the scheme in Canada. Although Government schemes of this type will always cause debate—I acknowledge that— we have done our best to be fair and balanced, using figures based on relevant precedents and a process that will reflect individual circumstances within a framework designed to avoid delay and ensure fairness across that cohort. It is probably worthwhile to dig into that in a little more detail to provide the House with answers.
The LGBT dismissed or discharged payment for veterans who were dismissed or discharged based solely on their sexual orientation or gender identity under the ban will be a flat rate of £50,000. The LGBT impact payment is open to all those who experienced any pain and suffering directly related to the ban, including bullying and harassment, invasive investigation and, of course, imprisonment. Those who were dismissed and discharged can also apply for that payment. The LGBT impact payments will be assessed by an independent panel against three tariffs—£1,000 to £5,000, £5,000 to £10,000 and £10,000 to £20,000—up to a maximum of £20,000, to ensure that awards are proportionate to the level of impact.
We heard several questions, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley), about why the measures have taken so long. Today has been more than 50 years in the making. I totally agree that veterans have waited far too long for this recognition of historical injustice. However, since coming into government, we have moved exceptionally fast. This Government have a bias for action. We came into Government in July, listened to Fighting With Pride and the LGBT veterans, informed and updated the House and colleagues last month, and designed a broad and rapid payments scheme, and at 0900 tomorrow, that scheme will open and deliver.
We also had some questions about the impact of loss of earnings, particularly to do with pensions. It is worth noting that this is not a compensation scheme and has not been designed as such. With such a variety of experiences and personal circumstances within the affected community, and with limited evidence available, it is difficult to estimate how long each veteran would have served if not for the ban and what rank they might have reached.
Finally, on the question about Lord Etherton’s recommendations: two are for the Ministry of Defence to implement and five are for the national health service to address. My team is in touch with the Department of Health and Social Care as we move that forward.
As various Members mentioned, it is worth noting the broader non-financial restorative measures that are taking place. There are 719 applications already, which is fantastic. In practice, this means everything from apology letters sent directly to individuals from the chiefs of the Army, the Royal Navy and the Air Force, through to medals and berets, ensuring that these veterans feel included as part of the veterans community.
When I joined the Royal Marines in 1999, this abhorrent ban on homosexuality in the armed forces was still in place. Today, a quarter of a century later, we turn a page on that shameful chapter in our national story. The financial recognition scheme is an acknowledgment by the state that it was wrong. While I accept that many veterans will continue to feel that it does not go far enough, the scheme is another vindication of the harm and pain they have suffered, and vindication for all those who stood against the ban.
I urge everyone affected by these past failings to access the financial recognition scheme and other restorative measures by visiting the LGBT veterans support page on the gov.uk website. On this page, they will find a simple guide explaining how to apply for financial recognition payments, which includes details of the scheme, eligibility and the supporting documents required. There are simple screenshots of what to expect when applying, and the application form has been streamlined to make the process straightforward and user-friendly to ensure that veterans can apply with as much ease as possible.
I thank Lord Etherton for his outstanding work on this report. I also thank the LGBT community and the charities that supported it, particularly Fighting With Pride, for their courage and continued efforts to bring this to a resolution. They have engaged comprehensively throughout the programme, with both the MOD team and me.
I have an old saying from combat: “Courage is a decision, not a reaction.” Few have been so courageous as those watching this debate today. To stand up, to struggle to your feet when everyone is trying to push you down, and to shout when everyone is trying to silence you—that is an active decision, and perhaps the most courageous decision of all. They should stand proud from here on out.
The debate today and the speed at which we have worked—the fact that from tomorrow at 0900 the scheme will open—is a credit to all those who have worked on the team. It also reaffirms that this Government are a Government of action. Indeed, we have a bias for action, and the Defence Secretary and I will continue to drive this forward until every recommendation of Lord Etherton’s review is implemented to right the wrongs of the past.
To the individuals affected—Victoria, Craig, Danny, Claire, Andrew and Janice, to name but a few—we apologise. We hope that this will go some way through the healing process. In line with Claire Ashton and my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury, we want to ensure that every veteran who has helped to keep Britain secure receives the respect and support they deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Lord Etherton’s independent review into the treatment of LGBT veterans.
SEND Provision: Autism and ADHD
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I am grateful for the opportunity to address this critical issue that affects so many families and carers, not just in my constituency but across the country. I rise to speak up for all those who feel they are not being heard and to speak about the crisis in the provision of special educational needs and disability support, particularly for children and young people with autism spectrum disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. This crisis is failing children and young people, their families and carers, the professionals who support them, and society as a whole.
Before I proceed, I thank all the courageous parents and carers who have taken the time to tell me their stories. Some of them have come to Westminster today to be with us in the Gallery. I pay special tribute to the staff from schools in my constituency, including Bassingbourn, Melbourn and Hauxton primary schools, who have taken the time to attend this critically important debate and are with us in the Gallery.
I was privileged to meet staff at Bassingbourn primary school, where I witnessed at first hand the inspiring work undertaken by dedicated and caring professionals, who are creating safe spaces, such as the hub. I saw for myself the calm and trusting relationships built with students, and heard about the difference that the hub makes for students. Rather than spiralling into disruptive behaviour or not even being able to make it through the door to registration some days, students are now seeking out the hub as a space to ready themselves for registration or to take time out before going back to class.
The headteacher, staff and the SEND co-ordinators go above and beyond, often making miracles happen on very limited budgets. However, let me share the words of one dedicated professional from my constituency, so that the House can hear what the current crisis is leading to. She says:
“On a daily basis I am setting up, delivering and helping other Teaching Assistants to deliver bespoke curriculums for children with SEND as they are mostly educated outside the classes of their peers. We do not have a special unit for them, we are just accommodating them as best we can in quieter areas of the school, including corridors, because they are not able to work in the noise and business of a primary classroom. The needs of these children vary though they all need 1:1 TAs to help them and others stay safe, regulated and learning throughout the day. At present we have two non-verbal children with an Autism diagnosis who, years ago, you would not have expected to see in a mainstream school. Up until this week I have believed that I was doing the right thing trying to make sure they are happy and secure and genuinely learning and making progress with us.”
That professional is now questioning the very fundamentals of her profession as a result of the heartbreaking experience of those children when they are facing key transitions: starting school, primary to secondary, getting to 18, 18 to 25 and afterwards. One of the children she had been working with was excluded a few days after starting secondary school because their behaviour was not manageable. In her words:
“It broke my heart to hear from her Mum what she had gone through in such a short time in mainstream Secondary and I knew at once that she must have been so frightened to have behaved as she did. The child was subsequently at home for most of the remaining school year receiving education from a tutor paid for by the Local Authority—after her parents fought hard and demanded it—and then was finally given a place at their local special school in the summer. What I now understand is that the broken system means that a child has to fail in a very distressing way before they are given the provision they need. I could not sit by and see another child I have known for many years go down the same path with all the knowledge of how damaging the experience will be for them without saying something about it!”
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The account the hon. Lady is giving is incredibly powerful and I am really grateful that she has chosen to share it with the House. As somebody who was teaching maths at a secondary school until a few months before the general election, I can state that the situation she describes, while certainly not unusual, is not universal to all schools. I am pleased to report that despite the stresses that were put on schools by the previous Government, we teachers did all we could in secondary education settings to ensure there was an inclusive education for those with SEND. Does she agree that with the change of Government, we have seen a change in direction and intention, and hopefully we will see the wins for SEND students that they so desperately deserve?
Pippa Heylings
Absolutely; I am here to pay tribute, as is everybody, to what teachers are doing, both with regard to the failure of the previous Government and with the current situation. Let us get to what is happening with the current Government.
Every child deserves access to education to get the best start in life and build a strong foundation that can provide valuable skills that allow them to thrive. That is not the case for all children across the country and particularly not for those with autism spectrum disorder and ADHD. Every professional I have spoken to agrees that early diagnosis and support are essential.
Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
In respect of early diagnosis and onward support, in my constituency of Congleton we have two specific problems. First, although some children receive a diagnosis under the right to choose pathway on the NHS, others, often from more deprived backgrounds, face considerably longer waits than they would under that pathway. The impact of that on those children concerns me very much. Secondly, Cheshire East council sometimes goes for periods of time when it closes the education, health and care plan application pathway to new entrants because it is so overwhelmed by the number of applications it already has. Both those are serious issues for children in my constituency, and I thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire for securing this debate and giving me the opportunity to air them. Does she agree that it is a huge improvement to have a Government who are integrating SEND support and that there is so much more that we are all looking to do?
Pippa Heylings
I will come on to what I think is a postcode lottery. We see regional disparities in the care and provision given, so I thank the hon. Member for raising that point.
For many, the wait to get assessments for education, health and care plans can be months, if not years. Lord Darzi’s investigation of the NHS in England notes,
“Waiting lists for community services and mental health have surged.”
The report also mentions how
“Demand for assessments for ADHD and Autism have grown exponentially in recent years”,
with children disproportionately represented among them.
Recent research found that 200,000 children in England are struggling to get an education, health and care plan. That is 200,000 families left in uncertainty, desperate for help and struggling without the support they need.
Cambridgeshire currently has 8,033 students with EHCPs—a 51% increase in the last five years—and of those, 2,593 plans primarily address autism spectrum disorder. Indeed, I was told by the chief executive of Cambridgeshire county council that there has been an increase of 270% in the number of children presenting with autism. Requests for education, health and care needs assessments have risen faster than the national average. Why? We think that is driven by greater awareness of SEND and the statutory responsibilities of local authorities, the impact of the covid pandemic and the overall increase in mental health issues for children, even at a very young age. Those numbers help to underline the scale of the issue, but we should not get drawn purely into statistics and figures, because behind every number and every percentage there is a child, a family or a sibling being failed every single day.
I come to the issue of disparity that the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) mentioned. Families who can afford to seek private neurodevelopmental assessments tend to receive help much faster than those who are reliant on public services. For the rest, it is a postcode lottery. NHS England data reveals stark regional disparities in waiting times for diagnosis. For example, the north-west region has the longest average wait of three years and four months, from referral to diagnosis. We therefore have a health inequality element to this too, as certain groups of children are less likely to have their needs identified or met, punished just because of where they live.
For some children, mainstream schools are simply not suitable, and parents and carers bear the brunt of that reality, managing reduced timetables, enduring repeated exclusions and watching their children receive only a few hours of education each day.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for bringing this important debate to the House. Following on from her comments about mainstream education, one of my first jobs after leaving university was as a teaching assistant. I also spent a year in a special needs school. Does she agree that the issues we are seeing are partly the result of the lack of recognition and appreciation over the last 14 years for support staff in mainstream schools and of the role that they play in ensuring that every child has a decent education?
Pippa Heylings
I could not concur more. Over the past decade or more, we saw chronic under-investment from the Conservative Government, despite the needs having been recognised in statute, and that has left us in this pressure point situation. We are now seeing the results of that. I have also been told that this is a time bomb, because we will see the impacts in the future in the quality of life, in opportunities, in the NHS and in social services—in all services really—if we do not deal with this situation.
I have also been told about the situation for siblings. When a child is not given the support that they need in school, young carer siblings are often drawn out of their class and asked to be with their sibling during their lunch break or lessons. There is an impact on all those affected.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
On that point about young carers, does my hon. Friend agree that, at the moment, schools struggle to recognise how many young carers are on their rolls? Does she think that the Department for Education would be wise to look at better ways of measuring the number of young carers and giving schools the toolkits to identify them?
Pippa Heylings
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The Carers Trust has provided us with these stories and pointed out that we really need to collect this evidence. It would be easy to point the finger at local councils and say that this is their failure, but, as we have said, they are stretched to their limits by a chronic lack of funding. We have heard that f40, the cross-party local authority campaign group, has estimated that an additional £4.6 billion of annual SEND revenue is required to meet the current need, yet most of our county councils face a black hole in their budgets. One issue is the training and retention of educational psychologists, because they and council workers are overwhelmed. Turnover rates are high and burnout is common, which leads to an exacerbation of those waiting lists.
Mrs Russell
I thank the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene again; I appreciate it. Cheshire has some of the lowest per-pupil funding in the country. There is a direct link between schools that receive relatively low levels of funding and councils that have relatively high levels of SEND diagnoses, because there is not the same support in mainstream classrooms as when there are higher staffing ratios, which we find in areas that have better funding. We need to look at equalising that funding as best we can in the current environment to improve support at an earlier stage, as the hon. Lady was mentioning.
Pippa Heylings
I agree with the hon. Member. My constituency of South Cambridgeshire also has among the lowest per-pupil funding, which exacerbates the fact that, even though we have EHCPs, most of them are not funded to the amount that is required for each of those students. That compounds the situation that our amazing schools are trying to deal with.
Let me return to educational psychologists. Cambridgeshire county council has 17.5 budgeted educational psychologist roles, but 6.4 remain vacant due to a national shortage and the fact that psychologists can get better pay in other jobs and other places. We are seeing an inability to fill those roles and to support psychologists.
The Liberal Democrats are calling for a national body for SEND to end the postcode lottery faced by families of children with the highest needs. That would include looking at immediate Government action to prioritise early diagnosis and support for children with SEND, and to increase funding for diagnostic services.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
One concern is that many children end up being out of education because they are not getting the support that they need in school. Does she agree that it is an outrage that, in that situation, some parents face prosecution? Does she also agree that we need to provide support for children to receive an education, whether in school or through alternative provision, and that we should record that in a better way? At the moment we have authorised and unauthorised absences. We do not record the fact that some children are missing school because their parents do not believe that they are receiving the support that they need.
Pippa Heylings
I thank my hon. Friend for raising one of the complex issues around this provision. While we support the current Government’s additional allocation of funding to this critical area, we really want them to look at the fact that it is not just about mainstream provision; it is also about specialist provision. As she says, we must look at all types of provision, because this is complex. Even if support is given in mainstream schools, it is often on very reduced timetables, which means that parents and carers are unable to work and be productive for society, because they are either covering the spaces in that provision, unauthorised or otherwise, in other settings, or covering for the times when the school cannot provide timetabled support.
I return to what the Liberal Democrats think we should have: a national SEND body, an urgent increase in diagnostic services, action to address the chronic lack of educational psychologists, targeted resources for local authorities to improve their capacity, support for our schools and for more special school places, and interim support measures for children awaiting diagnosis so that they do not fall through the cracks. The Lib Dems have always said that we need mental health professionals in every school. It is great to hear the Government talk about mental health professionals in secondary schools. We have heard about the need in primary schools, so let us get in there early too.
A capacity for early diagnosis and management means, as somebody said to me, in the words of Desmond Tutu, that we can stop pulling people out of the river, and instead stop them falling in the river in the first place. Once again, I pay tribute to all the amazing parents and carers who have spoken to me, and the amazing teachers, headteachers and SEND co-ordinators who are working in this area.
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) ended with the words of Desmond Tutu, and I could not agree more. I congratulate her on securing this debate on an incredibly important subject, and I congratulate hon. Members on their valuable contributions to it. I know that, as a former teacher, she is really aware of the critical role that education plays in breaking down barriers to opportunity, and how vital it is that we get our education and health services right to support the most vulnerable in our society. She described incredibly eloquently and powerfully the difference that good, inclusive education provision can make, and the significant challenges in providing it. She also mentioned the challenges that many children face at transition points, which can undermine some of the incredible work that teachers are performing up and down the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mr Sewards) rightly pointed out.
Like others present, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire will have been inundated with letters and emails from concerned families in her constituency. I am sure she has been helping them to navigate the incredibly challenging special educational needs and disabilities system. So many of us are faced with this issue, which is why we need to reform the system. It is a priority for the Government. We want all children, regardless of where they are in the country, to receive the right support to succeed in their education and lead happy, healthy and productive lives. In far too many cases, we have simply lost the confidence of families that children with special educational needs and disabilities will be supported, because they are being failed by every measure.
Despite high needs funding for children and young people with very complex special educational needs and disabilities rising to higher and higher levels, the system is simply not delivering the outcomes that those children deserve, so we desperately need to reform the system. Our message to families is that we are committed to improving the SEND system and regaining their confidence.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I completely agree with the Minister’s comments. Part of ensuring that we provide the correct support to children is ensuring that the education, health and care plan assessment process is effective. I was told by a charity worker in my constituency of Dewsbury and Batley that 95% of appeals in Kirklees against a conclusion that SEND support is not needed are successful. Does she agree that this is a terrible waste of council resources, and that EHCP assessments must be done properly and got right the first time, so that children can be given support as soon as possible?
Catherine McKinnell
I absolutely recognise the challenge the hon. Gentleman has outlined, but it very much speaks to the point I was making, which is that we have published independently commissioned insights that suggest that if the education system as a whole was extensively improved, and if we had much better early intervention, which the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire rightly referred to, and better resourcing within mainstream schools, that could lead to tens of thousands more children and young people having their needs met without an education, health and care plan. Their needs would be met within a mainstream system and with their peers, without needing a specialist placement. Clearly, we need specialist places for children with the most complex needs, but to ensure we have those places, we need to improve inclusivity and expertise within mainstream schools, while ensuring that those special schools and places can cater to children with the most complex needs.
I come back to the hon. Lady’s point about transition points for young people and how important it is for the whole system to be reformed. It is not good enough to reform just part of it, and for that great work to then be undone when a child or young person moves on to a new educational setting that does not provide the right support and environment for them. My point is that this situation is huge and complex. There is not a magic wand, and there is no overnight quick fix, but we are determined to change it, and we cannot do it alone. We need to work in partnership to achieve this.
Alison Bennett
I thank the Minister for her response. So much could be said about special educational needs across the country and in my constituency of Mid Sussex. The Minister mentioned how we all as Members of this place are undoubtedly trying our best to help families navigate the special educational needs system. I am sorry to say that when families come to me and I ask, “How can I help you?”, they say, “We don’t think you can help us. We just want you to witness and listen to what we are saying,” because the system is so broken. I met the family of Annabel in Mid Sussex. She has been out of school for several years, has been sectioned and has had multiple suicide attempts because her autism was not being managed in the schooling system. Her family just wanted me to bear witness to them, and I am so sorry that there is not more that we as parliamentarians can do.
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Lady has borne witness today to that family and young person facing that challenge. It is vital that we work together with parents, schools, councils, the health sector and expert staff, who we know go above and beyond to support children within education settings to achieve the changes that are clearly desperately needed.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire specifically focused the debate on support for autistic children and young people and those with ADHD. She will know from the work she has undertaken that we are seeing significant increases in the numbers of children and young people identified as autistic or with ADHD, and that is something we share in common with other countries around the world. We know families are facing significant challenges and that support needs to be in place, as she outlined, to ensure that those children can thrive in school.
We absolutely recognise the long waiting times across the NHS for autism and ADHD assessments, and we are working to address them. As the hon. Lady identified, we need to ensure that mainstream schools and colleges can identify those needs and put support in place early, because the earlier a child gets the support and right environment in which to learn, the more chance that they will thrive and that some of the challenges they face will be mitigated.
Ensuring that we have knowledgeable professionals in our schools and colleges is a key part of this. All teachers are teachers of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, but we need to make sure those teachers have the skills and support to help all pupils succeed. As such, we are implementing a range of teacher training reforms that begin with initial teacher training and continue through early career teaching to middle and senior leadership.
We have a universal SEND services contract, which provides SEND-specific courses and professional development for school and college staff. Through that contract, the Autism Education Trust offers a range of training and support for staff on how to support autistic children and young people. The contract began in May 2022, and over 200,000 professionals have received training from the Autism Education Trust and training partners. On 1 September 2024, this Government introduced a new mandatory leadership-level national professional qualification for SENCOs. We are making the changes, but it will take time for them to work through.
Our partnerships for inclusion of neurodiversity in schools programme is also running in around 10% of schools, which is approximately 1,600 mainstream primary school settings. It is deploying specialists from both the health and education workforces and building better teaching and staff capacity to identify the needs of neurodivergent children. It provides opportunities to enhance support and improve outcomes for all children, taking a whole-school approach. It is a cross-Government programme backed by £13 million of investment, and it is a collaboration between the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education and NHS England.
Additionally, we have just established a neurodivergence task and finish group, bringing together a group of experts from various backgrounds to help us understand how to improve inclusivity in mainstream schools in a way that works for neurodivergent children and young people. We know that listening to children and young people and their families and understanding their experiences is a really important part of this work. That group met for the first time this week, and I look forward to seeing their recommendations on the best way that we can support these children’s needs. This is happening alongside our expert advisory group on inclusion and the work being done by Dame Christine Lenehan, our new strategic adviser on SEND. We are looking at all of these issues strategically across Government, as we urgently need to turn this situation around.
I could go into the details of high needs funding, but I am very conscious of time. I appreciate the concerns that have been raised about the national funding formula. We prioritised speed over change this year—we needed to get the formula processed and out to schools and educational institutions—but we will obviously keep it under review to make sure the money is being spent in the most effective way to deliver the best outcomes for children. We have also allocated £740 million for high needs capital funding to support mainstream schools to adapt, if needed, to create more inclusive mainstream settings.
I thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire again for bringing this matter forward. Ensuring that effective support is in place for young people is absolutely a priority of this Government. We know the hardship that far too many families have faced, and my final word of thanks goes to all those working in the interests of our children in our health, education and care systems. We will deliver the best for our children and young people, and I am confident that together we can achieve that.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Fakenham Swimming Pool
Employment Rights Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Thursday 12th December 2024
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 December 2024 - (12 Dec 2024)
The Chair
Welcome back. Will everyone please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We will continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The grouping and selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. I remind Members about the rules on declarations of interests as set out in the code of conduct.
Schedule 2
Right not to be unfairly dismissed: removal of qualifying period, etc
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 156, in schedule 2, page 112, line 19, after (b) insert “, (c)”.
This amendment makes the reason that the employee was redundant a reason in relation to the dismissal of an employee during the initial period of employment.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 157, in schedule 2, page 112, leave out lines 32 to 34.
This amendment removes the provision that may be made by regulations that the dismissal of an employee is to be treated as fair only if the employer has taken any steps specified in the regulations.
Greg Smith
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. This pair of amendments on unfair dismissal stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends from the official Opposition.
Amendment 156 would make the fact that the employee was made redundant a reason in relation to the dismissal of an employee during the initial period of employment. The Bill stipulates that the modified protections against unfair dismissal in relation to the initial period of employment mean that an employee can be dismissed for the reasons listed in section 98(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which include
“the capability or qualifications of the employee for performing work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to do…the conduct of the employee”
or
“that the employee could not continue to work in the position which he held without contravention (either on his part or on that of his employer) of a duty or restriction imposed by or under an enactment.”
The 1996 Act also includes a fourth reason,
“that the employee was redundant”,
which is not replicated in the Bill. This is a probing amendment—we do not intend to press it to a Division—to try to tease out from the Government a little more detail and to establish why that fourth reason is omitted from the Bill.
Amendment 157 is also a probing amendment. We want to understand what steps will be specified in regulations that an employer must follow in order for the dismissal of an employee to be treated as fair. That will come back to the test of subjective reasoning rather than specific guidelines or regulations in the Bill. It is only right that the Committee and businesses out there in the real world can fully understand the scope with which the Government are defining “fair” or “unfair”. Inherent to that is the question, why is it not in the Bill? Why is it not as clear as day in the words printed in this quite substantial tome? I know that the Government want to table more amendments, so perhaps those could be a little more specific. Critical to amendment 157 is the question how burdensome the Government intend this measure to be and how proportionate that burden will be on businesses in relation to the problem that the Minister thinks the Bill in its current form—its current vagueness—will solve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.
The shadow Minister has posed some questions that underlie amendment 156, which seeks to include redundancy as one of the reasons for dismissal to which the lighter-touch standards will apply during the statutory probationary period. As he has rightly identified, the Bill sets out that the reasons for dismissal to which the lighter-touch standards may apply are the statutory grounds of capability, conduct, illegality and some other substantial reason.
It is important to note that those four areas relate to the individual employee, which is why redundancy is not included. Redundancy can affect entire workforces, whereas the other areas are included because of the overlap between the potentially fair reasons for dismissal in the legislation, particularly suitability for work, and the sorts of issues that might come up in a probationary period. A redundancy situation would not ordinarily come up within a probationary period, because it would be about the wider business condition rather than the individual employee’s performance or suitability for the job. I hope that explains why redundancy has not been included.
I turn to the shadow Minister’s more general points. We are trying to strike a fair balance between strengthening employee protections against unfair dismissal and maintaining businesses’ ability to hire, assess and dismiss new employees. The Government are committed to ensuring that businesses retain the confidence to do so. We do not wish the new procedures to undermine existing fair dismissal processes for redundancy, which already provide a robust, straightforward and fair process for employees facing redundancy.
We will work closely with ACAS, in consultation with businesses and trade unions, to ensure that there is clear, straightforward and easy-to-follow guidance on how to carry out a redundancy process under the new measures. It will be an easily accessible process. One of our concerns about including redundancy is that if an employer decided to make a significant number of their workforce redundant, it would be an additional administrative job for them to identify which employees they did not need to include within a redundancy process because they were part of a statutory probationary period, and which would be subject to the wider process. That would lead to unintended consequences and possibly risk of discrimination claims.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Can the Minister give me an assurance on how microbusinesses will be affected by the change? A very small business might choose to take on one person, and there might be nothing wrong with that person, but within a couple of months the business might realise that it is not working from an economic point of view. The employee would then be effectively redundant, because that small business cannot sustain their employment. Can the Minister assure me that if that small business cannot dismiss that person for the reason of redundancy during the probationary period, there will not be a separate, complex redundancy process to follow?
Justin Madders
The hon. Member may be conflating two slightly different issues. I say to him very clearly that existing laws on redundancy will not be changed as a result of the Bill. We expect employers to follow the same processes, regardless of the length of service of the employee. In that situation, I do not imagine that there would be a particularly lengthy process if it involved only one individual and a small employer. There would not need to be a pool for selection, for example, or selection criteria. We would expect the employer to comply with the law in those circumstances.
Amendment 157 questions whether regulations should be able to set steps that an employer must follow for a dismissal to be considered fair when prescribing lighter-touch standards to apply during the statutory probationary period. We have set out clearly our intention to have a light-touch process, and we know that around 9 million employees will benefit from that. The intention behind setting out those steps in regulations is to ensure that we take account of further consultation, which we will undertake not just with employers but with trade unions and civil society, to ensure that we have the right balance of process and fairness in a statutory probationary period. We will be developing that in due course. As is often the case with the ACAS code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures, there are already lots of examples of really practical guidance out there, which we intend to replicate. I invite the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.
Greg Smith
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 155, in schedule 2, page 112, line 23, after “period” insert
“of no less than six months”.
This amendment makes the initial period of employment at least six months in length.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 5, in schedule 2, page 112, line 23, leave out from “period” to the end of line 24 and insert
“of not less than 3 months and not more than 9 months from the day on which the employee starts work.”.
This amendment will ensure that the initial period of employment is between 3 and 9 months.
Greg Smith
Amendment 155 would make the initial period of employment six months, to align with a standard probationary period. The Government have admitted that they do not have robust data on instances of dismissal for those under two years of employment; in other words, we do not know if there is even a problem with unfair dismissal that the Bill is seeking to solve. Without knowing the problem, how can the Government identify a solution or even know that one is necessary? This is a flimsy basis for enacting a measure that the Government estimate will cost businesses in excess of £40 million a year overall.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I draw attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.
Before we move past the hon. Gentleman’s point about information, which we have talked about a lot, is the core problem not that there is a wider issue with UK labour market statistics? We heard during the evidence sessions from the Resolution Foundation, which said:
“The Office for National Statistics’ labour force survey is in the doldrums”.––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 119, Q125.]
This is not a party political point. The ONS’s collection methods, which broadly worked until the pandemic, have not worked subsequently. The statistics body is going through a period of transforming the labour force survey, but the criticisms that the hon. Gentleman makes of the information available to this Government would have held true for the Government between 2020 and 2024. This is a much wider issue. We could look at that problem and say, “We didn’t even really know what the UK unemployment rate was for some time,” and if that was an absolute barrier, all employment legislation would be on hold. It is important that those practical challenges are acknowledged.
Greg Smith
I do not disagree with what the hon. Gentleman says, but where we do disagree is on the conclusions that we draw from that. I would strongly argue that to introduce primary legislation without an adequate evidence base is foolish, whereas he seems to be arguing that it is fine to do that.
I fundamentally agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is often a problem with data collection, particularly on complex things such as overall employment numbers, the number of people in multiple jobs or whatever. He certainly hit the nail on the head about the post-pandemic understanding of the labour market. The pandemic brought about almost a fundamental reset in a lot of working patterns; nobody seems to work quite in the same way as they did before the pandemic. I acknowledge his point, but I suggest that this was actually the time to take a bit of a pause and a step back to think through new measures more carefully, rather than to rush ahead with a Bill in order to publish it within 100 days of the Government’s taking office.
I return to my questions to the Minister. What estimate has he made of the additional cost to business, including salary costs during performance management or disputes, retention costs from tribunal risk aversion, and increased settlements offered to avoid legal claims? Are those costs worth it for a problem that, as we have just discussed, nobody can actually prove exists in the UK market right now?
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I will speak principally to our amendment 5, but Opposition amendment 155 is also relevant.
We broadly welcome the Government’s intention to clarify some issues around probation. However, we feel that these measures will make it too difficult for small businesses, which we all know are the backbone of our economy, to take staff on. If we are not careful, the Bill, albeit not by design, could be catastrophic for some small businesses.
I would like the Minister to assure me that small and medium-sized enterprises can be confident that they will not be unduly penalised if they need to give notice during a probation period. Our amendment would put a number on the period, albeit that it allows a range. Both amendments aim to find out whether the Government have an idea of the timescale for the probation period.
When I speak to some of my small innovative businesses, especially those in renewable energy, one thing that concerns me is that they are taking staff on who do not have experience in the field. There simply are not enough people with experience, so businesses are taking people on speculatively who they hope to encourage, teach and train on the job. If they realise early on that that is not possible and that the employee is not suitable for the sector, they need to be able to start again and try again without feeling penalised. There is no way they can do this over a 10-minute coffee, as one Government Member suggests, because these people have no experience in the field. They are on a learning curve as much as the employer is. This probation period is vital for both sides to understand whether the sector, which is new to many people, is appropriate.
I am very concerned that the period, which is the only thing we know about, is not defined as a set amount of time to give small businesses confidence that they can continue to take on staff about whom they are concerned. If the timescale cannot be set out in the Bill, I would like some idea from the Minister of when we might hear it.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I want to unpick another issue on which I would welcome some reassurances from the Minister.
I have spoken to a gentleman from the Torbay Business Forum who supports a charity that works across Devon, particularly by supporting people with learning disabilities into employment. One often finds that it can take a bit longer for people with learning disabilities to find the right place and get a firm contract. What safeguards are there for charitable organisations and not-for-profit companies working in that sector to prevent them from ending up in the difficult position of having people on their books who, sadly, over an extended period of time, they realise are not fit for purpose because of challenges in their lives? There will no longer be the opportunity to offer extended flexibility.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham, I broadly welcome the Bill’s direction of travel, but I would like to see some of the rough edges knocked into shape for Torbay residents.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to Opposition Members for tabling their amendments and asking a series of questions.
The hon. Member for Chippenham seeks to set the boundaries for the statutory probation period at three and nine months. The hon. Member for Torbay seemed to argue for a lengthier period; I do not know whether he was asking for nine months or beyond, but I take his point. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire asked us to put six months on the face of the Bill, so there is quite a range of options. We have decided that the best thing to do is work with businesses and consult with them on the detail of the proposal as we move forward. We have expressed a preference for nine months as a result of the engagement that we have undertaken.
As the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire indicated, businesses have said that generally six months is about the right period, but in some circumstances they may need a bit longer to ensure that the person is the right fit. That is why we alighted on the proposal for nine months, but we do not want to tie our hands by putting it on the face of the Bill; we want to continue to work with businesses and trade unions to understand whether that is the right figure. Putting a number in the Bill would be premature, because we will have further conversations. As we develop the light-touch process in our deliberations, that may help people to firm up their views about whether nine months is indeed the right amount of time.
The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire questioned the evidence base. Of course there can be no evidence base for people being unfairly dismissed under two years’ employment, because there is no right protecting them from unfair dismissal before then, except for those who may seek to hang their hat on an automatically unfair dismissal. As we have discussed at length, people sometimes do that because they have a sense of grievance about the way they have been treated, and they may well have a legitimate claim.
Hon. Members generally accepted that the labour force survey statistics are not particularly helpful, but there is quite a lot of evidence about the impact of job insecurity more generally and the fact that the two-year qualification period creates uncertainty for individuals. Business in the Community surveyed 4,000 employees, of whom 66% say that their mental health and wellbeing is affected by their personal job insecurity. In written evidence to this Committee, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers notes:
“Being dismissed on spurious conduct or capability grounds, without a fair investigation”—
as can happen at the moment under two years of employment—
“can have devastating consequences for an employee. It can destroy the individual’s morale and confidence and…living standards”.
This is happening to people already, and it is having an impact.
There is also evidence to suggest that there are further advantages for the wider economy. The Resolution Foundation has done some research on the cooling effect of people not moving jobs because they do not have job security. Someone who is considering moving from one job to another may be more likely to take the leap if they have that window of protection, so it is important for individuals as well.
Greg Smith
Where does the Minister think the cost to businesses will be borne? Will it mean lower wages for employees, no Christmas bonuses or perhaps pay rises that are not as great as employees might be expecting? Or will it ultimately get passed on to customers, consumers and purchasers of the services that those businesses provide? Where will the cost actually be borne?
Justin Madders
I thank the shadow Minister for his questions. Those are exactly the same arguments that we had about the minimum wage, and they did not bear examination in the end. Indeed, the Conservative party eventually decided to support the minimum wage too.
The shadow Minister quoted from the evidence of Jane Gratton of the British Chamber of Commerce. She has actually said that she would favour a nine-month probationary period being set out in regulations, which I think is reflective of comments that I have made. It seems a little odd for her evidence to be used in support of an amendment that seeks a six-month period.
We are committed to working with businesses and trade unions to finalise the period in regulations. Setting it out in the Bill would tie our hands somewhat. It would also go against the spirit of what we are trying to achieve, which is working in a tripartite manner. The shadow Minister has sometimes criticised me for rushing a little bit, so he will appreciate that we are taking our time with this measure because we want to get it right. I urge him and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson not to press their amendments.
Greg Smith
As I hope I made clear in my opening remarks, amendment 155 is a probing amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 55, in schedule 2, page 112, line 36, at end insert—
“3A In section 15 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (power by order to increase or decrease limit of compensatory award), after subsection (5) insert—
‘(5A) The power conferred by subsection (1) includes power to provide that, in the case of the dismissal of an employee that meets the conditions in section 98ZZA(2) and (3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (dismissal during initial period of employment), the limit imposed for the time being by subsection (1) of section 124 of that Act is a different amount from that otherwise imposed by that subsection.
(5B) Subsections (3), (4)(a) and (5) do not apply for the purposes of specifying the amount of the limit in such a case.’”
This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to specify the maximum amount of the compensatory award available where an employment tribunal finds that an employee has been unfairly dismissed during the initial period of employment provided for by new section 98ZZA of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Justin Madders
Amendment 55 will expand an existing delegated power to enable the Secretary of State to specify a different maximum compensatory award where an employment tribunal finds that an employee has been unfairly dismissed under the new light-touch standards during the statutory probation period. Amendments 56 and 57 will make consequential changes to the provisions for uprating maximum awards for inflation.
In the event of any successful unfair dismissal claim, an employment tribunal will consider compensation as a remedy. Compensation will usually consist of a basic award and a compensatory award. The tribunal will determine the compensatory award by considering what it thinks is just and equitable, having regard to the financial loss suffered by the claimant that has been caused by the employer’s actions. This will include reference to salary and benefits, including pension, until the claimant finds alternative employment. The maximum compensatory award is currently the lower of 52 weeks’ pay or £115,115.
The Government have listened to concerns that changes to unfair dismissal law could lead to an increase in unfair dismissal claims, even where there is no merit, and to an increased burden on businesses and tribunals in having to deal with those claims. We have heard that uncertainty of outcome makes it hard for businesses to judge how much to invest in either defending or settling a claim. The introduction of a lighter-touch standard for fair dismissal during the statutory probationary period aims to reduce burdens on businesses and to create certainty, but it will not apply to all dismissals during the statutory probation period.
Having listened to those concerns, the Government committed in our “Next Steps to Make Work Pay” document to consulting on what a compensation regime for successful unfair dismissal claims during the statutory probation period should be. Although we want employers to pause and make considered decisions about dismissing employees during probation, the Government do not think that employers should face the full potential liabilities of unfair dismissal remedies when dismissing an employee for reasons related to performance or suitability for the role during the statutory probation period.
To have the option of implementing reform once we have consulted, it is necessary to introduce this delegated power. The power is limited to making changes to the compensatory award for unfair dismissal claims during the statutory probation period only, and only where the new lighter-touch standards apply. The Government recognise the importance of employers being able to assess new hires. We are committed to introducing a statutory probationary period in which there will be lighter-touch standards for an employer to meet in order to dismiss an employee fairly if they are not suitable for the job.
The power will not enable the Secretary of State to make changes to the level of compensation for other day one unfair dismissal rights, such as automatically unfair reasons including maternity-related dismissals, or for “ordinary” unfair dismissals such as redundancy. The power will not enable the Secretary of State to make changes to reinstatement or re-engagement as a remedy available to tribunals for unfair dismissal during statutory probationary periods, nor will it allow changes to be made to the additional compensatory award where an employer does not comply with an order of reinstatement or re-engagement by the tribunal. There may be some concerns that the power could be used to undermine enforcement of the day one right to unfair dismissal, but I assure the Committee that this is not the intention.
The Government are making basic protections against unfair dismissal a day one right for employees. They will be able to enforce their rights and take a claim to the tribunal if they have been unfairly dismissed. It is important, however, that employers are able to assess new hires and see whether they are suitable for the job without facing the full potential liabilities of unfair dismissal remedies during this period.
Greg Smith
I have a straightforward question. We are back once more with our old friend of not having full clarity and having consultation after legislation. The Minister gave a figure, but it is not clear exactly what the Secretary of State might consider specifying as the maximum compensation that can be awarded under this measure.
I acknowledge that there is a consultation to come, but the reason that we need greater clarity relates to the point about business confidence in making new hires, putting new job adverts out, seeing who applies and trying to recruit. If there is a risk that the figure will be disproportionately high, it will make businesses more risk-averse about growing their businesses and thereby growing the economy and creating more jobs in our country. My only substantive question is “Where is the ceiling going to be?”
Sarah Gibson
I share some of the shadow Minister’s concerns. Consultation to find out what most concerns businesses is obviously commendable, but if a large amount of the Bill is left to secondary legislation, a lot of it will not come back before the whole House for scrutiny. Can we be assured that decisions that are not taken before the Bill is passed can at least be considered by a Committee when they are finally made?
Justin Madders
I take on board the comments that the Opposition spokespersons have made, but if we put something in the Bill now, we would be pre-empting the consultation. It is very important to get this right, acknowledging the balance that needs to be struck and the points that have been made. It is worth bearing in mind that this measure will not be implemented until autumn 2026 at the earliest, which is still a considerable time off. The reason we want to take the time between now and then to engage and consult with businesses is to ensure that we get that figure to a spot that gives justice to individuals and certainty to businesses about the potential liability they may face.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I understand the point about autumn 2026, but would he acknowledge that the vast majority of businesses are probably already working on their 2026 business plans? They are not just planning for tomorrow, next week and January; they are making medium and long-term plans. Those decisions about creating a new role, filling a vacancy or whatever it might be will already be baked into business planning for 2026, 2027 and maybe through to 2030, so it is not good enough to say, “It’s not coming in until 2026, so don’t worry.” Businesses are already in that planning space.
Justin Madders
I take the shadow Minister’s point, but that presupposes that businesses bake into their business plans compensation for unfairly dismissing their staff, and I do not think any business would want to proceed on that basis. This is about a potential liability that might come in at a future point.
Of course, we all want employers to retain their staff and have a productive working relationship, but if they do not, we want them to comply with the law and dismiss employees fairly. There will be a small number of cases where that does not happen, but I would not expect a business to be able to anticipate what might happen in two or three years’ time with an individual employee and whether a process was followed or not. That is probably not on a business’s desk at this point.
Amendment 55 agreed to.
Amendments made: 56, in schedule 2, page 114, line 20, at beginning insert—
“(1) The Employment Relations Act 1999 is amended as follows.”
See the explanatory statement for amendment 57.
Amendment 57, in schedule 2, page 114, line 23, at end insert—
“(3) In section 34 (indexation of amounts, etc)—
(a) in subsection (1)(c), for “124(1)” substitute “124”;
(b) omit subsection (4);
(c) in subsection (4A), for “124(1)” substitute “124”;
(d) in subsection (4B)—
(i) for “124(1)” substitute “124”;
(ii) after “1996” insert “in relation to cases of any description”;
(iii) for the words from “such a sum” to “that date” substitute “, with effect from a day within 12 months before that date, a sum specified in that section in relation to cases of that description”.”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment and amendment 56 are consequential on amendment 55.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Second schedule to the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 28—Unfair dismissal: impact assessment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of section 19 and Schedule 2 of this Act on—
(a) employers, and
(b) the economy.
(2) The assessment must –
(a) include labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis,
(b) examine the impact of the measures in section 19 and Schedule 2 of this Act on employment, wages and economic output,
(c) consider the likelihood the dismissal measures leading to lower employment, and greater use of temporary contracts, and
(d) examine the likely effect of section 19 and Schedule 2 of this Act on—
(i) productivity,
(ii) wage growth,
(iii) equality of opportunity,
(iv) job security,
(v) economic activity, and
(vi) employment.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report setting out the findings of the assessment before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of Clause 19 and Schedule 2.
Amendment 134, in clause 118, page 105, line 20, at end insert—
“(3A) But no regulations under subsection (3) may be made to bring into force section 19 or Schedule 2 of this Act until the findings set out in the report under section [unfair dismissal: impact assessment] have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”
This amendment is linked to NC28.
Justin Madders
Schedule 2 amends the Employment Rights Act 1996, including the introduction of a statutory probation period. It also removes the qualifying period for the right to written reasons, replacing it with a requirement for the dismissal to have occurred after the statutory probation period ends. By removing the qualifying period, schedule 2 makes basic protection against unfair dismissal a day one right for all employees, ensuring that employees receive a baseline of security and predictability.
By introducing a statutory probation period in legislation, the schedule ensures that employers can continue to assess new hires. It allows the duration of the statutory probation period to be set out in regulation by the Secretary of State, which will follow public consultation.
I will take Members briefly through the elements of schedule 2. Paragraph 1 repeals the two-year qualifying period. Paragraph 2 makes it clear that the right to be unfairly dismissed does not apply to those who have not yet started employment. Paragraph 3 makes provision about dismissal during the initial period of employment, which we have already discussed. It will ensure that the “potentially fair” reasons in section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 will be subject to the light-touch regime where they relate to the employee with the exception of redundancy.
As we have already discussed, the Government intend to consult on the standards, and the schedule repeals the two-year qualifying period. A Government amendment has been made to schedule 2 to include a delegated power to change the maximum compensatory award available during the statutory probation period where the lighter-touch standards apply, as we have just discussed. We will consult on that.
Greg Smith
The Minister tempts me, but I will set out our rationale for new clause 28 and amendment 134. I acknowledge that he has published a series of impact assessments, but the Regulatory Policy Committee has not exactly given the Bill a glowing bill of health, and there are a significant number of red ratings in its assessment. I gently push back and suggest to the Minister that the impact assessments need to be looked at again across the piece, so that we can be absolutely certain that the Bill will do what the Government want it to do.
As the Minister rightly said, new clause 28 would require the Government to report on the impact of the Bill’s provisions on unfair dismissal on employers and the economy. That goes beyond the impact assessments that the Government have already conducted, in the sense that the assessment we are calling for must
“include labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis… examine the impact of the measures in section 19 and Schedule 2 …on employment, wages and economic output…consider the likelihood the dismissal measures leading to lower employment, and greater use of temporary contracts, and…examine the likely effect of section 19 and Schedule 2…on productivity…wage growth…equality of opportunity…job security…economic activity, and”—
last but not least—“employment.”
All that work should have been done before the Government proposed this legislation, so the Opposition think it is only right to try to ensure that the Government present the House with the necessary information before the changes to unfair dismissal come into effect. That is the bedrock of a democracy, and it is only right that all Members of this House and, indeed, the other place can see that information before they permit the Bill to complete its passage and gain Royal Assent.
We heard from several witnesses that the provisions will tip the balance of risk for employers, who will choose to not hire people, rather than take a chance on whether a new hire will work out. We also heard that people on the edge of the labour market represent a riskier proposition for employers and are most likely to be disadvantaged by the changes. I do not believe that any Member of this House—of whatever political party or none—wants to see people on the edge of our labour market denied a second or third chance. They deserve the ability to get on in life if, for whatever reason, they have not been able to get on the job ladder and into gainful employment.
All the evidence indicates that the Bill’s provisions on unfair dismissal will have a chilling effect on business growth. How will the Bill support the Government’s first mission of economic growth, when all the evidence—written and oral—and the reports in the press and from other bodies point to the contrary? Even the Government’s own impact assessment cannot provide reassurance that the measures in the Bill will lead to growth. The new clause would introduce safeguards and provide the clarity and detail that all Members no doubt want on whether clause 19 is even necessary for the intent of schedule 2.
Justin Madders
I will try to put the shadow Minister’s mind at ease. I point out that not just is there an overall impact assessment for the Bill, but there are 24 separate impact assessments for different measures. That shows the amount of work that has been put in. The RPC has approved two thirds of those assessments, and it was looking only at the evidence base, not the policies themselves.
The impact assessment for day one rights covers everything we would expect an impact assessment to look at: the business environment, the wider economic impact, trade implications, wages, labour mobility, productivity, and sectoral and regional impacts. As the evidence base is firmed up, we will continue to refine and develop it. It deals comprehensively with many of the shadow Minister’s concerns, and I invite him not to press his amendments to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 20
Dismissal during pregnancy
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)
Clause 20 amends an existing power in section 49D of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which allows the Secretary of State to make regulations
“about redundancy during, or after, a protected period of pregnancy.”
Regulations made under that power took effect in April, bolstering the protections against redundancy for pregnant women. However, redundancy is just one of five reasons for which an employee can be fairly dismissed. The changes delivered by clause 20 are required so that regulations can be made in regard to dismissal more broadly beyond redundancy, both during and after pregnancy.
The existing provisions for redundancy allow regulations to set out three things. The first is how the protected period of pregnancy is to be calculated. The regulations can provide that the protected period begins after a pregnancy has ended, which means that protection can be extended to a woman who has miscarried but has not yet told her employer that she is pregnant. The second is that employers must offer alternative employment to pregnant women at risk of redundancy. The last is the consequences of a failure to comply with any protections, including stipulating that this will result in the dismissal being treated as unfair. Those provisions for redundancy will all be extended, and therefore made available for dismissals for reasons other than redundancy, through this clause. This approach is necessary to then deliver enhanced dismissal protections in the regulations for pregnant women.
A 2016 Equality and Human Rights Commission survey found that 1% of mothers were dismissed following their pregnancy each year. Analysis by the Department for Business and Trade estimates that that equates to around 4,100 mothers—that is how many women could benefit from the new dismissal protections annually. Using secondary legislation to set out the policy detail is a standard approach in this area of employment law and supports working with stakeholders to further shape the policy before confirming the final approach in the regulations.
Clause 21 amends existing powers that allow the Secretary of State to make regulations concerning dismissal during several kinds of family-related statutory leave. The amended powers will continue to allow for regulation of dismissal during the period when an employee is away from work on maternity leave, adoption leave, shared parental leave, neonatal care leave or bereaved partners paternity leave. The amended powers will also apply to a period after the employee has returned from one of those types of leave.
Additionally, clause 21(5)(b) clarifies that parents looking to take bereaved partners paternity leave who have adopted from overseas or had their children via a surrogacy arrangement can be included in regulations creating protections against redundancy, as well as the new protections against dismissal for other reasons. It also makes it clear that the cohort of parents taking bereaved partners paternity leave can be included in the regulations allowing access to keeping-in-touch days, which allow an employee on statutory leave to be able to do some work for their employer without that leave coming to an end.
Our primary focus with the enhanced dismissal protections is supporting pregnant women and new mothers during and after maternity leave. However, as is the case with clause 20, we want to consult and work closely with stakeholders on whether new parents more generally should be covered by the enhanced dismissal protections. The final policy design will then be reflected in the regulations, as is typical in this area of employment law.
Before I commend the clause to the Committee, I put on record my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, including my membership of USDAW and the National Education Union.
Greg Smith
I think this is one of the least contentious parts of the Bill, and we do not seek to oppose in any way the important protections for pregnant women and new mothers. I note that what the Government are really doing with these clauses is building on the regulations that, as the Minister rightly said, came into force in April off the back of legislation brought forward by the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis) and my noble Friend Baroness Bertin in the other place.
Again, we have the challenge of consultation after legislation. It is important that the Government move quickly to ensure that the protections for pregnant women and new mothers are not left to drag out as part of that consultation. Although consultation is important, the objective that the Government are trying to meet is quite clear. The desire to build on existing legislation should make it less controversial, and it should make getting it right quickly less of an open-ended question. That will enable pregnant women and people who are trying to conceive and start a family—or to have a second, third or fourth child, or whatever it may be—to plan with the confidence that those protections will be in place. I am not in any way speaking in opposition to this measure; I am just urging the Government not to let the consultation drag on.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship again, Ms Vaz. I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration of interests and my membership of Unison and the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain. I associate myself with the shadow Minister’s comments about the positive results that the legislation will have when it comes into force.
I will speak briefly about the importance of clauses 20 and 21, which will afford considerable extra protections to women who are pushed out of their jobs from the point at which they get pregnant, while they are pregnant, while they are taking maternity leave or just after they return. We heard at our evidence sessions that under the coalition Government, a report was done by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which found that it was possible that 54,000 women a year lose their jobs in this way. That report was published in 2016. We also heard the Fawcett Society call for a new report because the data is so out of date. I refer to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield and the shadow Minister about the lack of data.
Nobody can argue with the fact that so many women suffer maternity discrimination, however. From January to September 2023, 832 complaints were brought to employment tribunal for detriment or unfair dismissal as a result of pregnancy, and we know that that is the tip of the iceberg. Back in 2022, there was a high-profile example when Morrisons was told to pay a mother £60,000 for discriminating against her when she returned from maternity leave. Donna Patterson, who returned to work after having her second child, was asked to fulfil the responsibilities of a full-time job, despite only being contracted to work part-time hours.
Ms Patterson was supported by the charity Pregnant Then Screwed, the founder of which, Joeli Brearley, told us that
“the dial has not moved very much”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 84, Q79.]
in 10 years, so this Bill will mark a significant step forward. When women suffer maternity discrimination, not only does it take them a long time to recover personally, but it damages their careers and their mental health, and it is a big contributor to the gender pay gap. These clauses will tackle maternity and pregnancy discrimination, and it is necessary to do that to avoid having more women leave the workplace.
Dame Nia Griffith
Let me pick up on the point about the consultation. We very much recognise the urgency, so the consultation is expected to take place in 2025—this coming year—after which we will introduce secondary legislation. It has been noted that clauses 20 and 21 build on previous measures that received cross-party support, and I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Dismissal for failing to agree to variation of contract, etc
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 160, in clause 22, page 33, leave out lines 11 to 2.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 161, in clause 22, page 33, leave out lines 22 to 40.
Chris Law
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. Fire and rehire is one of the most contentious issues that we have heard about over the last years, and I will speak to it in some depth.
First, I want to welcome the measures within this Bill, specifically those in clause 22, that tackle fire and rehire by considering a situation to be an unfair dismissal where an employee is dismissed for refusing to accept contractual variation, or where they have been dismissed to enable the employer to employ another employee, or to re-engage a dismissed employee on inferior terms. Over recent years, there have been several egregious examples of fire and rehire from large and very successful companies in the UK. In January 2021, the TUC found that
“nearly 1 in 10 workers…had been told to re-apply for their jobs on worse terms and conditions since the first lockdown in March”—
that is, March 2020. That is 10% of the working population. Notably, almost twice as many black workers faced fire and rehire as white workers.
The SNP completely opposes fire and rehire, which is an appalling and abusive practice, and I am sure that most members of the Committee feel the very same. It must be outlawed. We have long campaigned to ban fire and rehire tactics and ensure that workers are not the victim of bosses looking to cut costs. I pay tribute to my former colleague, Gavin Newlands, who twice brought forward Bills in previous Parliaments to outlaw the practice, which had the support of over 100 MPs and the backing of all major trade unions, including Unite, the British Airline Pilots’ Association and GMB Scotland. I also commend the work of Chris Stephens who, on a regular basis, stood up for workers against the previous Tory Government and called for an immediate end to fire and rehire.
However, there appears to be a loophole, and amendments 160 and 161 seek to remove it. Amendment 160 would delete subsection (4) to proposed new section 104I, which provides an opportunity for fire and rehire to continue where
“the reason for the variation was to eliminate, prevent or significantly reduce, or significantly mitigate the effect of, any financial difficulties which at the time of the dismissal were affecting, or were likely in the immediate future to affect, the employer’s ability to carry on the business as a going concern or otherwise to carry on the activities constituting the business, and…in all the circumstances the employer could not reasonably have avoided the need to make the variation.”
Along with many others, I have reservations about that. If employers can point to their likelihood of financial difficulty, they will deploy fire and rehire tactics.
Let me ask some questions. Does the Minister agree with Martyn Gray, who gave evidence to this Committee just a couple of weeks ago? He is the director of organising at Nautilus International, and he made it clear to the Committee how high the bar should be set when he said:
“Quite simply, if directors can sign off the business as still remaining as a going concern, fire and rehire should not be an option…I would set a really high threshold and then allow for scrutiny from the relevant bodies.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 65, Q61.]
Employers’ unions have encountered those who have threatened or implemented fire and rehire to reduce workers’ pay and/or conditions, including companies such as British Airways, Heathrow Airport, Argos, Weetabix, Tesco, Asda and British Gas. All members of the Committee know all those names and are very familiar with them. In fact, more than half of those are in my constituency of Dundee and employ a large number of people.
I want to give an idea of the scale of the profits that those companies have made just this year. Asda made £1.1 billion—we are right in the middle of a cost of living crisis, and that is over £1 billion profit for a retail store. Tesco made £2.3 billion profit, and British Gas’s parent company has said that its profits have fallen to a humble £2.8 billion. Those are just three examples and the others—Heathrow Airport, Argos and Weetabix—are also all in profit. One simple cereal company made £368.8 million. Those are hardly companies in dire financial straits. Can the Minister explain how many of the high-profile fire and rehire cases known since 2010 would fall foul of the requirements within the Bill, and how many would be exempted under this loophole?
I think we all know that although the Bill is well-intended—and we fully support it—if it is not revised, it will fail under that loophole. As Andy Prendergast, the national secretary of GMB, explained in his evidence to this Committee:
“We have seen lots of financial engineering. We see inter-company debt. I think there is a concern long term that we may find cases where companies have engineered a financial position that allows them to do something they otherwise would not. That will have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 131, Q135.]
That is twice this Committee has heard evidence that should make us really think about the purpose of the Bill, which I totally agree with on fire and rehire, to ensure that it is watertight.
Can the Minister outline what changes the Government will make to the Bill and what regulatory regime will be put in place to prevent the provision from being exploited in the manner described? For example, will employers have to evidence the financial difficulties before making any decisions on firing and rehiring, or will they need to be evidenced only if an unfair dismissal claim is brought forward? We can clearly see now who holds all the cards. If it is the latter, and claims of financial difficulties are discovered at a tribunal to be unfounded, will employees who have been affected be reinstated on their original terms? These are important questions we need to ask.
In the absence of the detail and guarantees sought, the amendment seeks to remove the loophole altogether. We cannot allow this aspect of the Bill to pass without cast-iron protections against fire and rehire. We cannot wait and see how it plays out in reality, with people’s jobs and lives at stake.
If the provision is to remain—I can clearly see and many others so far have seen that it is a loophole—it is important that further amendments are proposed, not just to clarify definitions of financial difficulties and processes on establishing their veracity, but to ensure that there are further protections to strengthen an employee’s position in relation to any consultations and negotiations that take place when the employer is in financial difficulty. Does the Minister agree that the employer should take all reasonable steps prior to cutting workers’ wages and altering other terms and conditions? Does he agree that all material information should be provided to each union and that as much time as possible must be made available to consult? Does he agree that the employer must comply with any procedural requirements for varying contracts of employment or collective agreement?
Critically, does the Minister agree that the employer should have reduced the remuneration of partners, directors and managers at least to the extent equivalent to that which applies to the workers subject to variation of contract? After all, if an employer is struggling with his company, we cannot have the managerial class carrying on as if it is not affecting them while others have their contracts reduced and their terms and conditions worsened. Does he agree that the employer should have stopped paying dividends to shareholders, buying back shares, or making loans to partners, directors or shareholders, as soon as the financial difficulties became apparent, and renegotiated, to the greatest extent practicable, loans to third parties?
If the Minister does agree, will he give assurances that he will support such amendments being made to the Bill?
Greg Smith
I will speak briefly to amendments 160 and 161, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee Central and the Scottish National party. These amendments seek to make the fire and rehire provisions more restrictive, saying that employers cannot vary contracts or re-engage staff on different contracts
“to eliminate, prevent or significantly reduce, or significantly mitigate the effect of, any financial difficulties which at the time of the dismissal were affecting, or were likely in the immediate future to affect, the employer’s ability to carry on the business as a going concern or otherwise to carry on the activities constituting the business,”
and remove the ability for the employer to do so if in the circumstances
“the employer could not reasonably have avoided the need to make the variation.”
I appreciate that it is quite a convoluted position, but it is clear to me that the SNP is siding with the trade union position that Martyn Gray set out, which is that
“if directors can sign off the business as still remaining as a going concern, fire and rehire should not be an option.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 65, Q61.]
But we heard from almost every witness—
Chris Law
I will re-declare that I have been an employer in the past, as well as an employee, and have employed staff; this is not just a union position. I have talked about companies. I can appreciate small businesses and even microbusinesses being really concerned about such issues, because they would impact them directly.
Typically, small businesses keep a very keen eye on where things are going in the future. If people want a good team in their employ, they make sure that their employees know very well what is going on with such issues. We had this debate earlier. I will list again, just to remind people, the relevant companies: Asda, Tesco, British Gas, Argos, Weetabix and Heathrow Airport. They are big companies, with billion-pound profits, that are taking advantage of the current situation. They have already taken advantage up until now—why will this loophole mean that they will not do it in the future?
Greg Smith
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. He likes to point to the profit lines of many of those businesses. Just because a business is making a substantial profit does not necessarily mean that it does not have to go through significant change in businesses practices in meeting market demands, manufacturing processes as technology moves on, or whatever it might be. I am really not seeking to advocate for anybody to be abused in the way he talks about. I am trying to acknowledge that things change in lots of businesses all the time. No one should be unfairly treated as part of that process, but sometimes, even for the very largest companies, significant change happens—as I say, to manufacturing processes or whatever—that requires a fundamental shift in job descriptions.
I am sure that most of those businesses want to keep their workforces on, but if the contract under which the employee was originally employed talks specifically about processes or ways of manufacturing, or uses of particular bits of equipment, that just do not exist anymore because technology has moved on, there is a requirement for contracts to change. Ideally, that will always be done in a consensual, negotiated manner, but the amendments put forward by the hon. Gentleman and the SNP go too far in shutting down that restriction. I agree with his point about small and microbusinesses, which really will struggle, in an ever-changing world with technological advancement and so on, to meet the conditions he is putting down.
Chris Law
We are not talking about technological changes, though, are we? We are not talking about advances that would mean changes to the structure of a business. We are talking about the language that is being used about the likeliness of financial difficulties. To any lawyer, the word “likely”—how long is a piece of string? Someone could argue the case that “likely” means this, while someone else could argue it means that. The language is lax, which is part of the issue.
In terms of financial difficulties, what is a financial difficulty? Does it mean, “We can’t afford the loo roll in the staff toilets so we will fire and rehire,” or something more structural? What I seek from the Minister is assurances that the purpose of the Bill on fire and rehire is very specific: we want to end fire and rehire. Given the current loophole, we have already heard not just from trade unions, by the way, but from businesses—
Greg Smith
Of course there will always be some who look for loopholes, but I gently suggest that the vast majority do not. They are good employers who care for their workforce, because, as we have discussed many times over, no business is anything at all without both parts—the workforce and those who risk their capital and so on to make those jobs happen, and to produce the products and sell the services in the first place.
The intervention from the hon. Member for Dundee Central neatly leads on to where I was going anyway. The Committee heard from almost every witness who was an employer or who represented employers that the dismissal and re-engagement provisions in the Bill were already too restrictive and would lead to staff being laid off. The SNP amendments make those even more restrictive, so it is not hard to work out where those witnesses would have gone on this front. Given that risk of lower employment and higher unemployment, I gently ask the hon. Gentleman to consider how the SNP would actually answer that challenge were the amendment to go through.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
As ever, it is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. As usual, I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and particularly to my membership of the USDAW and GMB trade unions.
I am sure it will not surprise the hon. Member for Dundee Central to hear that I share some of his concerns about the practice of fire and rehire, and I welcome the significant steps taken in the Bill to outlaw the practice. However, I disagree with his amendment 160. What might be seen by some as a loophole is actually an important safeguard against the perverse potential for the law to mandate redundancy when there might have been other options on the table. I am sure that none of us would want to be party to including that in the Bill.
As I said, I share some of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and I hope the Minister will look closely at proposed new section 104I(4) of the 1996 Act, because the words
“likely in the immediate future”
are doing some precariously heavy lifting. However, if the amendment were accepted, the focus on a business being a going concern, which is the most important part of that subsection, would be removed completely. When we are passing legislation that protects jobs and promotes good employment, we absolutely cannot allow the unintended consequence of mandating redundancy when there are other options.
I look forward to the Minister’s comments. I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Dundee Central, but this is a sledgehammer of an amendment to crack a nut of a possible loophole, with significant potential consequences.
Laurence Turner
Like my hon. Friend, I have intense sympathy with many of the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Dundee Central, but the “Make Work Pay” document published earlier this year, which was subsequently endorsed in the Labour manifesto, stated:
“It is important that businesses can restructure to remain viable, to preserve their workforce and the company when there is genuinely no alternative, but this must follow a proper process based on dialogue and common understanding between employers and workers.”
We all want to see both parts of that carried through, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that. If amendment 160 were accepted, would it not have the effect of invalidating that part of the Government’s manifesto commitment?
Michael Wheeler
It will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend that I agree with him. It is important that we keep our focus on the reality of work and the need to provide workers with protections and good-quality employment. The Bill has been brought forward in the context of “Make Work Pay” and the “Next Steps” document, and I look forward to what I am sure will be illuminating comments from the Minister.
Sarah Gibson
I thank the hon. Member for Dundee Central for tabling the amendment, which has drawn out a potential loophole that I hope the Government will look at carefully. We so often see legislation introduced with good intentions, and then 90% of businesses—especially smaller businesses—comply with it to the letter, because they think that is the right thing to do, but the larger corporations find a way around it.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the contributions in this debate, which deals with one of the central issues we have been grappling with. On this side of the Committee we certainly want to see fire and rehire consigned to the history books. Equally, we do not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles said, want to see businesses feel they have no option but to make people redundant because they do not feel they can take any other course of action. It is about trying to ensure that that is still available without opening a loophole, as it has been described, for abusive fire and rehire tactics to continue. There is an awful lot in the Bill as it stands that will make it a very high threshold indeed for any employer to want to take that step. There will, of course, be further guidance in regulations, where we will home in on the kinds of concerns that have been raised.
Chris Law
I appreciate that there is a lot in the Bill, and I appreciate that some Government Members on the Committee think this is a nut to crack. I have asked questions—I hope to hear some of the answers to them—and I want to add another. I raised the issue of “likely”, which is the language used. Will the Minister remark on whether the Department intends to advise on how the word “likely” should be determined? Will he consider whether that will reflect what was set out in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and a subsequent tribunal judgment, which came to define “likely” as a need to show
“a significantly higher degree of likelihood than just more likely than not”?
Justin Madders
I am not familiar with the particular case law the hon. Gentleman refers to, but I will take that away.
It is fair to say that employment tribunals currently do not have the kind of inquiries into a business’s finances and general condition that we are trying to achieve with this legislation. At the moment, there is a fairly broadbrush approach, particularly in terms of redundancies, to inquiries about the business reasons. It is important to draw the hon. Member for Dundee Central’s attention to the words after “likely” in the Bill. It is about an
“employer’s ability to carry on the business as a going concern”.
That means the alternative is insolvency or redundancies, which is the eventuality that I am sure we all want to avoid. It will ultimately be a question of fact for an employment tribunal to determine whether it genuinely was the only option available to the employer, which is what the Bill will require the employer to demonstrate.
There are a legion of examples of trade unions working constructively with businesses to avoid those kinds of insolvency situations, as a result of which terms and conditions have changed. The hon. Member for Dundee Central quoted Andy Prendergast who, in respect of what happened in the 2008 financial crisis, said in an evidence session:
“It was heartbreaking, but we had to do it because it was the right thing to do.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 131, Q135.]
He was talking about changing terms and conditions in agreement with employers to avoid redundancies and potential insolvencies.
The hon. Gentleman’s amendment would take out all of subsection (5) of proposed new section 104I, which is the requirement for the employer to engage with trade unions and have the dialogue that we think is so important in industrial relations. It would say, “That does not matter any more.” The dialogue we are seeking to develop—the tripartite approach—and the move to make the arbitrary take-it-or-leave-it approach that some employers have adopted in fire and rehire a thing of the past, would not matter.
The hon. Gentleman has asked some important questions about what we would expect of employers; I think subsection (5) answers many of them. Further regulations and codes of practice will also deal with them, because we want to make sure we have a situation in which the bar for passing this test is extremely high, but in addition to that—in addition to there being no alternative but insolvency—the employer has to then demonstrate that they have carried out a full consultation with the trade union. That will involve a full explanation of the financial situation. As we develop the regulations and codes of practice, we will flesh that out in some more detail.
Chris Law
I am listening carefully to the words the Minister is using. When does the employer carry out that process? Ultimately, they have two options. They can carry it out well in advance to ensure that employees are kept up to speed early on. Some employees may wish to leave under those circumstances and find employment elsewhere. But often, in past cases of fire and rehire, employees have heard at a very late stage or not at all. There is currently no provision in the Bill to say what the timetable should be. I would like to get an indication of the Minister’s thoughts about potential future amendments relating to that subject.
Justin Madders
I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but subsection (5) does set out the requirements on an employer to consult. It would be normal for further detail about consultation to be considered to be in good time when proposals are at a formative stage, as has traditionally always been the case. I see no reason why it would not also take the same form in that instance.
What we are really talking about is a situation in which there is a sudden change in a company’s financial circumstances and it has to act quickly. In that situation, we do not want to force it to go insolvent or make people redundant, if there is an opportunity to save jobs. That is why subsection (5) is so important: because it will encourage and compel the dialogue that we are seeking to achieve. I accept that there is more to be done in terms of honing some of the detail, but I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment because it would, I am afraid, have unintended consequences.
Chris Law
I thank the Minister for his comments. It is helpful to know that there will be further consultation and, potentially, amendments—which may even come from his own side—to tighten up this bit of the legislation. It is critical to the wider Bill and the SNP understands its importance; we just want to see it made tighter—not to put employers in impossible situations in which they cannot negotiate, but so that it is not exploited as a loophole. As it currently stands, employers are already discussing that.
I appreciate the Minister’s response. In that context, so long as it is something that can be further considered and, particularly, brought forward on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 12th December 2024
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 View all Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 December 2024 - (12 Dec 2024)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Members should send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch all electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
Today we begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows the clauses and selected amendments that have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order they are debated, but in the order they appear on the amendment paper.
The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment, and on whether each clause should stand part of the Bill, are taken when we come to the relevant clause. A Member who has put their name to a leading amendment in a group is called first; other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments in the group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate.
At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the leading amendment again. Before they sit down, they must indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in the group to a vote, they will need to let me know in advance.
Clause 1
Armed Forces Commissioner
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—
“(5A) The Commissioner must—
(a) uphold and give due regard to the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out their functions;
(b) monitor and report on compliance with the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant in all areas of their responsibility.”
This amendment would require the Commissioner to uphold and abide by the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out their functions.
The armed forces covenant is
“a promise that together we acknowledge and understand that those who serve or have served in the Armed Forces, and their families, including the bereaved, should be treated with fairness and respect in the communities, economy, and society they serve with their lives.”
I feel that it is important for the covenant to be incorporated into the Bill, and so far I do not see any reference to it. It is a binding commitment between the armed forces and the Government, and I would like to see it included in the Bill.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Efford. I will make a brief contribution to say that we take it as axiomatic that the Armed Forces Commissioner will be mindful of the principles of the armed forces covenant throughout the performance of his or her duties. There may be an occasion later in the debate when there is some conflict between those principles and what the Government are currently proposing, but we will highlight that when we get to it, to remain in order.
In essence, it seems to us entirely logical that the commissioner should be mindful of the principles of the covenant, as they are important. The two key principles, for the record, are that armed forces personnel and their families should suffer no disadvantage relative to the civilian population by virtue of their service and that there should be special consideration for armed forces personnel and their families, especially the wounded and the bereaved, in certain circumstances. Having placed those on the record, I am sure the Minister will not demur; hopefully, we can deal with this amendment fairly promptly.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
It is good to see Members from both sides on this Committee for an important piece of legislation. I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell for her amendment. I agree that it is important that we place prominence on the armed forces covenant. The amendment would require the commissioner to have due regard to the covenant principles as part of their general functions.
As the Committee will know, the armed forces covenant recognises the unique obligations and sacrifices made by those who serve in the armed forces, whether regular or reserve; those who have served in the armed forces; and their families. The Government are fully committed to the armed forces covenant; indeed, our election manifesto included a commitment to place the covenant fully into law. As the hon. Lady will be aware, we will bring that forward as a provision for consideration in the Armed Forces Bill, probably in roughly two years’ time.
An important aspect of the covenant is that it applies to both serving and former serving members of the armed forces. The Armed Forces Commissioner is very much focused on the serving community and their families. It will be perfectly proper for the commissioner to consider covenant issues where those relate to serving members of the armed forces and their families. I would imagine that those issues would be very much at the heart of what we mean by “general service welfare matters”, as outlined in the Bill. That will be within the remit of the commissioner, alongside the commissioner’s general function to promote the welfare of service persons and their families and to improve the public’s understanding of the issues.
Mr Francois
Much of the covenant is already enshrined in legislation, as the Minister probably knows; that was done under the previous Conservative Government. Since he mentioned it, will he explain to the Committee which elements of the covenant he believes are not already enshrined in law and therefore would have to be covered in the next Armed Forces Bill?
Luke Pollard
I am very happy to stray out of the lane of the legislation we are considering today towards legislation that we are not yet considering, if the right hon. Gentleman so wishes. As he will know, only part of the armed forces covenant is in law, with a special grip on local government. In our manifesto, we committed to put it fully into law. The Minister for Veterans and People is undertaking a cross-Government piece of work to identify precisely which clauses would need to be inserted into the Armed Forces Act to make that work.
Insertion into an Armed Forces Act is also relevant to the amendment of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. As she will know, this Bill not a stand-alone piece of legislation: it seeks to amend parts of the Armed Forces Act 2006. Can I direct her attention to part 16A of the Armed Forces Act 2006? That is the part that deals with the armed forces covenant. She is right in the respect that the covenant is not explicitly mentioned in this Bill; that is because this Bill, when passed, will be inserted into that Armed Forces Act, which includes part 16A relating to the armed forces covenant. I hope that, on the basis of those reassurances, she will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Helen Maguire
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Francois
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—
“(5A) The Commissioner shall operate independently from –
(a) the Ministry of Defence;
(b) the armed forces; and
(c) any other government bodies
and shall be free from any influence or interference in the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions.”
This amendment would require the Commissioner to be independent from the Government and the armed forces and from any interference in the carrying out of their duties.
Amendment 8 has been tabled to facilitate a debate on how truly independent the proposed Armed Forces Commissioner will be from the Ministry of Defence. The Committee may recall that this topic cropped up a number of times during our public evidence sessions on Tuesday. A number of Committee members asked witnesses about the extent to which the new Armed Forces Commissioner, as envisaged in the Bill, would be at arm’s length from the Department and therefore able to exercise truly independent judgment.
The two generals, as opposed to the three tenors—Lieutenant General Sir Nick Pope, the chair of Cobseo, the Confederation of Service Charities, and Lieutenant General Sir Andrew Gregory, the controller of SSAFA, the Armed Forces Charity; I had the privilege of serving with both at the Ministry of Defence—both commented on this point. General Gregory in particular stressed that whoever takes up the commissioner’s job would have to work hard to earn the trust of members of the wider armed forces community. He suggested that one good way of doing that would be to get out and about—make visits to garrisons, naval bases and air fields to meet service personnel and their families and to hear their concerns face to face. There is an old infantry saying: “Time spent in reconnaissance is rarely wasted.” This would perhaps be another good example of that principle in action.
One reason for the concern is that the Armed Forces Commissioner and their office, including their staff, will be funded by the Ministry of Defence rather than by Parliament. I am mindful of the old saying: “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” To draw an analogy, members of the House of Commons Defence Committee, who are elected by this House to hold the Department to account, are paid for by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority on behalf of the taxpayer and not directly by the Government. I would also draw an analogy with what has happened to the Office for Veterans’ Affairs.
Under the previous Government, the OVA was deliberately set up as an entity outside of the Ministry of Defence, having its home in the Cabinet Office and with a very proactive Minister in the Cabinet in Johnny Mercer. He was able to not only hold the Ministry of Defence to account in Government but liaise with other Government Departments that had an important influence on veterans’ affairs. As an example, the Department of Health and Social Care is obviously very important to veterans. Once they leave the armed forces they are no longer reliant on the Defence Medical Services for their medical needs, and they transition to the NHS. The decision by the incoming Government to take that office and roll it back into the Ministry of Defence has led to some criticism, including from the veterans community themselves. If I am lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr Efford, I might return to that in more detail under new clause 2.
For now, I remind the Committee that on multiple occasions on Tuesday the word “trust” was used, both by witnesses and members of the Committee questioning them. I ask the Minister what he can do this morning to reassure the Committee that the Armed Forces Commissioner, who, we understand from Tuesday’s session, is not likely to be up and running until early 2026, is going to be able to win the trust of service personnel and their families. Will the commissioner truly be in a position to act independently on their behalf and in their best interests? I hope the Minister can understand the context in which these questions are being asked. I eagerly look forward to what he has to say.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I want to make a couple of small points. I have worked with ombudsmen in the past; ultimately, as we heard in the evidence earlier this week, somebody has to pay for an ombudsman. Often that is funded in other ways. I have previously worked with the energy ombudsman, whose funding comes from the energy companies. It is important to put that on the record.
Furthermore, just because an amendment says that someone is independent, that does not make it so. As the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford said, building trust will be crucial for the person in this role. Later clauses make clear the independence the commissioner will have—whether that is their ability to enter premises without notice, should they see fit, or to consider a range of different requests. My feeling is that the intent of the amendment is already covered by the Bill. It is important that we make sure that the commissioner builds that trust, as was pointed out by several witnesses on Tuesday.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I want to make a point about the wording of the amendment, which reads:
“The Commissioner shall operate independently from”.
Reviews that I have conducted of the powers of other commissioners do not explicitly state that. There are many special interest commissioners these days, so this would be an unusual provision in that regard. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar, I think the building of trust is essential to the smooth operation of the commissioner’s work with the armed forces and their families, which we so badly need. But that will be done in so many ways through the office of the commissioner. I do not think it would depend on this particular amendment.
Luke Pollard
I genuinely welcome the principle of the amendment and the spirit in which it has been tabled. It seeks to reinforce, in the Hansard of this debate, the position of both the Opposition and the Government: that the role should be independent. The commissioner should be able to conduct their inquiries and work separate from the functions of Government. It is precisely for that reason that we have drawn up the legislation in this way, so that the commissioner is independent. It is always helpful to place that on the record again. Should any future generations need to look at the intent of the Government at the time when this legislation was originally proposed and at our cross-party agreement that the commissioner should be able to carry out their functions without direction from the Ministry of Defence, they will be able to refer to this part of the debate and see that very clearly.
Mr Francois
I welcome the Minister’s welcome for the amendment. I hope the Committee is doing the right thing here. We tabled it because the issue cropped up a lot in the public evidence session. By the way, I thought it was extremely useful to be able to have that. When I first came to the House, we did not have such sessions before our consideration of Bills. Perhaps this is teaching an old dog new tricks, but now, having seen that procedure in action, I can understand why it was introduced.
Trust and independence cropped up so often on Tuesday, so we thought it was important to table the amendment to get some of that on the record. I am grateful for the assurances that the Minister has given and for the spirit in which he has given them. I know that the hon. Member for Colchester is quite an expert in this subject, so I take the point about the drafting; however, it was a probing amendment from the outset and we thank the Minister for putting those assurances on the record. As he says, if ever the commissioner were challenged on the point of independence, he or she would be able to refer back to this debate in the Committee Hansard. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Helen Maguire
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 1, page 2, line 10, at end insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State will, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, publish an intended timeframe for—
(a) the appointment of the Commissioner;
(b) the abolishing of the office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman;
(c) the commencement of operations of the office of the Commissioner.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to state when they intend to appoint a Commissioner and get the office of the Commissioner operational.
We have tabled amendment 6 because currently no time frame is set out in the Bill. We believe it is important for a time frame to be set out and we feel that the Government should be held to account on that. Otherwise, the process could continue for several years. We feel it is important for both the armed forces and the MOD to know exactly when the Service Complaints Ombudsman will be abolished and the commissioner appointed, and when the powers of the commissioner will take effect. At least setting out a time frame would have some strength.
Mr Francois
I think the amendment speaks for itself. I seem to recall that on Tuesday the Minister laid out a timeframe for the establishment of the commissioner and their office; from memory, I think he said that the intention was to have it up and running in early 2026. Perhaps, in the spirit of the hon. Lady’s amendment, he could say a bit more in his reply about the timing, and particularly about the interview process. I have a particular reason for asking that question, which I will come back to later.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell for moving her amendment. This legislation is a priority for the Government. We want to do this prominently, to provide a clear signal to our people and their families that their welfare matters are important and should receive a greater focus from the Government and the Ministry of Defence and therefore from the single services. At the same time, it needs to be done correctly.
I share the hon. Lady’s eagerness to make sure that the commissioner’s role is properly established and brought forward. We have not detailed the implementation timetable in the Bill; that would not normally be necessary in primary legislation. As the Committee will be aware, there are several factors affecting the commissioner’s appointment. Notwithstanding the role of the Defence Committee in pre-appointment scrutiny, the commissioner will be appointed following the passage of the Bill. Their role will be subject to a full public appointments process regulated and overseen by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. In addition, the intended timeframe will need to factor in the passing of the necessary secondary legislation.
We expect this process to continue in 2025. In parallel, we will be undertaking the necessary implementation to ensure a smooth set-up and transition from the current Service Complaints Ombudsman to the new commissioner’s office. It is important to stress that the team in SCOAF are doing a good job, and we should ensure a smooth transition into the new function for all the people working hard to support our armed forces.
I can therefore confirm that we anticipate that the commissioner’s office will be stood up in 2026, but I would expect Opposition and perhaps Government Members to table parliamentary questions throughout to investigate the process that we are undertaking.
It is worth saying that the full public appointments process will also undertake the necessary vetting and security clearances required for this role. That will further build the trust among armed forces personnel not only that the person appointed to the role is experienced, necessary and appropriate, but that they have the necessary vetting and security clearance to undertake a role on military bases in particular. I hope that the hon. Lady will take that reassurance and withdraw her amendment.
Helen Maguire
I thank the Minister for his reassurances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Luke Pollard
Last year, service morale fell to its lowest level on record, with only four in 10 of our armed forces personnel reporting being satisfied with service life. They reported that the impact on families and on personal life was the leading factor influencing the decision to leave our armed forces. This Bill is a deliberate and major step to strengthen support for our armed forces and the families who stand alongside them.
Clause 1 will establish and set out the functions of the Armed Forces Commissioner by inserting proposed new section 365AA into the Armed Forces Act 2006. It will also abolish the office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman. That is legislative language; the intent is to move it into the Armed Forces Commissioner’s office, but in parliamentary drafting terms the office is abolished. Other provisions of the Bill, which we will come to later, transfer the ombudsman’s functions to the new commissioner.
Subsection (2) of proposed new section 365AA will provide the commissioner with new functions to promote the welfare of service personnel and their families and to improve the public’s understanding of the welfare issues that they face; It will also provide the commissioner with the functions set out elsewhere in the Bill. Subsections (3) to (5) of proposed new section 365AA will give the commissioner the necessary freedoms to carry out their functions and meet their objectives, along with reference to any related restrictions. Subsection (6) introduces new schedule 14ZA, which sets out further detail on the establishment of the commissioner’s office.
Clause 1(2) will abolish the office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman. Clause 1(3) will repeal section 365B of the Armed Forces Act, which established the Service Complaints Ombudsman. Clause 1(4) introduces schedule 1, which will insert new schedule 14ZA into the Armed Forces Act, for those who want to follow it up in their bedtime reading.
Mr Francois
The Minister has summarised the clause very well. We understand the intent of the Bill. We said on Second Reading that we would be a critical friend to it, and hopefully that will play out today. Nevertheless, we support the principle of what the Government are doing, so there is no need to divide the Committee on clause 1.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Armed Forces Commissioner
Helen Maguire
I beg to move amendment 5, in schedule 1, page 8, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert—
“3 A relevant Parliamentary select committee will hold a pre-appointment hearing with the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner.
3A The select committee may hold a confirmatory vote on the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner.
3B Where a select committee has expressed a negative opinion on the appointment of the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner, the Secretary of State may not proceed with the appointment of that candidate without appearing before the select committee to address the concerns raised by the committee.
3C If the select committee maintains its negative opinion following the further appearance of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State may not proceed with the appointment of that candidate.
3D Where a select committee has expressed a positive opinion on the appointment of the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner, including after a further appearance before the committee of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State may recommend the appointment of the candidate to His Majesty.
3E The Commissioner is to be appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would mean that the Commissioner can only be appointed after appearing before a relevant select committee and obtaining its approval.
As numerous hon. Members have outlined, it is incredibly important that the role of the commissioner be completely independent and be scrutinised across the parties. We feel it is important for a parliamentary Select Committee to play a role in the commissioning process. It would allow cross-party consensus and would ensure that the commissioner, whoever they may be, is truly independent and can make the right decisions and examinations as appropriate.
Mr Francois
I declare an interest: I served on the Defence Committee for about seven years. Over the years, there has been a debate about the extent to which the Defence Committee and other Select Committees should have power over appointments in the relevant Department.
If I can draw a quick analogy, the United States Congress has a slightly different constitutional settlement from ours, but its Committees tend to be much more powerful than ours. They and their Appropriations Committee counterparts have what the Americans call line-item power, so they can increase or decrease the spending on a particular defence programme. Would that for one moment the Defence Committee had had that power. I see the Minister grinning quizzically at that.
Mr Francois
The Minister mentions Ajax. I did not, but as he did, we will read that into the record.
There were times when the Defence Committee would have dearly loved that power. Had we had it, certain programmes might have suffered a different fate. In parallel, there is another important difference between the American Committee system and ours.
Mr Francois
They are not directly comparable, but as I was coming on to say, the American Committees have a much stronger power over appointments. To illustrate my point, some debates in the American media are about whether the new Defence pick that Donald Trump is advocating may or may not come under some challenge during congressional appointment hearings. That issue only arises because the Committee has a stronger power. Here, there is an increasing trend that a Committee is allowed to interview people and express an opinion, but ultimately it cannot say no.
We all agree that the commissioner will be a very important appointment, for all the reasons that the Minister has outlined. Getting it right is really quite important. In extremis, if the Select Committee were to decide, for some good reason, that a particular candidate were not suitable for the role, would the Minister support the idea of its being allowed to veto the appointment? If not, how does the Minister envisage the Defence Committee playing a part in the appointment of this very important person?
Graeme Downie
Further to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, I think the difference between the American system and the British system is stark, not least because of the level of parliamentary scrutiny in this place.
As the Minister has outlined, there is obviously a role for the Defence Committee to pass an opinion. That is our convention, and I think it works very well, in addition to the scrutiny we see from Members of all parties. If that became a problem, I am sure that both Opposition and Government Members would be tabling written questions, motions and whatever else. On Second Reading, the Chair of the Defence Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), was clear that his Committee would look carefully at that. There is a strong difference between the American system and the British parliamentary system in that regard.
The full independent public process that will be followed for the appointment is another key difference. It is unlike the US system, which has a presidential appointment and under which there is no vetting; anyone can be appointed. We therefore have an additional stage of security, both for public and for parliamentary scrutiny. I feel that amendment 5, although well intentioned, is unnecessary.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell for her amendment 5. As with amendment 7, it is good to be able to place on the record our intention for how this process should work.
Amendment 5 would insert a requirement for the House of Commons Defence Committee to conduct pre-appointment hearings and to state a positive or negative opinion on the appointment of the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for commissioner. The Secretary of State would be able to recommend their preferred candidate to His Majesty only following a positive opinion from the Committee.
I draw hon. Members’ attention to the Second Reading debate, during which the Secretary of State confirmed that the Government are keen for the Committee to exercise rigorous pre-appointment scrutiny of candidates to ensure that we appoint the best person to be the independent champion for the armed forces and service families. The hon. Lady’s amendment would certainly set a precedent for wider Government discussion. I suggest that her argument might best be directed in the first instance to the Cabinet Office, given its cross-Government leanings, rather than to the Ministry of Defence.
The Government have said that the pre-appointment scrutiny by the House of Commons Defence Committee should be vigorous and thorough. We expect it to go above and beyond the current process, precisely because the commissioner will report their recommendations to Parliament via the national security scrub in the MOD, so their role is somewhat different from the role of other commissioners who might receive pre-appointment scrutiny from other Select Committees. Their powers are designed to be greater, so a more prominent role will be given to Parliament. We are confident that the existing practices and arrangements in Parliament are robust, that they can address any concerns that the Select Committee may have about a candidate, and that we will be able to take the Committee’s views fully into account before making a recommendation to His Majesty.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The mechanics are different from those for a preferred candidate in other Departments, in so far as the candidate will have to go through top-level security clearance and presumably enhanced developed vetting. If they do not pass enhanced developed vetting, will they still be put forward as the preferred candidate? How will the mechanics work?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Member asks a fair question. We will not put forward anyone who does not pass security vetting; it is important that we place that on the record. This is a significant and prominent role. The commissioner will have access to our military bases. We do not expect, require or want them to look at anything beyond general service welfare matters, but there may be locations or people adjacent to those welfare matters that are sensitive to UK national security. That is why we have put national security powers in the Bill and why the Secretary of State has made assurances, which I am happy to repeat, that the commissioner will be security vetted. That is what service personnel and our colleagues across Government will expect. Someone who cannot pass security vetting should not be able to take up such a serious appointment in the Ministry of Defence. I am happy to give the hon. Member that assurance; I hope it reassures him.
In his short few months here, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar has established himself as formidable and forensic in his tabling of parliamentary questions to the Ministry of Defence.
Luke Pollard
I am aware that there are other people in the room who table questions to us. I will choose some adjectives carefully in due course.
The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar made is a fair one. The senior appointments process is well established across Government. We enjoy good scrutiny of the process ourselves, as part of its oversight by the structures around the Cabinet Office. We and the previous Government have both focused on that to ensure that the process produces the right people.
I hope that the additional pre-appointment scrutiny by the House of Commons Defence Committee, as well as the seriousness with which the Government and the Committee take the matter, will provide even more robust scrutiny. I would be very happy, where appropriate, to respond to parliamentary questions throughout the process to reassure Members that it is being conducted in a manner that is not only timely but thorough, ahead of any pre-appointment scrutiny by the HCDC.
The spirit of the Bill is to engage Parliament more in the role of this commissioner and to ensure that parliamentarians can have just as much confidence in the role as I hope our armed forces can. The whole process is designed with that in mind. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell to withdraw her amendment.
Helen Maguire
I thank the Minister for providing the reassurances that I think the Committee needs in order to ensure that there is absolute scrutiny. It is good to hear that there will be pre-appointment scrutiny by the Defence Committee. We hope that that will ensure that the commissioner who is appointed is truly independent. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Francois
I beg to move amendment 9, in schedule 1, page 9, line 34, at end insert—
“(1A) The Commissioner’s staff must include a King’s Counsel, with responsibility for providing the Commissioner with advice on legal issues arising in the course of the Commissioner’s work of promoting and investigating general service welfare.”
This amendment would require the Commissioner’s staff to include a KC to provide legal advice to the Commissioner on legal issues arising in the course of their work.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 10, in schedule 1, page 10, line 33, at end insert—
“(1A) Financial assistance provided to the Commissioner by the Secretary of State must increase annually by a measure determined by the increase in the Consumer Prices Index 12-month rate published by the Office for National Statistics.”
This amendment would require the financial assistance provided to the Commissioner to increase with inflation.
Amendment 3, in schedule 1, page 10, line 39, at end insert—
“(3) The Secretary of State must ensure that the financial and practical assistance provided to the Commissioner is appropriate and sufficient to allow the Commissioner to carry out their functions.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide adequate financial and practical assistance to the Commissioner to enable it to carry out their functions.
Mr Francois
For the convenience of the Committee, I will take amendments 9 and 10 in reverse order.
Essentially, amendment 10 is intended to ensure that the office of the commissioner is sufficiently well resourced to undertake its role effectively, independently of the Ministry of Defence. The explanatory notes to the Bill intimate that once the office is up and running, it will start off with a budget of approximately £5 million, as the Minister confirmed on Second Reading.
The Bill does not mandate a specific number of staff to assist the commissioner; it is not that prescriptive. Given that the role has a wider remit than that of the Service Complaints Ombudsman, it seems likely that more staff will be required to carry out the expanded function—not least because it will now include visits to service establishments, some of which the commissioner could be empowered to conduct on an unannounced basis, subject to certain safeguards, if they thought that the issues that they were examining merited it.
The purpose of amendment 10 is to reinforce the idea that the office should be adequately resourced by mandating the financial assistance provided by the Secretary of State, which is effectively the commissioner’s budget, should increase by at least real terms each year, defined using the consumer prices index measure of inflation, which is published by the Office for National Statistics. I hope that amendment 10 is relatively uncontroversial and that the Minister might even be tempted to accept it. We can but try.
Amendment 9 would mandate that at least one member of the commissioner’s staff be a King’s counsel.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Would the right hon. Gentleman be able to give the Committee an idea of the annual cost of a King’s counsel, so that we can have an idea of what percentage of the proposed budget that would be? Why he is choosing to be prescriptive about the need for this particular element of staffing? That seems to contradict earlier pushes in amendments to safeguard the independence of the commissioner. If we are appointing a commissioner, surely we should trust them to determine the configuration of their staff.
Mr Francois
There are two questions there. On the first, the honest answer is that it depends on the KC. In my limited experience, different King’s counsels tend to charge different rates. One would hope that the commissioner would employ someone who was good at their job, so yes there would be a public expenditure cost.
If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I am going to come in a moment to the exact rationale for why we have sought to mandate that at least one of the commissioner’s staff should be a qualified KC; he slightly pre-empts me. But I hope I can convince the Committee that there is a genuinely good reason for doing so and I am going to produce at least one real-world example. If that satisfies the hon. Gentleman, I will make some progress. Did the hon. Member for Portsmouth North, sitting next to him, also seek to intervene or have I inadvertently answered her question?
Mr Francois
Okay, thank you.
We live in an increasingly litigious world, including the wider prevalence of so-called lawfare issues on the modern battlefield. Therefore it seems important to us that the commissioner should have access to senior legal advice in carrying out their duties. We believe that could best be provided by a qualified King’s counsel, perhaps specialising in areas of employment law and other matters that would relate to the welfare of armed service personnel and their families.
There is a live issue in the armed forces community: if they take life, which sometimes they are required to do in the service of the country, what are the legal implications for them, maybe even decades later? The issue is generally referred to as lawfare. Let me give a specific example of why this matters, Mr Efford. I am going to refer to a case that has concluded; I reassure you and your Clerk that the sub judice rule does not apply, I believe, because the case is over.
On 10 December, the BBC reported, under the heading “Ex-lawyer spared jail over false Iraq War claims”, that
“Phil Shiner was given a two-year suspended sentence at Southwark Crown Court after pleading guilty to three counts of fraud relating to legal aid claims made in 2007.”
For background,
“The former boss of Public Interest Lawyers was struck off by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in 2017 for pursuing false torture and murder allegations against British troops.”
The article continues:
“A lengthy inquiry into wider allegations of abuse at the hands of British soldiers established ‘beyond doubt’ that all the most serious allegations had been found to be ‘wholly without foundation and entirely the product of deliberate lies’.”
According to the National Crime Agency, Mr Shiner received around £3 million towards the cost of legal aid for the cases in which he was involved.
Mr Francois
At this point, I give way—hopefully it will save the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar the trouble of tabling multiple parliamentary questions.
Graeme Downie
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Perhaps I can assist him by drawing his attention to schedule 1 on page 10 of the Bill. It specifically says:
“The Secretary of State may…provide staff in accordance with arrangements made with the Secretary of State by the Commissioner”.
My reading of that is that the commissioner, should they wish to, would be able to hire a King’s counsel for specific issues. At the same time, it would preserve the independence of the commissioner: we would not be putting anything into the Bill to make Parliament direct them, and we could make sure that independence was maintained.
Mr Francois
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his accurate reading of the legislation. On Second Reading, the Minister made the point that the legislation is drafted to be facilitative. For instance—we will come to this later—it does not necessarily define exactly what are and are not “general service welfare matters”. It provides a broad remit. But for the reasons that I hope I have been able to articulate, we believe that although the schedule that the hon. Gentleman mentioned would facilitate the Armed Forces Commissioner in seeking to appoint a legal adviser, that would have a spending implication. It could be—it is not inconceivable—that some in the Ministry of Defence would baulk at that. The intention of putting the provision into the Bill is to include beyond peradventure the right of the commissioner to seek to appoint a senior legal adviser. In a sense, it does not compel the commissioner to do that, but it gives them that power very clearly.
Amanda Martin
You say that your amendment does not tell the commissioner that they should make the appointment, but it states:
“The Commissioner’s staff must include a King’s Counsel”.
Since there is a “must”, what you just said is not correct. If we agree to this amendment, we are saying that the commissioner, who we want to be independent, will not have the choice of who they include in their staff, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham mentioned. Your amendment says “must include”.
The Chair
“You” refers to me in the Chair, not to the person opposite. Just a gentle reminder about that.
Mr Francois
The hon. Lady is right. The amendment says that the commissioner should make the appointment; I hope we have given the rationale for why we believe that is important. What sort of KC the commissioner employed, and how often they used them, would be a matter for the commissioner: they would still have some discretion and, as has been intimated, there are KCs and KCs.
But the principle of the amendment is that the commissioner should have access to senior legal advice because lawfare is becoming more and more of an issue for armed forces personnel. For the sake of brevity, I will not read into the record a very good article that appeared in The Spectator about why people are leaving the Special Air Service because of the issue. It is a problem for retention in the armed forces, particularly in certain units, and this is an attempt to acknowledge that.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
To refer back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North said, the amendment does say that the commissioner’s staff “must” include a King’s counsel. That would effectively tie the hands of the commissioner, firmly setting that budget. I would much rather that they had flexibility, so that they could choose who they wanted to serve within their staff; should they need a KC, they would be very welcome to get one. Including that they “must” would eat that budget, which could be used elsewhere if needed.
Mr Francois
I understand the hon. Lady’s question, and I do not want to get into an “angels on a pinhead” argument, but that member of staff could be part-time. It could be that on the staff of the commissioner is a qualified KC, but only brought into action when there is a specific legal aspect to be examined—they would not necessarily have to sit in their office five days a week waiting for a case to come in. If there was no work, then they would not necessarily be employed.
I accept that perhaps we should have put the words “part or full-time” into the amendment, but the key thing is that the commissioner would have access to a King’s counsel, even on a part-time basis, to deal with complaints that have a specific legal aspect, including aspects of lawfare. We did not mandate in the amendment that it had to be a full-time role.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making about whether the role would be full-time, part-time or maybe just a few hours a week. But the fundamental issue for me is that the more restrictions or stipulations we mandate, the more we fundamentally influence the independence of the role, which was part of our open discussion on Tuesday. The more amendments, rules and procedures that we dictate, the more we weaken independence. Does he recognise that concern?
Mr Francois
I do, but I have a contrary concern. People are leaving the armed forces in greater numbers than are joining. The other day, the Minister said— he will correct me if I have this wrong—that for every 100 who join, 130 are leaving.
Mr Francois
The Minister is nodding. We have a problem: our armed forces are shrinking. That is not necessarily purely for budgetary reasons; we are not going to get into the 2.5% of GDP discussion—I would love to, but I do not think the Chair would thank me for it. More are leaving than are joining and there are a number of reasons why. As a former Armed Forces Minister, I was commissioned by a previous Prime Minister to write a report on why people leave. It was called “Stick or Twist?”, because that essentially encapsulated the dilemma that service personnel and their families face. By the way, the decision to leave is usually a family decision—it is a kind of kitchen table conversation.
The overwhelming reason why they leave, as we have said, is the pressure of service life on family life. One reason why quite a few personnel are leaving now, however, is that they are worried about the legal implications of the work that they do and, bluntly, whether the Government have their back. That is becoming a bigger and bigger issue. If the commissioner is there to ensure the welfare of service personnel and their families, along the lines that the Minister articulated very well in the debate on clause 1 stand part, they are going to need some kind of legal capability to investigate those sorts of issues.
I take the points made by Government Members, but we are seeking to ensure that, whether it be full time or part time, the commissioner has the necessary legal firepower, for want of a better word. This comes back to the whole debate about trust; the service personnel need to be convinced that, if they have a worry or issue about lawfare, the commissioner is equipped to deal with it effectively. That is the spirit of amendment 10. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the issue is becoming an increasing worry for service personnel. Again, for the sake of brevity do not get me going on Northern Ireland veterans this morning. But this is a problem, and that is why the amendment was drafted.
I do not want to try the Committee’s patience, so, to summarise, we believe there is a broader issue here about the whole effect of lawfare on modern warfare—the effect it is having on both the recruitment and the retention of His Majesty’s armed forces. Having tabled the amendment to provoke a debate on that issue, and how the commissioner might help, I am very interested to hear the Minister’s response to a genuinely well-meaning suggestion.
Helen Maguire
On amendment 3, we feel that the financial and practical assistance of the commissioner must be absolutely appropriate. It is crucial that there is this resource, and that the commissioner can carry out the dual role of both promoting the welfare of service personnel and their families and improving public awareness of these issues. If those ambitions are to be met, alongside the existing responsibilities of the ombudsman role that are to be assumed into the commissioner’s remit, the commissioner needs to be properly resourced. That is why we feel that amendment 3 needs to be included in the Bill.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for the amendments as they give me the chance to speak about a number of issues. I first turn to amendment 9, tabled by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford. He said that the purpose of the amendment was to require the commissioner’s staff to include a King’s counsel to provide legal advice to the commissioner. I agree that the provision of quality legal advice to the commissioner is essential, and having the facility in house may well be something that a commissioner will want to specify when setting up their own office. I think it is right, however, that the commissioner should be able to make their own judgment about what type and what level of legal support they may require.
It is worth reminding the right hon. Gentleman that the commissioner looks at general service welfare matters and not the conduct of military operations, which I realise he is familiar with. I will come on to the other points that he raised subsequently, but it is worth saying that welfare matters are the commissioner’s main remit.
Mr Francois
If you were one of the service personnel who was put through hell by Phil Shiner, that would be a welfare matter for you and your family. I could read into the record stories of stress, worry and angst that armed forces personnel have had to go through, sometimes for years, at the hands of Phil Shiner and his law firm, so let us not be over-semantic about it, Minister. For many personnel and their families, this was agonising. It jolly well is a matter of service welfare, because of the effect that it had on many people, many of whom subsequently left the armed forces, effectively in disgust. It really is a matter of welfare, and that is why we tabled the amendment.
Luke Pollard
I did say to the right hon. Gentleman that I would come back to those points, and I will do so, rather than responding immediately to his intervention.
A particular commissioner may wish to undertake an inquiry that involves many issues requiring regular and suitably senior legal input. In other circumstances, however, where a commissioner’s work is more routine in nature, it seema unnecessary to compel them to keep a costly KC on their books when other options may be more appropriate.
I should say to the right hon. Gentleman, as someone who is new to opposition—sadly, I was not new to opposition for some time—that making spending commitments is a dangerous sport. As a quick bit of maths, let us assume that the KC is full-time, that they are reasonably priced at £5,000 a day, and that they bill only for working days. Now, 260 working days a year at £5,000 a day is £1.3 million of billable time a year, or 24% of the estimated budget of the Armed Forces Commissioner, which, as we have set out in the explanatory notes, is £6.5 million, the commitment for an entire Parliament.
It is incumbent on us, in the spirit of creating an independent Armed Forces Commissioner’s office, to give the decisions on what staffing should look like to the commissioner so that they can undertake the staffing structure that is appropriate for what they have to say. However, I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that nothing in the Bill will prevent the commissioner from agreeing with the Secretary of State a policy for staffing the office that could include a legal adviser. Indeed, I suspect staffing policy would not necessarily need to go into that level of detail; it would be more about the overall numbers, costs and specific terms of service.
Agreement of staffing policy with the Secretary of State is essential to ensure that the commissioner does not set out a staffing requirement that is disproportionate to the nature of the work being undertaken. It is not a way of preventing the commissioner from accessing the advice that they need.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
If the commissioner were to come to the Secretary of State and say that they would like members of the armed forces seconded permanently to their staff, what would the Secretary of State’s reaction be?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman raises a fair question. As part of establishing the Armed Forces Commissioner’s office, it may be appropriate for the commissioner to say that they would like a certain level of military expertise, be it serving or in a veteran capacity. The commissioner could have that conversation with the Secretary of State. I do not think that we would immediately volunteer or immediately deny—that would be based on the recommendations of the commissioner and the dialogue about where that sits—but I refer the hon. Gentleman to the amendment that we are making in the Bill to remove the requirement for an officer to make a decision. In one respect, we are seeking to remove military roles from the SCOAF function that can be done by a civilian. It is appropriate to ensure that if any military support is given to any part of the wider MOD family, we make the correct decision about whether it should be a military or civilian role, so we can ensure that we use the military in roles where they have the biggest impact in respect of our national security. However, I totally understand the hon. Gentleman’s point.
The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford raised the issue of lawfare. The Government recognise that the large proportion of allegations targeted at our service personnel in Iraq were without foundation, and we acknowledge the importance of protecting our people from improper and vexatious accusations of the type perpetrated by Phil Shiner. The judgment by the court shows that Phil Shiner spread falsehoods against our brave armed forces, and the Ministry of Defence submitted evidence of his abuse to the legal system, which contributed to his being struck off. The Government are renewing the contract with those who serve and have served, and that includes protecting our personnel from improper and vexatious accusations of the type perpetrated by Phil Shiner.
The right hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the ongoing inquiry in the High Court into matters that are either the ones related or near to the ones related. He will appreciate that I cannot comment on them now, but I entirely understand the right hon. Gentleman’s passion, which he knows I share, for ensuring we look after our people better than they have been looked after to date.
I turn to amendment 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. I share her intention of ensuring adequate provision in the budget for the Armed Forces Commissioner. The Secretary of State will have an obligation under proposed new section 340IA(7) to
“co-operate with the Commissioner so far as is reasonable”
and to give them any “reasonable assistance” that they require. That will ensure that they have the necessary assistance from the Secretary of State to conduct their work effectively.
Should the commissioner feel that their funding is insufficient to carry out their functions effectively, they will have the opportunity to raise the matter in their annual reports, which are presented to Parliament. The Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament, and this mechanism will provide the ability to scrutinise and challenge any funding decisions. However, it will be for the commissioner to determine the shape and structure of any staffing or budget spend.
As the shadow Minister has confirmed, we estimate in the explanatory notes that the budget for the Armed Forces Commissioner, based on careful scrutiny of the work of our friends in the German armed forces commissioner’s office, will be approximately £4.5 million to £5.5 million a year. That is a significant increase on the funding for the Service Complaints Ombudsman, which at present is roughly £1.8 million a year.
While being wholly independent of the MOD, the commissioner will be required to abide by the financial rules, regulations and procedures laid down by both the Treasury and the MOD in the commitment to financial resources—something I think we would expect de minimis on a cross-party basis. We heard from the current Service Complaints Ombudsman on Tuesday that this is a common model and works well, so including a commitment to ensure sufficient funding and practical assistance, per amendment 3, or increasing it in line with inflation, per amendment 10, is not necessary. Amendment 3 in particular may introduce a level of subjectivity into the legislation that would be difficult to measure.
I welcome—I think—the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford’s rejection of austerity budgets and the commitment to increase public funding in line with inflation. I suspect that he has not quite thought through the full implications of that across all areas of Government spending. None the less, the slow process of rejecting the austerity politics that I so know him for is interesting. I welcome that movement.
What is certain is that the functions in the Bill provide a format for the Secretary of State and the commissioner to have a reasonable conversation about the budget. The budget that we are setting represents a considerable increase and is modelled to deliver a service that involves not only a continuation of the SCOAF functions, but the investigations and the wider visits portfolio that has been mentioned. We feel that that is sufficient, but I suspect that any Member of Parliament who feels that the budget is insufficient, based on the reports tabled by the Armed Forces Commissioner in their annual reports as opposed to thematic reports, will be able to ask suitably challenging questions of the Government of the day about ensuring that staffing levels and financial support are right, just as we would expect for access and the implementation of recommendations. On that basis, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Mr Francois
I will respond in kind to what the Minister says. As he will recall, his calculation was that even if the KC that we have been debating conceptually were full-time—we can argue about the rate—it might cost about £1.3 million a year. We never stipulated that it would be a full-time post; I think the Committee has explored. The essence of amendment 9 is that the commissioner would have access to high-level legal advice. Even if it were £1.3 million, given that our policy going into the election was to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030, I think we could have found £1.3 million within that number. The Minister is the one with the challenge, because he does not have a date for 2.5%. If he ever gets one, we would all like to hear it. I think we could have afforded the post, even if it had been full-time—and we did not mandate that it had to be.
Amanda Martin
My understanding is that the last time that the defence budget was at 2.5% was under a Labour Government, and that in the 14 years under the Conservatives there was not a 2.5% budget.
Mr Francois
That is correct, and under the Tories in the mid-1990s it was well over 3%. The problem is that a lot happened in the 14 years, including a war in Ukraine. That is why we probably need to spend 2.5% as quickly as possible.
Even if the Minister’s calculation is correct, by the time a senior NCO in the British Army gets to the rank of WO2, the King—or the Queen, before him—will probably have spent the best part of £1 million on training them. If they then leave, perhaps because they have had a very bad experience at the hands of the likes of Mr Shiner, that is £1 million of investment that has just walked out the door.
To be fair, the Minister understands the pressure. According to some figures that I received in answer to a recent parliamentary question, the strength of the British Regular Army is 71,300. This was in October. The establishment strength—the book strength, or what it is meant to be on paper—is 73,000. It was 72,500, but then there was an add-back of another 500, partly for the two Rangers Battalions. The British Regular Army is now nearly 2,000 soldiers short of what it should be, even on paper. Unfortunately, the trend is that more people are leaving than joining.
I am not highlighting that point in order to say that the whole lawfare issue is the only reason that people are leaving the British armed forces. That is not my argument, but it is one reason, and it is likely to get worse unless the Government do something about it. That includes doing something about the so-called Northern Ireland legacy Act.
I hope I have made the point sufficiently this morning; I am grateful for the way in which the Minister has acknowledged it and dealt with it. As I think the point has been made, I will not press amendment 9 or 10. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.
Luke Pollard
Schedule 1, by inserting proposed new schedule 14ZA into the Armed Forces Act 2006, primarily outlines the procedural aspects of the commissioner’s role and functions, including their legal status and terms of appointment, as well as disqualification and the delegation of functions. It encompasses the commissioner’s length of term, staffing arrangements and funding.
It is important that we set the parameters for the Armed Forces Commissioner while ensuring sufficient the impartiality and independence of their role. There are several provisions in place to ensure that this is the case, including paragraph 1 of proposed new schedule 14ZA, which establishes the commissioner as a corporation sole, setting them up to be legally separate from the MOD.
Although paragraph 3 of proposed new schedule 14ZA outlines that the commissioner is to be appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, it should be noted that, as mentioned earlier, on Second Reading the Defence Secretary stated that he was keen for the House of Commons Defence Committee to exercise the toughest pre-appointment scrutiny as well, and I think he genuinely means that. We expect that to be robust, and I look forward to witnessing those sessions in due course. We need to appoint somebody who can do the job as a fearless, independent champion, and the Secretary of State will certainly take close note of the Select Committee’s views in any pre-appointment hearing.
Paragraph 4 of the proposed new schedule disqualifies a civil servant or member of the regular or reserve forces from being the commissioner. This is to ensure a fresh and independent perspective.
Under paragraph 5 of the proposed new schedule, to ensure both ministerial and parliamentary oversight, the commissioner must provide written notice to the Secretary of State should they wish to resign. Although the Secretary of State may dismiss the commissioner if specific criteria are fulfilled, they must specify their reasons for doing so via a statement to the relevant House of Parliament. For the benefit of new Members, that means that if the Defence Secretary is a Commons Minister, it would go to the Commons, and if they are a Lords Minister, it would go to the Lords. None the less, it would be accountable to Parliament.
David Reed
I seek clarification on one of the points the Minister made about clearances, as I have not heard it in what he has said. Which level of clearance will the Armed Forces Commissioner be required to hold, and will the role be contingent on them holding it? If they cannot maintain clearance, will they lose their job?
Luke Pollard
I am happy to write to the hon. Member with our expectation of which specific clearance type would be required, but on the second part of his question about what happens if someone loses their clearance, it will be a condition of the role that they would be subject to the Official Secrets Act 1989 and require the necessary clearance, and in such circumstances they would not be fulfilling the terms and conditions of their role. I hope that gives the hon. Member suitable assurance.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 1 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 2
Commissioner’s functions in relation to service complaints
Mr Mark Francois
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 2, page 2, line 15, at end insert—
“(2) Once the functions of the Service Complaints Ombudsman become functions of the Commissioner, the Commissioner will investigate individual service complaints in the same manner as they were previously investigated by the Service Complaints Ombudsman.”
This amendment would clarify that the Commissioner will investigate individual service complaints, as the Service Complaints Ombudsman did, as well as investigating general issues and publishing thematic reports.
Mr Francois
The Committee will be pleased to know that I think we can deal with this fairly briefly. The amendment was tabled prior to the public evidence session on Tuesday, when I sought some clarity on something the Minister said on Second Reading regarding the extent to which the Armed Forces Commissioner will be prepared to take up individual complaints on behalf of service personnel or their families who have already exhausted the MOD’s complaints process. The Service Complaints Ombudsman currently has the ability to do this at their discretion.
Speaking to the amendment gives me the opportunity to commend the current Service Complaints Ombudsman, Mariette Hughes, for the very good job that she and her staff have accomplished in virtually clearing the considerable backlog of complaints that were sitting in her in-tray. She told us on Tuesday that they now have only— from memory—30 individual cases left, all of which are live and actively being looked into. Given the history, as the Minister will know—I see he is nodding— this is a remarkable achievement, which drew praise from the Committee at the time that should be briefly repeated here.
If I may slightly cheekily say so—I promise I have not spoken to Mariette about this—when asked on Tuesday she indicated that she might be minded to apply for the post when it is advertised. I would chance my arm as far as to say that, based on her track record to date as Service Complaints Ombudsman, at the very least I think she should deserve an interview. It strikes me that she would be a strong candidate for the new role, although that will ultimately be a matter for the interview panel and, as we have discussed, for the Defence Committee, at least in part.
When we questioned the Minister on whether the Armed Forces Commissioner would have the power to continue to deal with individual complaints that had exhausted the MOD’s own complaints process, in addition to conducting the wider thematic investigations envisaged in the Bill, he confirmed that indeed they would. That is reassuring, but I would like to give the Minister the opportunity, should he wish, to add anything more about how he sees the process of dealing with individual complaints working in practice under the Bill.
Luke Pollard
I echo the shadow Minister’s praise for the work of the Service Complaints Ombudsman in reducing the backlog. Can I go further and thank all her team as well? We have seen a whole-team approach, and she has been able to marshal and deliver a much-improved service that is a helpful building block for the Armed Forces Commissioner’s office. I will not be drawn on who the Armed Forces Commissioner should be, for obvious reasons, but we would expect someone senior, with an ability to deliver, to take on that role after a proper appointments process has taken place.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford for tabling the amendment on how the commissioner will investigate individual service complaints. I will address his amendment and clause 2 together. The Bill already makes provision for the existing functions of the Service Complaints Ombudsman, set out in part 14A of the Armed Forces Act 2006—including those that relate to the investigation of individual service complaints—to be transferred to the new commissioner. The amendment is therefore not necessary.
To reassure the Committee, the Service Complaints Ombudsman’s functions and workload will be absorbed by the new commissioner’s office, and implementation work will continue in parallel with the passage of the Bill to ensure the seamless transition of all cases—new, active and closed—to the commissioner. There will be no interruption to Service Complaints Ombudsman service users during this process, and the Bill makes provision for transitionary arrangements to be put in place if necessary. The Bill abolishes the office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman, so it is imperative that its functions be transferred properly to the new Armed Forces Commissioner. Furthermore, the new commissioner’s remit will be much broader than that of the ombudsman, and they will be able to proactively launch investigations into issues faced by service personnel and their families.
On the shadow Minister’s specific question, going a level below the detail I set out, it will be a matter for the commissioner as to how they choose to investigate. However, the broad understanding is that, as well as taking on the Service Complaints Ombudsman functions, the commissioner will seek to receive views from armed forces personnel and their families. They will then be able to make a decision or look at areas for deeper thematic reviews. I would expect there to be a certain level of correspondence on issues, but it will be up to the individual commissioner to decide how best to resource that and what procedures, policies and thresholds need to apply. That will be a matter for the commissioner rather than me as a Minister to set out. I hope on that basis that the right hon. Gentleman is reassured and will withdraw his amendment.
Mr Francois
I did assure the Committee that we would deal with this briefly. There has been a purpose to this brief debate, not least in placing on the record our praise and admiration for the current Service Complaints Ombudsman. That may or may not be a factor in any future interview. With that hopefully achieved, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Procedure for making service complaints
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Luke Pollard
Clause 3 amends section 340B(2)(a) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to specify that a specified person may decide whether a service complaint is admissible, rather than the function needing to be carried out by an officer. The clause will allow civilians, in addition to military personnel, to make assessments of whether a complaint made by a member of the armed forces is admissible in the service complaints system. Currently, specified officers exist in each of the services and are responsible for deciding whether a statement of complaint is admissible as a service complaint.
Let me explain the admissibility process: a statement of complaint is not admissible as a service complaint if, first, the same complaint has been made before; secondly, it is about an excluded matter as set out in legislation; thirdly, it has been submitted outside the required time limits; or fourthly, the complaint is not from a serving or former service person. The admissibility decision therefore does not require skills or experience specific to military officers, but the way the legislation is interpreted often precludes civilians from undertaking this task. This clause makes a small, technical amendment that will make the service complaints system more streamlined by allowing any competent person to deal with a complaint, rather than just a military officer.
Mr Francois
I have one question. We understand the reason for the clause and, as the Minister has made plain, the Bill amends the Armed Forces Act 2006, so the amendment is to that legislation. We understand why the Government have changed “officer” to “person”; will the Minister give an assurance that such persons could include the immediate family of a member of the armed forces? I ask because sometimes members of the armed forces are reluctant to complain, but their family feel very strongly that they should. Without wishing to start any rows within a household, will the Minister put it on the record that if the circumstances merited it, a civilian who is a member of the immediate family of a service person could go to the Armed Forces Commissioner if they were very worried about their loved one’s welfare? If he could give that assurance on the record, we need not detain the Committee much longer.
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point. It is important to distinguish between the different roles of the commissioner. The clause makes an amendment specifically in relation to the service complaints process, rather than the broader functions we are adding to the Service Complaints Ombudsman role to create the commissioner.
There are certain provisions, as set out in the Armed Forces Act, that mean that only a serving member of personnel or a veteran raising an issue from the time of their service can complain in the service complaints system. We are, however, expanding the provision outside that provision for welfare matters that sit outside the service complaints system. In that situation, family members will be able to raise an issue or a concern with the commissioner, but that is not a service complaint. I reassure the shadow Minister that that function will still be held by the current rules.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Kate Dearden.)
Employment Rights Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Thursday 12th December 2024
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 December 2024 - (12 Dec 2024)
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 127, in clause 22, page 33, line 12, leave out from “that” to end of line 21 and insert—
“the reason for the variation was to provide for improved employment practices and to update and reform outdated working practices, in order to allow for the more effective running of a business or organisation.”
This amendment would provide an exemption to unfair dismissal for failure to agree to a variation of contract.
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair for the afternoon sitting, Ms Vaz. The amendment, in my name and those of my hon. Friends, is a probing one—I want to be clear about that from the outset—that would provide an exception to unfair dismissal for failure to agree a variation of contract.
The premise underpinning the Bill’s provisions on fire and rehire is that the only reason for an employer to want to re-engage employees on varied terms is to exploit them by giving them worse terms and conditions. I am in no way, shape or form suggesting that that does not occasionally happen, but I come at this debate from the other direction, presuming that most employers are good employers who care about their workforce and want to see a happy staff getting on, being productive and doing the things they do to make the business a success, be that making things, giving advice or providing a service.
The Bill basically says that a business needs to be going bust for the process of varying a contract to be justified. Again, I am not certain that that is the right starting point. What if there were a legitimate reason for wanting to vary certain terms and conditions? We touched on this in our debate on SNP amendments 160 and 161 before the break, and I gave some examples thinking about the pace of change in a business. Let us say a manufacturing business moves from a very manual process for putting a product together—be it a car, a piece of furniture or some smaller product—to invest in robotics or something.
I can think of a farm in my constituency that was a traditional dairy farm but, thanks to a not insubstantial grant from the previous Government, has built a robotic dairy. That means that the people who work on that farm are doing a fundamentally different job. They no longer have to get up at 4 am to manually hook the cows up to the milking machines; believe it or not, the cows now form an orderly queue for the milking robots. I am not joking, Ms Vaz. I invite anyone to come and see it with their own eyes. There is a vending machine where people can buy the milk direct. The point at which staff intervention is needed is if an alarm indicates that a machine has clogged or broken, the pasteurisation room has hit the wrong temperature, or whatever. It is a fundamentally different job. Sometimes, that happens in a workplace where the employer wants to keep the staff—they do not want to let anyone go and they do not want the robots to replace them—but it involves different terms, different conditions and a different physical thing to do on a daily basis. I offer that as a practical example of how businesses change.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I refer the Committee to my membership of the GMB and Community unions. I have two short questions for the shadow Minister. First, if the changes are so positive for employees, can they not simply accept a change to their terms and conditions? Secondly, let us take the scenario that he describes, where there is a change in processes, and put that in a business-to-business context. Say a business moves from wooden cogs and to metal cogs, and it has a contract with the wooden cog supplier. Is he aware of any circumstances in which that business would be able simply to break that contract without any notice or legal recompense to the other business?
Greg Smith
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. He is right that the businesses in the situation he describes would have to go through a legal process, probably involving very expensive contract lawyers, to alter such a contract. I do not think it is helpful to directly compare those supply chain contracts with employment contracts, because on one level we are dealing with human beings and on the other we are dealing with the flow of parts, services or whatever.
The hon. Gentleman is also right that a change in terms and conditions can sometimes be very positive for the employee. Perhaps it involves fewer hours for more money—that sometimes happens—or longer holidays. Of course, if something better is being offered, employees should have the flexibility to accept that, having exercised due diligence and looked it over properly—dotted the i’s, crossed the t’s and all that. What I am trying to get at is where the business model, and the day-to-day operation of the job, has fundamentally changed, through robotics or whatever.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I want to continue on the shadow Minister’s theme of milk. It used to be common in factories where there were particulates in the air to include a clause in someone’s contract that said they were entitled to a glass of milk during the day, because it was believed at the time that a glass of milk would remove those particulates from someone’s airway. It was completely misguided, but those contracts still exist, and I have been in situations where I have looked over similar, very outdated terms and conditions. If it is raining on a site, someone might be entitled to a 2p payment, for example. Such contract conditions are very easy to remove; it can be done by agreement.
Does the shadow Minister accept that if a contract is worded appropriately, such variations can be made by an employer—the key factor is whether there has been genuine consultation—and that the circumstances that clause 22 will remedy are really quite separate? It is for those extreme examples that Grant Shapps, the Conservative Business Secretary at the time, spoke out against.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, although he was possibly milking it with the length of that intervention—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] It is nearly Christmas.
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s points about some of those very outdated provisions. I really hope that my children do not find a job out there that involves free milk, because they might jump at it a little too quickly. This probing amendment seeks simply to understand a little further where the flexibilities lie, and to get underneath some of the detail around when a variation of contract might be a good thing on both sides, or when things have just changed and there needs to be a variation in order for the jobs to be saved. I would hope that Members on both sides of the Committee would come at this from the perspective of the real world and wanting to save jobs, create more jobs, grow the economy and grow employment.
There may be legitimate reasons for wanting to vary terms and conditions, such as to provide for improved employment practices, or to update and reform outdated working practices—as the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield referenced—in order to allow for the more effective running of a business or organisation. The amendment seeks to understand the Government’s position should such a situation arise, and to understand why they are legislating to prevent businesses from acting in such a way.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
On a point of clarity, is it the purpose of the amendment or an unintended consequence of the drafting that it would completely delete the subsection, rather than adding to it? If the purpose is to completely delete the subsection it is amending, are Opposition Members trying to remove the protections for those going concerns?
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman asks a perfectly legitimate question. I repeat that this is a probing amendment: we are not going to press it to a vote or try to put it in the Bill. The purpose behind it is to get the evidence base, the justification and some clarity of thought from the Government about why the clause is necessary and proportionate. Sometimes we have to suggest getting rid of something to get a good example or a good justification for going there, doing it and putting it in primary legislation.
The Opposition certainly do not want to see exploitative fire and rehire in any workplace. From talking to businesses, and from the evidence we have heard, we know that there needs to be solid grounding and an evidence base to show that the wording in the Bill is justifiable and does not justify shutting down many businesses that are growing, adapting and changing—hopefully, for the better, so they are more successful. They should be able to keep and grow their staff, rather than go down the redundancy route or other scenarios whereby jobs are lost.
Matthew Percival from the CBI said:
“In the fire and rehire proposals, there is a risk that we might be making it easier to make people redundant than to change contracts”.––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 7, Q1.]
That is the absolute nub of the matter. It would be nothing short of a total disaster if the unintended consequence of the exact wording of the clause or the Bill perversely incentivises companies to make people redundant, so people lose their jobs and have to go home and have that difficult conversation with their loved ones and say that they need to find a new job, with the devastation that that brings to real people’s lives. I cannot imagine that the Government want that to happen. With this probing amendment, we are seeking to kick the tyres. We want an explanation, or at least to encourage the Minister and the wider Business and Trade team to find a better way that does not have that unintended consequence.
A recurring theme of our debates in recent days, and from the Bill Committee witnesses—other than trade union representatives—is that the measures in the Bill on dismissal and re-engagement will be too restrictive for employers. I gently ask the Minister to reflect on that and think about whether the measures will actually work and will not have unintended consequences, so that people’s jobs are protected and saved. We do not want people to be unintentionally forced down the route of job losses.
Michael Wheeler
I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, but I want to talk to its specifics. It appears to me that there are plenty of consensual mechanisms for achieving most of what the shadow Minister is suggesting about the variation of contracts to reflect working practices. If anything, they are inherently better than anything that is imposed. Quite often, when working practices, organisations and business practices are modernised, communication between those doing the work and the managers and owners leads to a much better outcome.
I suggest that we need to remember that we are talking about fire and rehire, which is inherently quite extreme. The amendment seems to refer to the particulars of normal working practices, looking at updating mechanisms to account for modern technology and suchlike, that are much better handled by the existing consensual mechanisms. While I appreciate that it is a probing amendment, it seems entirely unnecessary and does not necessarily speak to the heart of what the clause is about: ending the extreme practice of fire and rehire.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Ms Vaz. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire has explained that this is a probing amendment to find out the Government’s intentions, but I put it to the Minister and Labour Members that each of the Government’s proposals seems to be based on the premise that we need to legislate against the worst possible outcome.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles referred to P&O, and that was in fact a scandal. But the problem with this approach, of course, is that a regulatory burden is imposed on each and every other employer, and the labour market is made less flexible and employing people is made more expensive. Therefore, every time the Government see a problem with one employer and say, “We have to regulate for everyone,” the whole labour market is made more expensive and less attractive to foreign investors—less like Britain and more like France. As we look across the channel, we see a country with a similar-sized economy, but an unemployment rate approximately double our own.
Combine that, for example, with the proposal on unfair dismissal, and employers could be less likely to employ that marginal worker. In this case, as Matthew Percival from the CBI said, it becomes more attractive, perhaps, for employers to make their workers redundant than to try to renegotiate terms and conditions.
I ask the Minister to consider the cumulative effect of each and every one of his proposals. It is easy for him to stand up and say, “This proposal on its own is modest and reasonable and good,” but the whole Bill will add £5 billion of costs to industry, and the majority of that falls on small and medium-sized enterprises. My fear is that the Minister, through the very best of intentions, will end up with unemployment higher at the end of this Parliament than when he started.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Vaz. For the benefit of the Committee, I again refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the Unite and GMB trade unions.
It has been an interesting debate. I think we are on the opposite end of the spectrum from where we were in the earlier debate about where the balance lies with our measures to end fire and rehire. I think that the fact that we have two arguments from other ends of the spectrum suggests that we are in about the right place—but if the shadow Minister expects us to believe that cows queue up to be milked in the morning, I just say to him: pull the other one!
Justin Madders
Yes, they do get worse—it is Thursday afternoon.
The shadow Minister did raise some important points, though. He gave the example of a dairy and its changing practices. Of course, a change in job function does not necessarily mean that terms and conditions have to change or indeed become worse. History is full of examples where technology has come in and made jobs different. As we look forward to the advent of automation and AI in our economy, I hope that people find new jobs and new roles and that those jobs are more fulfilling as a result of technological development.
I will say a few words about the comments from the hon. Member for Bridgwater. We are talking about overall impacts in this Bill of 0.4% of employers’ total costs—a very small price to pay for a comprehensive set of reforms that really are needed for workers. It is about rooting out bad practices and making sure that those bad employers, who we all rightly condemn, are not able to exploit existing loopholes. It is about stopping the race to the bottom. It is about creating a level playing field. One reason why P&O said that it took the action that it did was that its competitors were undercutting it. We do not want to see that race to the bottom continue. We want to see good employers rewarded for respecting and rewarding their employees well by being able to compete on a level playing field.
The general thrust of the shadow Minister’s remarks was interesting. There is nothing to stop an employee agreeing to changes to terms and conditions. Indeed, proposed new section 104I(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 makes it clear that these provisions will not apply if the employee agrees to the changes. Changes and discussions happen every day of the week in industry—that is called negotiation, and that is what good industrial relations looks like. That is the sort of thing that we want to encourage.
We are trying to stop a situation that we have seen far too often, where an employer might just say, “Well, here are your new terms and conditions. If you don’t like it, there’s the door.” That, I am afraid, has become far too prevalent in our country. We have heard plenty of evidence about how many employers have been doing that. It is about recognising that there is a loophole in the law. This may be a probing amendment, but it would certainly make this clause ineffective, and arguably, it would make the situation worse than the status quo, because it would effectively legitimise some of those actions by employers. They could point to this legislation and say, “Well, the law says that we are able to do it.”
The way the amendment worded is quite broad. There is a reference to “outdated” terms and conditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield gave a good example of where reasonable dialogue between the trade union and the employer would see that change. The shadow Minister’s old colleague, Jacob Rees-Mogg, might have a different view about what “outdated” means. He might think anything after 1874 could be considered modern—[Interruption.] He probably does, yes. There would be very broad latitude for an employer to say that something was outdated. That is why I am concerned that the amendment would make things worse than they are now.
The Bill as drafted makes it very clear what the obligations of a responsible employer are. They are the sort of things that responsible employers do already. We recognise that there will be unfortunate situations in which an employer has no alternative but to change terms and conditions, but the Bill makes sure that, if there is a positive for the employees—there often is from a change in terms of conditions; that is what negotiations often involve—there is a way for that to continue. We are not going to stop that. If employees consent to changes, they will be able to be made under this Bill. I urge the shadow Minister not to press the amendment to a vote.
Greg Smith
I understand the argument that the Minister has set out, and I appreciate that this particular probing amendment was at the extremer end of the spectrum in trying to probe that response from him. I accept that there are many mechanisms whereby employees can consensually work with their employer to change contracts, and that is clear. I am still a little nervous—the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, as the Bill progresses and no doubt becomes legislation—about the nightmare scenario of businesses simply saying, “Rather than trying to engage in this process, as we were warned by the CBI, we will just make everyone redundant instead.”
There needs to be a clear, previously set out mechanism from the Government so that, if that disaster-zone eventuality comes to pass—I hope I am wrong; I do not want to see people being made redundant—there is a quick snapback or sort of provision to allow secondary legislation to throttle those measures down, or to fix them in some other way that still stops the exploitative practices without tying businesses’ hands behind their backs, because the net result will be job losses. I would be incredibly disappointed and sad if these issues, which both the Opposition and businesses have warned about throughout the passage of the Bill so far, became a job killer. The Government need to be ready, if they have got it wrong, to have a process that will give businesses the confidence again to properly engage in negotiations, such as those good industrial relations that the Minister spoke of, and not just make people redundant. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
We are back on fire and rehire again; I should probably count up how many times I have spoken in debates on this issue in the last few years. It has taken a lot of parliamentary time, and rightly so. We all remember the obloquy directed towards P&O when it took those actions, several years ago, and I am afraid that fire and rehire has become far more prevalent in our economy than anyone would want to see.
Investigations by the Trades Union Congress found that around 38,000 employers were using fire and rehire as a tactic. Research from the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development found that, between August 2021 and 2023, the proportion of firms that had used fire and rehire had almost doubled. The impact assessment estimates that there are around 178,000 workers facing the threat of fire and rehire at this very moment, so the problem is not going away—indeed, because of the way that P&O has been allowed to get away with it, employers see it as a golden opportunity to take a sword to hard-fought terms and conditions.
Other Members have spoken about the household names that have attempted to do that, and USDAW’s written evidence included some notable household names. Once upon a time, fire and rehire was a seldom-used part of the employment law and industrial relations landscape but, as part of the wider pattern of insecurity at work, it has become a much more common tool. I am afraid, as we have seen, it is far too often an act of first—rather than last—resort, and the Government are committed to ending that practice.
The solution to dealing with many of the concerns raised by the shadow Minister and others is to point to what good and bad industrial relations look like, and to say, “This is what bad employer practice looks like.” Good employers and industrial relations will take workers with them. Again I refer to USDAW’s written evidence, which noted occasions where negotiations had begun with fire and rehire on the table almost from the start. That is not a healthy place to have sometimes very difficult discussions about changes to terms and conditions. The impact assessment notes that the power asymmetry can provide incentives for the more powerful party, in this case the employer, to act in a strategic manner to suppress wages and conditions. Such tactics are why we have seen such a slump in wage growth over recent years.
Greg Smith
Most of my concerns have been outlined in the amendments to the clause, but I want to ensure that it is placed on the record that the Opposition want to see employers engage in good faith and believe that most employers do. I accept the Minister’s point about the scandal of P&O Ferries—I was on the Transport Committee at the time, so possibly looked into it in more detail than most colleagues from the previous Parliament.
Where we perhaps still have a difference is that taking that unacceptable, scandalous situation at P&O and legislating for everybody on the back of it is not necessarily the best starting place. As I said in the previous debate, working on the presumption that all businesses are trying to exploit their workforces is not healthy or, I would suggest, reflective of the real world. Although there have to be measures to shut down things like what happened at P&O so that it does not happen again, there must equally be flexibility and understanding so that, when employers have engaged in good faith and really are trying to save the business—to save the jobs in the first place—we do not find ourselves in that nightmare scenario of people saying, “It’s too difficult—we’ll just have to make everyone redundant.”
I fully accept that this clause will pass in a few moments, but perhaps the Minister could consider, before we come to Report, some additional safeguards on that so that we do not end up with job losses and employers slamming their heads down on the desk, unable to find another way to save the jobs and the workforce. That would keep giving people the living they need to get on and prosper as part of our country, part of the business they are engaged in and part of our vibrant UK economy.
Laurence Turner
I will not speak for long, because most of the points have been made in the debate, but I want to come back to the point made by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Bridgwater. There is perhaps a legitimate difference in principle between the two sides: when there are extreme examples, should there or should there not be legislation in response? It is important to respond to that, because we have seen extreme examples of abuse across different parts of the labour market. To go back to the example of blacklisting, I suggest that that was a failure of successive Parliaments to tackle a practice that had been thought to be relatively rare, but proved to have been carried out on an industrial scale. It was right for Parliament to enact the blacklisting regulations.
I go back, too, to the Grunwick dispute, the ancestor of the statutory recognition regime. At the time, it was thought that the abusive patterns of employment behaviour on full display in that particular employer would be unlikely to recur. The Government of the day commissioned a public inquiry under Lord Scarman in the belief that, if the inquiry concluded that there should be trade union recognition, it was inconceivable that any employer would not abide by that—but that is exactly what happened.
Where we see those extreme abuses, other employers—by no means the majority, or even a substantial minority, but enough to have a seriously deleterious effect on the lives of many workers—will follow. Since P&O, we have seen other examples; hon. Members have referred to particular employers and sectors, and I could add parts of the retail, utilities and even the public sector, where such tactics have become more common. The previous Government made strong statements—I could quote some—about the practice, but I suggest that the action that was subsequently taken, the code of practice, was not sufficiently strong. In the case of P&O, where the employer made it clear at the time that it intended to ignore the existing legislation, it did not prove sufficient remedy.
We do need stronger action. The measures in the Bill will only ever affect a tiny minority of employers. It is important to stress that, but it is necessary to put this action into the Bill. P&O will always loom large in discussions of this topic, but the practice is by no means confined to that particular employer, and it is right to take the action that was not taken in the previous Parliament.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Fire and rehire is an absolute scourge to those people who are impacted by it. Whether in significant numbers or a minority, it is utterly shameful. My Liberal Democrat colleagues broadly welcome the amendments, and we look forward to supporting the clause.
Justin Madders
It is good to hear that we have the support of the Liberal Democrats. Most of the country supports this measure; fire and rehire is rightly seen as a practice that should see its end. I quote the former right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield, Grant Shapps, who said at the time, when P&O first started on that course, that
“we will not allow this to happen again: that where new laws are needed, we will create them, that where legal loopholes are cynically exploited, we will close them, and that where employment rights are too weak, we will strengthen them.”—[Official Report, 30 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 840.]
I have news for the Committee: I am afraid that only this week several Members of this place have told me about fire and rehire tactics going on in their constituency. A fire and rehire situation is taking place right now in Wrexham. The loopholes have not been closed. That is why we need to act.
To put the shadow Minister’s mind at rest, I believe that proposed new subsection (5) gives employers a real guideline as to how they need to deal with this. Furthermore, as was common to much of the evidence we heard, responsible and good employers do all those things anyway, so they will not be penalised or face any additional burdens, but rather will be able to operate on a level playing field.
To refer to the evidence given by DFDS about this particular matter, or to someone working in an area very relevant to it, they said that they were pleased that fire and rehire was going to be dealt with, because as an operator, they are
“simply looking for a fair and level playing field.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 56, Q54.]
That is why we need to act today.
I also refer to the support of the Institute of Directors; approximately two thirds of its members who were polled supported this action, too. I think it will come to be seen as a watershed moment in industrial relations in this country, where we finally got rid of one of the most obnoxious and outdated practices that this country has ever seen.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Collective redundancy: extended application of requirements
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 58, in clause 23, page 34, line 27, at end insert—
“(3A) In section 197 (power to vary provisions), in subsection (1)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for “188(2)” substitute “188(1A)”;
(b) in the words after paragraph (b), for “188(2)” substitute “188(1A)”.”
This amendment would correct incorrect cross-references in section 197 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
This is a purely technical amendment to fix an incorrect cross-reference in section 197(1)(a) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 197(1)(a) provides that the Secretary of State may make secondary legislation to amend the minimum time period for collective consultations in section 188(2) of the same Act. However, as I am sure the shadow Minister had already noticed, that reference is incorrect: “section 188(2)” should read “section 188(1A)”. A consequential amendment was missed when section 188 was amended by the Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 1995. That instrument renumbered section 188(2) as section 188(1A). Of course, it should have also made a consequential amendment to section 197(1)(a), but did not.
The amendment will not change the law, which can already be interpreted to refer to the correct cross-reference by way of the Interpretation Act 1978. The 1978 Act provides that where an instrument repeals and re-enacts a provision then, unless the contrary intention appears, any reference in any other enactment to the repealed provision is to be read as a reference to the re-enacted provision. The amendment will improve the clarity and accessibility of the law, which I am sure we will all be relieved to hear.
Greg Smith
I can be very brief on this amendment, Ms Vaz; in fact, I will channel the questioning style of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). This is what happens when a Bill gets rushed to meet an arbitrary political deadline, is it not?
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister will be pleased to hear that we have picked the error up at this stage, so that when the Bill is enacted it will of course be absolutely correct.
Amendment 58 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Employers are currently obliged to collectively consult when they propose to make 20 or more employees redundant at one establishment. Collective consultations are an important part of ensuring fairness and transparency between employers and employees.
In the year to November 2024, approximately 3,500 employers in Great Britain gave notification that they were initiating a collective redundancy process at a single establishment. The benefits of consultation are felt by both employees and employers. Consultation ensures that affected employees can input into the process with a view to avoiding or mitigating redundancies wherever possible, and it helps employers to retain skilled workers and reduce the risk of disputes.
That is why the Government intend to strengthen the collective redundancy framework. The clause will amend the framework to ensure that employers must fulfil collective consultation obligations whenever they are proposing 20 or more redundancies, regardless of whether the redundancies take place at one establishment or not. This will ensure that more employees—many of them in vulnerable positions—will now benefit from redundancy consultation, and that affected employees can participate meaningfully in the redundancy process, regardless of how they might be dispersed across an employer’s business. The clause will also make it easier for employers to understand when they have to comply with these obligations.
I know that businesses have raised some concerns about the practical implications of the clause and I will take this opportunity to clarify its scope. First, the clause does not mean that employers will need to consult with the entire workforce in their organisation whenever they propose 20 or more redundancies. As is currently the case, they must consult only the relevant trade union or employee representatives of employees being proposed to be made redundant, or those who may be affected by measures implemented as a result of the proposed redundancies, such as relevant line managers.
Secondly, when an employer is required to undertake collective consultation with employees across different establishments, they have the flexibility to tailor the process to suit each location. For example, they are not required to undertake a single, uniform consultation across affected locations, but can hold separate consultation activities with each group of affected employees to ensure that discussions are both localised and meaningful.
Greg Smith
I have a couple of brief questions. I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification that the clause does not provide for a consultation of the whole workforce. That was a legitimate concern for many as they looked at the drafting of the Bill. The clarification will be welcome.
My bigger question is about the practicalities where an organisation has in excess of 20 employees. For example, a small chain of five or six pubs could easily have that volume of employees across bar and kitchen staff—chefs—cleaners and perhaps security, but in that sort of setting it is very rare for staff to be unionised, or even organised among themselves. In that scenario, where a smaller business employs that number of people across multiple sites, how does the Minister expect the requirement for the involvement of a trade union or employee organisation that does not exist to be engaged with? What is the mechanism for that? I appreciate that many Government Members would quite like everybody to be in a trade union—
Greg Smith
Indeed, we know from their declarations of interest that they all are. I hope the Minister takes the question with the good intent with which it is asked. Not everybody is in a trade union and not everybody organises in that way, so how would the mechanics of the measure work in those circumstances?
That leads to the wider question, “Why 20?” Why not 19, 18 or 15? Why not 25? It seems like an arbitrary number. I accept that a number needs to be put down. In some ways, in specifying a number, this clause is more detailed than most in the Bill, and it gives certainty, but I would like to understand why it is 20. It seems like a number picked from thin air. It could negatively impact an organisation if it led the employer to decide, “Well, we’ll just get rid of 19 of them, and we won’t have to comply.” That seems at odds with the other provisions in the Bill, where the Government seem to want to move all rights back to day one, yet they do not seem to want to apply that to organisations where, for whatever reason, 20 people are, sadly, being consulted on being made redundant. I would like clarity on that point.
Michael Wheeler
I will keep my contribution relatively short, but I did not want to let the clause pass without warmly welcoming its inclusion in the Bill. In a previous life, I worked to represent shop and retail workers. While P&O and the scandal of fire and rehire entered the collective consciousness, the Woolworths redundancy situation was burned into the consciousness of the workers I represented at that time. That is exactly the loophole that this measure is trying to close. Thousands of workers affected by the Woolworths redundancy missed out on the compensation they deserved as part of the lack of consultation because they worked in individual establishments that were small and fell below the threshold. The interpretation of the law at that point meant they were isolated, divided and not included as part of what was clearly, to everyone—
Greg Smith
Perhaps I can test the hon. Gentleman a little bit on that. I remember many happy hours as a child in Woolworths in the town where I grew up. They were fantastic stores, and they are greatly missed. Given where he is coming from, is he content with the number being set at 20? While Woolworths was a substantial business, I can think of smaller businesses with separate sites, retail outlets, pubs, restaurants or whatever that might employ 19 or 15 people.
Michael Wheeler
The hon. Gentleman invites to me to say whether I am content. I draw his attention to the fact that the clause removes the single establishment loophole while leaving in place the thresholds that are already part of the law around consultation and the time period. I have not examined and, despite the invitation, I will not speculate on where those thresholds should be, but I warmly welcome the removal of the single establishment loophole, so that where the numbers in a redundancy cross those thresholds—legitimately and apparently to everyone looking at it—there are not legalistic mechanisms for those workers to be left out.
Having warmly welcomed the removal of the loophole, let me reassure the shadow Minister. In a previous, previous life I was in a different job—we have all had many jobs—where trade unions were not recognised. I speak for myself alone when I say that I would love for every worker in this country to have the benefit of trade union representation. I confirm for the shadow Minister that I would love to see that, because I think it has genuine benefits.
Michael Wheeler
I am sure it is not. I worked in a retail establishment that did not benefit from trade union representation and that went through consultation, not on redundancy but on a variation of contracts, so it is relevant to what we were talking about before. It was actually a relatively smooth and easy process for employee representatives to be appointed and elected from among our number, despite the lack of an existing structure, and to engage with the company in those consultation exercises. While I would love there to be a trade union fighting the corner for every worker, when it is absent it is not a burdensome process to have employee engagement in these processes.
Justin Madders
I recognise that the shadow Minister welcomed the clarification I provided. No doubt there will be debate to come, as is often the case with legal issues, but the Government are fairly clear and confident that the clause will not have the unintended consequences we heard raised in evidence.
The shadow Minister asked, “Why 20?” He will pleased to know that that was a product of EU regulation. It is in existing law as part of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which has been amended many times, so I could not say exactly when it came into force, but—
Greg Smith
The Minister can of course look back in history at when these measures were put in, but the Bill seeks to change all sorts of things across all sorts of sectors. We are free from the European Union! He could change it if he wished.
Justin Madders
I will remember that next time the shadow Minister tells me that we are trying to do too much in this Bill. With the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, the Bill Committee for which I had the great pleasure of serving on, his Government could have done something about this before they left office.
The figure of 20 is long established, and we have no current plans to change it, but we are keen to ensure that the scenario my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles described cannot continue. As he said, Woolworths made 27,000 people redundant, and about 3,000 of those were completely exempt from collective redundancy consultations because of this issue. There has been a number of high-profile retail redundancies where people have missed out on collective redundancy obligations because of this law, which we are pleased to be able to change.
On the question of smaller employers where there may not be trade union representation readily available, the regulations already provide for employee representatives to be engaged and elected in those circumstances, so there is no change to the law in that respect. There is already provision to deal with that situation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Collective redundancy notifications: ships’ crew
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
The clause will address the loophole that allowed P&O Ferries to avoid prosecution when it dismissed 786 seafarers without notice in March 2022. It will require operators of frequent services to British ports to notify the UK Government when making 20 or more redundancies even if those affected work aboard ships registered in another state. The clause means that if an operator of frequent services to a British port chooses to copy P&O Ferries and make collective redundancies without providing notice to the Government, it could face prosecution under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and ultimately be liable for an unlimited fine.
The clause will apply to services calling between Great Britain and another place in the UK. It will also apply to any services entering Great Britain from a place outside the UK on at least 120 occasions in a 12-month period before the redundancy notification, or to new services that have been operating for less than 12 months and have called 10 times or more per month while they have been operating. We estimate the number of operators in scope of the measure to be around 2,000. The cost to businesses will be minimal; it is estimated to be around £20 per notification. We hope that the prospect of an unlimited fine will deter operators from making mass redundancies without the appropriate notification.
While this measure may not prevent redundancies from being made, it will mean that the Government and any employee representatives must be notified before any dismissals take effect. It will prevent the sort of disruption seen following the P&O Ferries dismissals and will mean that the Government will be able to provide valuable support to seafarers facing redundancy. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I understand where the Minister is coming from, particularly on the expansion of the requirement to notify the flag state. I spoke earlier about my time on the Transport Committee watching the P&O scandal unfold; we held some pretty tough evidence sessions as part of that. I understand that the clause is very specifically to protect seafarers from that sort of engagement. I very much hope that it works to protect those seafarers, and we will not oppose it.
Justin Madders
I am pleased to see that we have support all round.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Public sector outsourcing: protection of workers
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 59, in clause 25, page 36, line 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) After Part 5 insert—
‘Part 5A
Outsourcing: protection of workers
83A Application of this Part
(1) This Part provides for a Minister of the Crown, the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers to make provision for the protection of workers in relation to relevant outsourcing contracts (see section 83B).
(2) Accordingly, in this Part, “appropriate authority”—
(a) means—
(i) a Minister of the Crown,
(ii) the Scottish Ministers, or
(iii) the Welsh Ministers, and
(b) does not include a Northern Ireland department.
(3) In addition to the restrictions in section 113, a Minister of the Crown—
(a) may exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating devolved Scottish authorities only in relation to joint or centralised procurement under a reserved procurement arrangement;
(b) may not exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating joint or centralised procurement under a devolved Scottish procurement arrangement.
(4) The Scottish Ministers—
(a) may only exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating—
(i) devolved Scottish authorities, or
(ii) procurement under a devolved Scottish procurement arrangement;
(b) may not exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating—
(i) joint or centralised procurement under a reserved procurement arrangement, or
(ii) joint or centralised procurement under a devolved Welsh procurement arrangement.
(5) In addition to the restrictions in section 111, the Welsh Ministers—
(a) may exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating devolved Scottish authorities only in relation to joint or centralised procurement under a devolved Welsh procurement arrangement;
(b) may not exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating joint or centralised procurement under a devolved Scottish procurement arrangement.
(6) This Part does not apply in relation to—
(a) a private utility;
(b) a person referred to in regulation 4(1)(b) of the Utilities Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2016 (S.S.I. 2016/49);
(c) a devolved Welsh authority listed in Schedule 1 of the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Act 2023 (asc 1);
(d) procurement under a transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangement, except to the extent that the procurement—
(i) is carried out by a devolved Scottish authority, and
(ii) is not joint or centralised;
(e) a transferred Northern Ireland authority, except in relation to—
(i) procurement under a reserved procurement arrangement,
(ii) procurement under a devolved Scottish procurement arrangement, or
(iii) procurement under a devolved Welsh procurement arrangement.
(7) For the purposes of this section, procurement under a procurement arrangement is “joint or centralised” if as part of that procurement arrangement a contract is to be awarded following a procedure or other selection process carried out—
(a) jointly by a devolved Scottish authority and another contracting authority which is not a devolved Scottish authority, or
(b) by a centralised procurement authority or equivalent body.
83B Relevant outsourcing contracts
(1) In this Part, “relevant outsourcing contract” means a contract in relation to which conditions A to C are met.
(2) Condition A is met where the contract—
(a) is a public contract under this Act, or
(b) is a contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation.
(3) Condition B is met where the contract—
(a) is a contract for the supply of services that include the performance of functions that are or have previously been performed by the contracting authority, or
(b) is—
(i) in the case of a public contract, a framework for the future award of a contract referred to in paragraph (a), or
(ii) in the case of a contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation, a framework agreement the purpose of which is to establish the terms governing a contract referred to in paragraph (a).
(4) Condition C is met where the functions referred to in subsection (3)(a) are, or are expected to be, performed by individuals (“transferring workers”) who—
(a) in performing the functions, are employed by the supplier or a sub-contractor under a worker’s contract, and
(b) were employed by the contracting authority under a worker’s contract in performing functions of the same kind.
(5) For the purposes of this Part—
(a) “contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation” means a contract the procurement of which by a devolved Scottish authority is regulated by Scottish procurement legislation;
(b) in relation to a contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation—
(i) “contracting authority” means a devolved Scottish authority that is a contracting authority within the meaning of the relevant Scottish procurement legislation;
(ii) “framework agreement” has the same meaning as in the relevant Scottish procurement legislation;
(iii) “supplier” means an economic operator within the meaning of the relevant Scottish procurement legislation;
(iv) “the relevant Scottish procurement legislation” means the Scottish procurement legislation regulating the procurement of the contract.
83C Power to specify provision for inclusion in relevant outsourcing contracts
(1) An appropriate authority may by regulations specify provision to be included in a relevant outsourcing contract for the purpose of ensuring that—
(a) transferring workers of a specified description are treated no less favourably as workers of the supplier or a sub-contractor than they were as workers of the contracting authority, and
(b) workers of the supplier or a sub-contractor who are not transferring workers and are of a specified description are treated no less favourably than those transferring workers.
(2) In carrying out the procurement of a relevant outsourcing contract, the contracting authority must—
(a) take all reasonable steps to ensure that provision specified under subsection (1) is included in the contract;
(b) where provision specified under subsection (1) is included in the contract, take all reasonable steps to secure that such provision is complied with.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply—
(a) where the contracting authority or the relevant outsourcing contract is of a specified description, or
(b) in specified circumstances.
(4) In this section, “specified” means specified in regulations made by an appropriate authority.
83D Code of practice on relevant outsourcing contracts
(1) An appropriate authority must prepare and publish a code of practice containing guidance to contracting authorities for the purpose of ensuring that, where a contracting authority carries out the procurement of a relevant outsourcing contract—
(a) transferring workers of a description specified in the code are treated no less favourably as workers of the supplier or a sub-contractor than they were as workers of the contracting authority, and
(b) workers of the supplier or a sub-contractor who are not transferring workers and are of a description specified in the code are treated no less favourably than those transferring workers.
(2) An appropriate authority—
(a) may amend or replace a code published by it under subsection (1), and
(b) must publish any amended or replacement code.
(3) A code published under subsection (1) or (2) must—
(a) in the case of a code published by a Minister of the Crown, be laid before Parliament;
(b) in the case of a code published by the Scottish Ministers, be laid before the Scottish Parliament;
(c) in the case of a code published by the Welsh Ministers, be laid before Senedd Cymru.
(4) In carrying out the procurement of a relevant outsourcing contract, the contracting authority must have regard to the code of practice for the time being published under subsection (1) or (2).
(5) This section does not require an appropriate authority to do anything which the authority does not have power to do (see section 83A and Part 11).
83E Interpretation of this Part
(1) In this Part—
“appropriate authority” has the meaning given in section 83A(2);
“contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation” has the meaning given in section 83B(5)(a);
“relevant outsourcing contract” has the meaning given in section 83B;
“transferring worker”, in relation to a relevant outsourcing contract, has the meaning given in section 83B(4);
“worker” and “worker’s contract” have the same meaning as in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (see section 230 of that Act).
(2) For the purposes of this Part, in relation to a contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation, “contracting authority”, “framework agreement”, “supplier” and “the relevant Scottish procurement legislation” have the meaning given in section 83B(5)(b).
83F Power of Scottish Ministers to amend this Part
The Scottish Ministers may by regulations modify section 83A, 83B or 83E in consequence of a modification of Scottish procurement legislation.’”
This amendment would restructure the new provisions to be inserted into the Procurement Act 2023 so that the powers and duties extend to the Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers and devolved Scottish and Welsh authorities. The amendment also clarifies that the duty to publish a code of practice does not depend on the making of the regulations.
Justin Madders
Amendment 59 will expand and restructure the provisions in clause 25, which amends the Procurement Act 2023, to reinstate and strengthen the two-tier code for relevant outsourced contracts for public services so that the powers and duties in clause 25 extend to Scottish and Welsh Ministers. Amendments 60 to 64 make changes that are consequential on those made by amendment 59, including by updating various definitions in the Procurement Act 2023 and by providing that regulations made by Scottish and Welsh Ministers must be made using the affirmative procedure of the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd.
We are making the amendments at the request of the Scottish and Welsh Governments. They are necessary because to get the benefits of a consistent approach to fair and equitable employment terms and conditions on relevant outsourced contracts, it is essential that a reinstated two-tier code applies throughout the UK.
We continue to engage with our counterparts in Northern Ireland about whether the powers should also extend to Ministers there. The regulations and code of practice created in our provisions will apply to reserved Northern Irish authorities. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I am reminded of the old chestnut about rushing out a Bill in 100 days and forgetting about the devolved settlements as part of the process. Given that devolution was largely the product of the previous Labour Government, I am slightly surprised that the current one would forget about Holyrood and Cardiff Bay. However, it is good that we now have clarity. We will of course want to test how things are actually going to work. Indeed, the question of Northern Ireland—which is just as important a part of our country as England, Scotland and Wales—really should be resolved sooner rather than later, so that there can be clarity that the Government are seeking to legislate for the whole of our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and not doing it in a piecemeal fashion.
Justin Madders
I gently correct the shadow Minister: we did not forget to engage with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. We were making sure that we had agreement before we tabled amendments, which is why they have appeared as they have today.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that this is actually an example of the Government keeping not only their manifesto promise to deliver a new deal for working people, but the manifesto promise that I certainly made many times during the election campaign, which was that the new Government would show the utmost respect for the Scottish Parliament and Government, and for all the devolved institutions? I reassure the Minister that the Scottish Parliament was not forgotten during the drafting of the Bill, because there was extensive engagement with the Scottish Government, some of which I saw myself.
Justin Madders
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. On that note, I commend the amendments to the Committee. “appropriate authority (except in Part 5A) section 123 appropriate authority (in Part 5A) section 83A”
Amendment 59 agreed to.
Amendments made: 60, in clause 25, page 37, line 33, at end insert—
“(2A) In section 2 (contracting authorities), after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) But see also section 83B(5)(b)(i) (which provides for “contracting authority” to have an extended meaning in relation to certain contracts regulated under Part 5A (outsourcing: protection of workers)).’”
See the explanatory statement to amendment 59.
Amendment 61, in clause 25, page 37, line 34, leave out subsection (3).
See the explanatory statement to amendment 59 - because the new provisions are now being inserted as a new Part of the Procurement Act 2023, there is no longer any need to amend section 100 of that Act.
Amendment 62, in clause 25, page 38, line 3, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) In section 122 (regulations)—
(a) in subsection (4) (regulations by Ministers of the Crown subject to affirmative procedure), after paragraph (i) insert—
‘(ia) section 83C (provision for inclusion in relevant outsourcing contracts);’
(b) in subsection (10) (regulations by Welsh Ministers subject to affirmative procedure), after paragraph (g) insert—
‘(ga) section 83C (provision for inclusion in relevant outsourcing contracts);’
(c) in subsection (14) (regulations by Scottish Ministers subject to affirmative procedure), before paragraph (a) insert—
‘(za) section 83C (provision to be included in relevant outsourcing contracts);
(zb) section 83F (power to amend section 83A, 83B or 83E);’”.
See the explanatory statement to amendment 59.
Amendment 63, in clause 25, page 38, line 6, at end insert—
“(4A) In section 123 (interpretation), in subsection (1), in the definition of ‘appropriate authority’, at the end insert—
‘(but see section 83A(2) for a different meaning of “appropriate authority” in Part 5A (outsourcing: protection of workers));’.
(4B) In section 124 (index of defined expressions), for the entry for ‘appropriate authority’ substitute—
See the explanatory statement to amendment 59.
Amendment 64, in clause 25, page 38, leave out lines 9 to 11 and insert—
“Part 5A (outsourcing: protection of workers)”.—(Justin Madders.)
See the explanatory statement to amendment 59.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 12th December 2024
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 View all Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 December 2024 - (12 Dec 2024)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I welcome Committee members to this afternoon’s sitting. I will not tell you at the beginning what train I am hoping to catch.
Clause 4
Commissioner’s functions in relation to general service welfare
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 4, page 2, line 35, at end insert—
“(2A) A ‘general service welfare matter’ may include issues relating to the provision of pensions and other related benefits to serving and former members of the armed forces.”
This amendment would enable the Commissioner to include matters relating to pensions and other such benefits in their investigations of general service welfare matters.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I hope we shall not inconvenience you too much with regard to your journey back.
The purpose of amendment 12 is to confirm in the Bill that pensions would be among the topics that the commissioner can investigate under the heading of “general service welfare matters”. This is obviously a matter of keen interest to service personnel and their families, and having good pension provision for serving in the armed forces has always been an aid to both recruitment and particularly retention, especially for non-commissioned officers and officers as they progress in their careers.
I have often felt—and I include the time when I served as a Minister in the Ministry of Defence—that we have not really done enough to successfully market the value of military pensions as part of the wider service offer in order to convince people to join and then remain in the armed forces. In my experience, even many armed forces personnel did not appreciate that they had one of the few pension schemes across the entire public sector that was effectively non-contributory. In other words, their employer paid a contribution into their pensions, but they did not. In comparison, the last time I checked, most serving police officers pay something like 14% of their salary into their pension, whereas serving personnel still do not have to pay anything. Historically, the pension has always been—certainly as people become more experienced, get older and think more about their pension provision, much like the rest of the population—a vital tool in keeping people in.
I would like to raise with the Minister one particularly pressing pensions matter, which provides a classic example of the sort of issue that the Armed Forces Commissioner should be empowered to investigate. In essence, it relates to the potential liability for inheritance tax, relating to death in service lump sum payments. This follows on, unfortunately, from the IHT changes announced in the Budget.
I will refer to a briefing that was recently provided to me by Major General Neil Marshall OBE, the chief executive of the Forces Pension Society, which, I hope the Minister and Committee will accept, is the absolute gold standard expert on any matter relating to forces pensions—the sort of Office for Budget Responsibility of armed forces pensions. The AFP note summarises the issue as follows:
“Death in service benefits affect those who die prematurely. While benefits pay to spouses or civil partners will be unaffected by IHT, we understand that under the Government’s proposals, death in service lump sum payments for service personnel who die in the service and are not married or in a civil partnership would be liable to IHT. This would lead to military personnel being disadvantaged compared with their civilian counterparts”,
not least because their civilian counterparts would be
“able to place such benefits in trust and therefore outside of the deceased’s estate.”
The note continues to say that the introduction of the armed forces pension scheme 2005 and subsequently the armed forces pension scheme 2015—AFPS 05 and AFPS 15, as they are colloquially known—
“saw eligible partners recognised as dependents and therefore eligible for benefits.”
Under AFPS 05 and AFPS 15, personnel do not need to be married; they need to have an established partner. The note continues:
“This was in addition to married couples and those in civil partnerships. This was a welcome reflection of societal changes over the past 30 years or so; introducing a potential inheritance tax charge on death in service benefits for those military people who are not married or in a civil partnership is at odds with the extant policy.”
To put in this in layman’s English, because in my experience anything to do with pensions does tend to be quite complicated: if Corporal Thomas Atkins of the 1st Battalion the Lone Shire Regiment were walking down his high street tomorrow—not on active service—and unfortunately dropped dead of a heart attack, even if he had a long-term partner and perhaps three children but was not married or in a civil partnership with that partner, then his family would be liable for a potential inheritance tax charge on his death in service benefit. Not only is there the risk of the financial penalty—I will come on to a case study in a moment to illustrate the dilemma—but the bureaucracy could result in payouts from the estate being delayed while the liability for IHT is being calculated. The Forces Pension Society summarise the issue in its very good briefing note as follows:
“At a time of extreme vulnerability, these lump sums need to be paid promptly, as they currently are. If death in service benefits become subject to IHT there will be a delay to the benefit being paid both while the estate is assessed for IHT and while the amount of IHT attributable to the DIS [death in service] benefit is assessed and the scheme administrator (Veterans UK) pays the tax charge.”
As the briefing note then goes on to explain:
“Many who would not previously have been caught with an IHT liability will find themselves in a very bureaucratic process that will slow down the already lengthy process of sorting out the financial affairs of an individual at what is a very difficult time.”
The Forces Pension Society gave several examples of how this could affect personnel in practice. For the sake of brevity, I will just give one, which I hope is sufficient to illustrate the point. Take the case of an OR-9 equivalent—a senior warrant officer at the top of the non-commissioned rank structure. This individual has a partner to whom they are unmarried, and on death leaves an estate worth £400,000 and death in service benefits of £248,292—four times their salary of £62,000. They would pay 40% inheritance tax on the non-pension assets, resulting in an IHT liability of £30,000, but after April 2027, if the DIS benefits were included in the estate, that would increase the estate’s value to £648,292. The IHT liability will therefore increase accordingly to £129,316. That represents an increase of around 330%.
In fairness, we on the Conservative Benches suspect that this is an example of the law of unintended consequences in action. We do not believe that the Government deliberately brought in these changes with the specific intention of targeting armed forces personnel. There is a debate about farmers and other groups in society, but I am focusing today on armed forces personnel and their families. To be clear, we are not saying that the Government did this deliberately in order to damage those people’s interests. Nevertheless, the default position is that they would suffer in the ways I have just outlined, unless something is done. Indeed, the Forces Pension Society summed up the problem as follows:
“We believe the Government has made an error and would not knowingly implement a policy that runs counter to the spirit of the armed forces covenant. The situation is recoverable should they act now.”
We on the Conservative Benches support that plea.
I hope that when the Minister replies, he will assure us that, following the consultation on these proposals—which will be overseen by His Majesty’s Treasury, not by the MOD, because it is a consultation on the IHT changes in general—he is confident that armed forces personnel and their families will be exempted from any potential inheritance tax liabilities on death in service payments, whether or not those armed forces personnel die in active service. I hope that I have managed to explain that in terms that the Committee can follow.
Mr Francois
I will in a moment.
I hope that, as an act of good will, the Minister will be minded to accept the amendment to remove any doubt about the ability of the Armed Forces Commissioner—who, as we heard this morning, will end up being appointed in early 2026, a year before these proposed changes are due to come into effect—to look in detail at this issue. Given the rightful concerns of the Forces Pension Society, I must tell the Minister that I am minded to press the amendment to a Division if he does not do the right thing.
Having hopefully explained what is admittedly a slightly complex issue, I very much look forward to the Minister’s response, but before I sit down, I will gladly take the hon. Lady’s intervention.
Juliet Campbell
In addressing welfare and support for families, the shadow Minister has focused on pensions, but what are his thoughts on wider issues such as childcare and education, which we should also be thinking about?
Mr Francois
I entirely take the hon. Lady’s point, for which I thank her. There are a number of wider issues—one of them is education, and particularly special educational needs—and I will touch on those in the clause stand part debate, if it pleases the Chair. The hon. Lady may recall that I gave the Minister a pretty fair heads-up about that on Tuesday. I tabled the amendment so that we could raise the specific issue of pensions, which is a concern for armed forces personnel, rather than discussing it under clause stand part.
To drive that point home before I conclude my remarks, Larisa Brown, the excellent defence editor of The Times, has just published an article online entitled, “Call to spare troops’ loved ones from inheritance tax trap.” Its subheading is: “Death in service payments for unmarried members of the armed forces who die off-duty will be subjected to the levy under plans announced in the budget”. In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, this is very much a live issue as of about 14 minutes ago.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Francois
In a moment. Having raised this issue with the Minister, who has a look on his face that says, “This wasn’t in my folder,” I very much hope that he will, being an artful chap, seek some inspiration and extemporise by saying something encouraging so that we do not feel it necessary to press the amendment. I was going to conclude my remarks there, but I do not want to be accused of curtailing the debate, so I will give way first to the hon. Lady and then to the hon. Gentleman.
Amanda Martin
Although we—and, I think, service personnel—recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns about pensions in relation to those specific incidents, I will make three points if I may. First, the amendment states that
“A ‘general service welfare matter’ may include issues relating to the provision of pensions”.
That would give a rather larger weighting to the direction of the commissioner, potentially over the direction of service personnel and their families. I talk to service personnel in my city of Portsmouth, which is the home of the Royal Navy, and they might prefer for it to state that a general service welfare matter may include issues relating to housing, postings, their professional careers, their rules of engagement and access to local services.
Including that single provision would direct the commissioner and would not allow for issues to come up from personnel and the grassroots—from our people on the ground. Should a matter come forward as an issue they want to raise, obviously it is in the gift of the commissioner to do so, but actually the amendment would limit things. From the conversations I have had with personnel in my area, this is not at the top of their list. They would not like to be directed on what they can bring forward to the commissioner.
The Chair
Order. I remind the Committee that interventions are supposed to be just that: reasonably brief and to the point. If Members want to make a longer contribution, they should indicate that they would like to contribute in the general debate.
Mr Francois
I will try to be brief. This amendment in no way precludes the raising of any of the other issues that the hon. Lady mentioned. It does not say, for instance, that the commissioner can look only at pensions—not at all. However, it does specifically make it clear that the commissioner is empowered to look at pensions, because they kick in, by definition, when armed forces personnel leave the service. Some people might try to argue that pensions are not a general service welfare issue because personnel are no longer serving, but they very much are—not least because, as the Minister will know, they very much affect retention. They might also affect recruitment slightly, but pensions are certainly very important in retention. Sometimes they are the overwhelming reason that people stay in the service, depending on their personal financial circumstances.
I see the hon. Lady’s point, but all this is doing is making it very clear, beyond peradventure, that the Armed Forces Commissioner’s remit would extend to pensions. I admit that it also gave us an opportunity to raise this very important issue, which the Forces Pension Society raised with me a little while ago. When I met its representatives, they were genuinely worried about this, and my amendment was an opportunity to put the issue on the table and on the Government’s radar, as it were. That is what I was seeking to achieve.
Luke Akehurst
On one level, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman for finding an opportunity to raise this issue in the context of the Bill Committee. It is one for which I have a huge amount of sympathy, as I represent a constituency with a large number of retired service personnel. On the other hand, it is a little cheeky to use a Bill Committee to raise a substantive policy issue that could have been raised on the Floor of the House—perhaps in Defence questions.
Luke Akehurst
I am sorry—I will be as brief as I can. I am getting used to being brief. What led the right hon. Gentleman to suspect that this issue might be in any way excluded? I hope the Minister will clarify that the Bill is designed to be permissive and broad, and to allow the commissioner to define what a general welfare issue might be. I do not think there is any attempt to exclude—
Mr Francois
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very pithy intervention. He pays me a back-handed compliment. How outrageous that His Majesty’s Opposition should try to raise a difficult issue in the middle of a Bill Committee; if I were to go back through the annals of Hansard down the centuries, I am sure there would be some precedent for that.
This was a timely opportunity, if I can put it like that, to table the issue. There is a consultation coming up, and I suspect, looking at his face, that the Minister was not really au fait with this issue—I am not being rude to him—but he is now, and I will be very interested to hear what he has to say.
The key point here is that death in service benefits have traditionally been payable if someone dies while in the armed forces or in the service of the Crown, whether or not they were on active service. A person who died back at home with their family would still qualify for the money. Under the armed forces pension scheme, they would still qualify if they had a regular partner. Under the Bill, however, because we are now dealing with the inheritance tax rules, unless the individual is married or in a civil partnership the exemptions do not apply. That is the critical point. I suspect the Ministry of Defence had not picked up on it. The Forces Pension Society, which exists for exactly this kind of eventuality, has done what it says on the tin and raised an issue that could materially affect armed forces pensions. In some ways, I am acting as their factotum this afternoon in tabling the issue.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I do not think it is, actually. This is important, because as written—without the amendment—the provision refers to a matter that
“arises in connection with ongoing service of persons subject to service law”.
As soon as someone is killed, therefore, they are not within the purview of the Armed Forces Commissioner and nor are their families, because there is no more ongoing service. Is that not the point?
Mr Francois
I think it is. Those who have left the service, are by definition no longer subject to service law; they are subject to the laws of the country like any other civilians, as that is what they have become, albeit they are civilians with the special status of being a veteran, which we should respect. But they are no longer serving in His Majesty’s armed forces. The amendment would allow the commissioner to expand their remit little bit in order to look at pension-related issues, which are something that armed forces personnel regard as part of their general service welfare. When they are taking that stick or twist decision, weighing up the pluses and minuses of whether to stay or leave—particularly if they have been in the service for some years and have accumulated a reasonable pension pot—that is definitely something that they will take into account.
Mr Francois
In a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne is a former commanding officer of the Scots Guards, and he knows the challenge that all commanding officers face in retaining personnel, particularly experienced personnel. It is part of that stick or twist decision, which is why we believe that the Armed Forces Commissioner should be able to look at it. The amendment would remove any doubt that they had the ability to do that, while—to come back to the point made by hon. Member for Broxtowe—in no way precluding their being able to look at anything else.
Luke Akehurst
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I will try to be more pithy this time. I thought there was a separate proposal for a veterans’ commissioner. Should not matters that affect former service personnel after the point when technically they have ceased to serve, or their families if they are deceased, sit in the purview of a veterans’ commissioner, not the Armed Forces Commissioner?
Mr Francois
The hon. Gentleman anticipates me, because if he looks down the list of amendments, he will see that new clause 2 talks specifically about veterans’ commissioners. Perhaps at that point he might want to intervene on me again, as long as it does not mean Mr Betts misses his train.
I hope that I have made my point. I shall be interested to hear what other Members in the Committee think, and particularly what the Minister’s view is.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I have four quick responses. First, it is good to know that there is a journalist watching or listening to these proceedings. I wish her all the best with the article she will no doubt follow this debate with. Secondly, being artful and cheeky are compliments on both sides of this divide, so I think we can take those as benefits.
Turning to the substantive points, the first is on placing a specific category of general welfare matter on the face of the Bill. It will not surprise the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford that I say it should be for the commissioner to decide which matters they consider to be a general service welfare matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe mentioned, it is quite possible that there will be people who feel strongly about childcare, others about the state of their housing, and others still about a range of service matters. It is for the Government to set up the powers of the commissioner so they can make a decision free from the influence of Ministers on what that should be.
The right hon. Gentleman will understand if I resist the temptation to specify one measure in the Bill and not others. The danger of trying to have an exhaustive list is that there will always be matters excluded from it, no matter how declaratory or helpful is the intention of putting certain measures on the face of the Bill. I assure the shadow Minister that pensions, which are of course extremely important, are not excluded from the scope of the commissioner. If they are considered to be a general service welfare issue, pensions can already be investigated without having to specify them on the face of the Bill. I hope he understands that his amendment is unnecessary to achieve that.
On the second issue the shadow Minister raised, he is, I hope, familiar with the answer to his written question given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People, who replied:
“Inheritance tax on pensions is subject to a technical consultation which runs between 30 October 2024 and 22 January 2025. The Ministry of Defence will follow legislation as per Government proposals.”
I commend the shadow Minister for raising an issue like this, but he will understand that a proper consultation by the Treasury and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is under way, and it is for them to undertake that. He has placed the issue on record here and separately, in his written question to my ministerial colleague. I encourage him to share the experiences he has raised with my ministerial colleague who looks after armed forces pensions, so he can look further into that. I entirely commend him for his artful cheekiness in raising it in this Committee.
These are precisely the issues that the commissioner should have the power to investigate and, based on the Bill in front of us, will have the power to investigate, but I do not think it is for any one of us to specify which issues, because that constrains the independence of the commissioner. We spent this morning talking about the importance of reinforcing the independence of the commissioner. This afternoon, we should continue that argument and not seek to direct the commissioner through a declaratory addition to the Bill about one area. The commissioner will be able to look at pensions as a general service welfare matter, as they see fit. I suspect, given the shadow Minister’s energy, that he will seek to raise the issue further.
Regarding pensions, there is already a set procedure that allows current service personnel veterans to raise complaints through a process called the internal disputes resolution procedure. These cases are assessed by discretionary decision makers within the Defence Business Services authority, and if people are unhappy, they can appeal these decisions to the Pensions Ombudsman. I recognise the shadow Minister’s strength of feeling on this. Notwithstanding his specific issue, which is worthy of being raised on the Floor of the House, I hope he will understand why I resist the idea of having a declaratory point about one particular area, as in his amendment. As such, I ask him to withdraw his amendment, but also to keep in contact with my ministerial colleague, who will be able to look into this matter in further detail.
Mr Francois
I thank the Minister for his compliment about my “artful cheekiness”. I am rather hoping that the Whip will have written that down. Again, quoting from Larisa Brown’s article,
“It is understood that inheritance tax would apply to service personnel who are killed while off duty, for example if they are driving to and from work.”
She also includes a comment from a spokesman from the Forces Pension Society, who said they believed it was an “unintended consequence”— we are trying to be fair to the Government—but added,
“For the military, death is an occupational risk, so we also believe this is a breach of the armed forces covenant, which says that service personnel should not be disadvantaged by virtue of their service.”
I understand what the Minister has said, and I know there is a technical consultation, but this is important not just to us and to the Forces Pension Society; it will genuinely concern armed forces personnel and their families.
Luke Pollard
I neglected to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne. If a member of the armed services dies, they are no longer able to access the commissioner because of their death. However, we are deliberately introducing secondary legislation that will define bereaved families to enable them to access the commissioner. I hope the hon. Gentleman is reassured that, in the circumstances that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford is talking about, the families of those affected will still be able to raise an issue with the commissioner. The wording of that secondary legislation is being prepared by the Ministry of Defence and will be published in draft form as the Bill progresses through Parliament.
Mr Francois
My hon. Friend and I are grateful for that clarification. None the less, we need to put down a marker. We need to make very plain to the Government—not just the MOD, but the Treasury, because it will be a Treasury consultation and it is a Treasury tax—that we regard this point as very important and that we hope and believe that the Government should reverse this measure.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Francois
No. On that basis, I intend to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Francois
On a point of order, Mr Betts. If I could record for posterity that neither of the two Liberal Democrats assigned to the Committee are here at the moment. In fairness, one has a conflicting obligation in the Chamber; the other has a reason we do not know—it could be a family reason. For the record, the Liberal Democrats were not here to vote on this.
The Chair
I do not think that is a point for the Chair, but it has obviously been put on the record.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Luke Pollard
Clause 4 inserts proposed new sections 340IA, 340IB and 340LA into the Armed Forces Act 2006. Taken in order, these new sections enable the commissioner to investigate a general service welfare matter, to have powers of entry to certain Ministry of Defence sites, and to report and make recommendations in relation to their general service welfare investigations.
The commissioner will be in a unique position to take a holistic view of the range of issues faced by service personnel and their families. Their position as an independent champion for our armed forces will allow them to bring to the attention of Parliament and therefore the public a range of issues faced by service personnel—whether that is accommodation or retention, pensions, as we have just debated, or childcare—and provide holistic recommendations. That can only be positive for service people and will provide greater transparency and accountability in defence.
Proposed new section 340IA, when inserted into the 2006 Act, will enable the commissioner to investigate a general service welfare matter. The intent of this section is to ensure a scope broad enough to capture issues that may have been brought to the commissioner’s attention through oversight of the service complaints system, but also issues that can be raised directly by service personnel and their families, provided it relates in some way to the serviceperson in question and their service.
Subsection (2) states that a general service welfare matter is any matter which might, in the opinion of the commissioner, materially affect the welfare of service personnel and their families where those issues have arisen as a result of the relevant service person’s ongoing service. Members of the Committee will be able to see that that gives a very broad interpretation power to the commissioner to be able to make a decision about what falls as a general service welfare matter. As such, specifying particular issues in the Bill is unnecessary. “Materially affect” is not defined, but its inclusion ensures that a matter must be sufficiently serious to warrant an investigation.
Subsection (3) requires the commissioner to consider a request from any person subject to service law, or a relevant family member, to carry out an investigation into a general service welfare matter. However, that does not preclude the commissioner from considering a request made by someone else if they wished to, provided it falls into the scope of a general service welfare matter.
Subsections (4) and (5) exclude certain matters that cannot be investigated under this section, but still allow the commissioner to investigate general service welfare issues that may have been brought to their attention in connection with a particular service complaint, service inquiry, criminal investigation or proceedings, or public inquiry. Additionally, any “specified” matter can be excluded from investigation by the commissioner. These matters can be set out in secondary legislation, but must relate to national security or the safety of any person.
Subsection (7) places a requirement on the Secretary of State to reasonably co-operate with, and give reasonable assistance to, the commissioner in relation to an investigation under this section. I touched on that earlier in relation to the concerns of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. The Secretary of State must also consider any findings or recommendations made by the commissioner in connection with an investigation under this section.
Subsection (8) sets out the definitions for this section, including that the definition of a “relevant family member” is to be set out in regulations. As I mentioned in response to questions from the hon. Member for Spelthorne, I would expect that to be set out during the course of the passage of the Bill. It would then go through the usual scrutiny process should Members wish to interrogate the provision further.
Proposed new section 340IB, “Power of Entry to Service Premises” will, when inserted into the Act, confer powers on the commissioner enabling them to enter certain Ministry of Defence sites in the United Kingdom. Subsection (1) specifies that the power of entry includes certain actions, including the ability to observe activities at those sites and to inspect and take copies of documentation. I direct the attention of the Committee to the important power the commissioner has of requesting information from the Secretary of State, so their ability to interrogate, scrutinise and understand general service welfare matters is not restricted only to what they can observe on a visit; they also have the information they can request from the MOD. It is worth restating at this point that the commissioner’s investigations must relate to a general service welfare matter. They cannot use the power of entry to access sites or information purely on a whim, or for their own interest.
Subsection (2) provides that copies of electronic documentation provided to the commissioner must be legible and in a form that can be taken away. Subsections (3) and (4) require that, prior to relying on their powers of entry, the commissioner should provide such notice to the Secretary of State as they consider appropriate. Where they consider that to provide such notice would defeat the object of their powers of entry, they may provide no notice at all, but only where their visit relates to services premises within the UK. For service premises outside the UK, the commissioner must give notice of the proposal to visit within such a period as the commissioner considers appropriate.
Subsection (5) permits the commissioner to be accompanied on visits by a person or bring anything of their choosing if required for the purposes of their investigation and obliges the commissioner to provide evidence of their identity should that be requested. Subsection (6) enables the Secretary of State to prevent or restrict the commissioner’s powers of entry where they consider it necessary in the interests of national security or for the safety of any person. I believe the hon. Member for Spelthorne raised a concern on Second Reading in relation to frontline operations. In that situation, just to reassure him, the Secretary of State would have the ability to prevent a visit to a frontline position. That would probably relate to the safety of any person, notwithstanding national security implications. To reassure him, that is something that would be taken into account when any overseas visits were made.
Subsection (7) sets out the instances when the commissioner may not exercise their powers. That includes where the commissioner has reasonable grounds to assume an item is subject to legal privilege. In addition, subsection (7) sets out that the commissioner cannot require an individual to do anything they could not be compelled to do by a civil court. Subsection (8) provides relevant definitions.
Proposed new section 340LA, on reports and recommendations into general service welfare investigations, will, when inserted into the Armed Forces Act, enable the commissioner to prepare reports setting out their findings and recommendations resulting from one of their general service welfare investigations. Subsection (2)(b) sets out that where a report is prepared, the commissioner must give it to the Secretary of State as soon as is practicable. Subsection (3) sets out that the Secretary of State must, on receiving the report, lay it before Parliament promptly, and in any event within 30 sitting days. Subsection (4) enables the Secretary of State to exclude from any report any material where they consider that its publication would be against the interests of national security might jeopardise someone’s safety. Taken together, the powers and reports will provide Parliament with a much greater level of scrutiny of the issues facing our service personnel and their families.
Mr Francois
During the public evidence session, several of our witnesses—including those from the three service families federations—raised the question of special educational needs provision for the children of armed forces personnel. That provoked a number of questions to witnesses from members of the Committee, including some from me. I gave the Minister and the then Chair notice that I would seek to provoke at least a brief debate on education, and on special educational needs in particular. Having taken advice, I seek to do so under clause 4 stand part.
I will try to summarise the issue succinctly. Because of the nature of service life, service families often have to move locations, for example from one Army garrison to another or from one RAF airbase to a different one. Not only are their partners encouraged to “follow the flag”, as the old saying has it, but their children are expected to do so as well. As the witnesses highlighted, including the two generals, as I like to call them—Lieutenant General Sir Nick Pope and Lieutenant General Sir Andrew Gregory—that often presents a number of challenges, not least for spousal employment. Partners of armed forces personnel sometimes find it challenging to pursue careers of their own if they are asked to move frequently. It can present other issues as well, such as access to medical and dental services, with people having to register and re-register as they move from one military patch to another. Here I hope I am keeping my word to the hon. Member for Broxtowe and raising a number of issues aside from pensions. [Interruption.] She smiles benevolently at me in return, and I thank her.
However, there is a particular issue regarding children’s education. It is not my purpose this afternoon to provoke a major debate on VAT on school fees and the continuity of education allowance, although I note in passing that some witnesses raised that on Tuesday. Having seen the uplift in CEA rates, which I think was published on Tuesday, I fear that it will not be enough to compensate for the 20% increase in school fees. That may have a detrimental effect on armed forces retention, not just for officers but for senior NCOs in particular. I cite one brief example. When I was doing the “Stick or Twist?” study about five years ago, I spoke to one RAF senior warrant officer who said to me: “If you screw around with CEA, Sir, I am off, and so is my husband, who is in the service too. It is really the one thing that keeps us both in—we are doing it for the education of our children.” I wanted to highlight to the Minister and the Committee the potential effect on retention of not fully compensating armed forces personnel for the increase.
Having done that, I move on to SEN. As many Committee members know from their constituency casework, in the civilian world, if a child is diagnosed with special educational needs, it can take up to two years to achieve an education, health and care plan—what was in old money a statement of special educational needs—from the relevant local education authority. For the avoidance of doubt, that can be the case under Conservative, Labour and other administrations. The issue is not particularly confined to local councils of one party colour or another; the process is just very complex and time-consuming.
Amanda Martin
As a teacher who worked in Portsmouth North, where we have a large number of naval families, I absolutely agree with you that SEND is in crisis. For families who need to move, the concerns are amplified. I sit on the Education Committee, and SEND is one of the top priorities that we are looking at with this Government.
Mr Francois
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She will know, not least from her service on that important Committee, of what is called the statutory override. In a nutshell, local authorities must produce a balanced budget each year, but, because of the very great pressure on local authorities that are also LEAs, they have been allowed to overspend on SEN for several years because it is such a big pressure. Bluntly, it would have bankrupted some of them otherwise. She may be able to update us, but I understand that the default position is that the statutory override is due to expire in March 2026. In other words, when local authorities are planning their new budgets for the ’26-’27 financial year, those budgets will have to balance.
I served on the Public Accounts Committee for a couple of years in the previous Parliament. About a month ago, the National Audit Office produced a report, which I am sure the Education Committee will look at, basically saying that the current system is unsustainable. This will be a challenge for the new Government. I am not trying to make a partisan point here, but it was a challenge for the previous Government and it will be a challenge for the new Labour Government, too. I mention that just to drive home the scale of the SEN challenge. There is no evidence that armed forces personnel are proportionately more or less likely to have a special needs child than members of civilian communities, so statistically it is a big problem for them, too.
Mr Francois
I am trying to wind up, but I will give way if the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a point. This is an important topic.
Terry Jermy
In a surgery just two weeks ago, I had a serving member of the armed forces who is no longer deployable because he has to homeschool his child as a result of failure in relation to SEND. Does the shadow Minister agree that one of the big challenges is that this is widespread across the whole country? It is not just a problem for us in Norfolk. If my constituent were to be deployed elsewhere, there would be exactly the same challenges, because the issue is widespread across the whole country.
Mr Francois
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I do not have the NAO report in front of me, and that is my fault—forgive me—but from memory, it made the point that this was a nationwide problem. The scale of the problem was such that it did not just affect region or another; it touched pretty much everywhere. I think the NAO focused mainly on England and Wales, but certainly in those two nations this was a big problem, and I have nothing to lead me to believe that it is not a problem in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
On childcare, I should add that one result of “Stick or Twist?” was that the then Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, managed to use the report as ammunition to persuade the Treasury to invest quite a lot of money in childcare facilities for armed forces personnel. The Minister will know how difficult that can be. It included improving childcare facilities at a number of military installations around the country and, in some cases, extending the hours to something more akin to wraparound childcare. For the record, if only for that, the report was worth writing.
I think we have given this issue a good go, and I know my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne wants to raise another, so I will leave it there. I am sure the Minister understands the spirit of this clause stand part debate, and I very much hope that he can give us some good news in this area. I am sure that the whole Committee, as well as the armed forces and their families, would welcome that.
Lincoln Jopp
Members of the Committee will be aware that line 35 on page 2 defines a general welfare matter using its own terms; it says that a general welfare matter is a matter to do with welfare. Thinking back to when we all did English GCSE—or O-level, in the case of some of us—we know that using terms to define themselves is a bit self-defeating, because they do not really define anything. I assume that is deliberate, and maybe the Minister will tell us so. The provision is incredibly broadly drawn and gives the commissioner very free reign as to what they consider a welfare matter to be, with one or two exclusions that the Minister mentioned earlier.
I think that is important, because I keep being told, and I have read in the explanatory notes, that this is all inspired by the German model. When I ask what is so great about the German model, I read that it is because German members of the armed forces are really happy with it. On Tuesday, General Gregory said that to do their job effectively, the armed forces commissioner needs a clear and deep view of defence outputs. People being happy with a part of the bureaucracy is not a defence output. The only one that trumps everything else is the ability to deliver legal, lethal force. In summary, the armed forces need to be able to kill lots of people.
Luke Akehurst
Would the hon. Gentleman not concede that morale is important to being able to deliver lethal force, and that this kind of system, which enables welfare issues to be addressed, might contribute to higher morale? In the event of combat, such morale could mean that troops perform better.
Lincoln Jopp
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention—it is almost as if he read my speech. I was going to stay on my German theme and say that one person who interpreted that general definition of welfare was another German: General Erwin Rommel. He said that the best form of welfare is better training, because more training means fewer widows.
Although the Bill and the Minister attempt to draw the line between operations abroad and welfare at home, those things rub up against each other. For example, the Ministry of Defence has targets for nights out of bed. How much time can personnel be expected to spend away without their service becoming too detrimental to their family life? Equally, it has these things that sound wonderful—I thought it was to do with hairspray—called harmony guidelines. In fact, they are to do with how long the armed forces can send people away for without a specified dwell time in between for them to recuperate.
From a welfare point of view, it is perfectly possible that the Armed Forces Commissioner could focus solely on whether a commanding officer, a unit, a brigade, a ship’s captain or whatever was meeting the nights out of bed guidelines or the harmony guidelines. But the captain of that ship or the commanding officer of that unit might well think, as Rommel did, that more training was better in the long run for the welfare of their personnel. I would be grateful for a response from the Minister on that point.
My other concern is much more strategic: by having an Armed Forces Commissioner with these extended powers and the ability to report to Parliament, we put a spotlight on one aspect of militarism, potentially to the detriment of other aspects of it, such as the defence output of killing lots of people. That is important because the Minister for the Armed Forces, as well as the defence board, will be making strategic balance-of-investment decisions between things such as buying a lot more jets and getting damp-proof courses for quarters.
Look at the figures in the House of Commons Defence Committee report into service accommodation, which was published yesterday. If the Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence were minded to rectify the parlous state of some parts of the defence estate, that alone would use up every single penny of the, I think, £2.6 billion extra that the Chancellor has found to increase the defence budget.
I alert the Minister to the fact that over time, the instigation of this parliamentary-level scrutiny of one aspect of the make-up of defence may well strategically shift us away from the defence output of lethality. It is a reductio argument, but we could have a fully manned armed forces with everyone giving 100% scores on the continuous attitude survey, great pensions and fantastic pay, but they cannot win a war. Clearly, that is not where we want to get to. We have to put in place measures and judgments that mean that the Armed Forces Commissioner, and the instigation and extension of their powers, does not undermine the military chain of command or the capacity to fight.
Luke Pollard
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this important part of the Bill. If I may, I will respond quickly to a number of the points that have been raised. The shadow Minister mentioned the continuity of education allowance. It is important, and that is why the Secretary of State has uplifted it to include the VAT, where it has been charged additionally by a school—not all schools will charge the additional VAT, as that is a decision for them—and it will continue to be paid at 90% of the fees. We have addressed the concern raised with us by service personnel to continue that 90% level for CEA.
Mr Francois
I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said; it is very gracious of him. I do not think it is to betray a confidence to say that he and I have threatened to sit down and have a cup of coffee several times to talk about the accommodation issue, in particular. I thought I would take this opportunity to remind him of that—perhaps we can do that early in the new year.
Luke Pollard
I will check with my husband whether I am allowed a cheeky coffee date with the right hon. Gentleman.
Luke Pollard
I will resist the temptation to comment. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman and I share a common view that the defence accommodation for our armed forces is not good enough. I raised the matter consistently in opposition, and he has done so as well. We need to get on top of it. My ministerial colleagues—the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry and the Minister for Veterans and People—are leading the work. Although a coffee would, of course, be lovely, I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman would be better having it with my ministerial colleagues, so that they can look at the detail of what he is saying.
It is important that we deal with those retention and recruitment issues, but I do not quite agree with the hon. Member for Spelthorne, who spoke about operations abroad and welfare at home being separate. The whole point of a general service welfare matter and the broad powers we are giving the commissioner is that the commissioner is able to investigate such matters in all circumstances. The only distinction is whether an unannounced visit can be delivered. I think all members of the Committee will understand that there is a difference between turning up to a UK facility and turning up to one abroad, especially with a number of defence facilities abroad being in locations where there are greater concerns around security. I think we all understand the distinction that we make there, and that is why welfare is a priority.
If I may correct the hon. Member for Spelthorne on one point, the Chancellor gave Defence an extra £2.9 billion in the recent Budget, not the £2.6 billion he mentioned. It is good to have a Government increase defence spending in their first Budget. If we roll back to 2010, the new Conservative Government cut defence spending in their first Budget, so we are going in the right direction.
On the substantive issue that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford raised about SEND, I say to him that that is precisely the type of issue that I would expect a commissioner, in due course, to look at as part of their thematic reviews, because we know it affects the welfare of our people and their families. The sequence in which issues are dealt with will be a matter for the commissioner, but I entirely support the right hon. Gentleman raising that as an issue, because it is important, just as housing, childcare and other issues raised by hon. Friends are important for our service personnel. Indeed, as in the case of a constituent raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk, we know that welfare matters directly affect our deployability. If our people are not able to fulfil all their duties in service life because of the impact of their home life, that reduces our warfighting capabilities. That is why we are putting so much effort into general service welfare matters as a new Government.
I commend the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford for raising this issue. He is absolutely right that the state of SEND support across the country is not good enough. The Department for Education and the Education Secretary herself have made it very clear that it is a priority for the Government. We have made it a priority precisely because in every single community across the country, including the one I represent in Plymouth, people are unable to access SEND support for their children or to get an education, health and care plan in a timely manner. That is especially difficult for our armed forces personnel, where there is a movement between areas.
The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford will know that there has been a development in relation to education, health and care plans where a young person leaves England. An agreement has been made between the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Education that clarifies the powers and flexibilities to, importantly, maintain EHCPs in scenarios where children are temporarily absent from England—this is a devolved matter across the UK—but that does not get to the whole heart of what he is saying. That is why DFE is taking such important steps. It is also why the Ministry of Defence now has an armed forces family fund, which has been provided with £1.2 million to support service children with additional needs.
Let me say very clearly that all of us across Government need to do more to support families with SEND children and young people. That is why we have made the issue a priority, and I expect it to be one the commissioner will want to look at. If they do, I am certain the Ministry of Defence will be able to fully furnish them with information and provision, because we want them to shine a spotlight on issues where things are not right, so that we can improve them for our servicepeople.
Mr Francois
The Minister mentioned the devolved Administrations point, and that is encouraging. I gave an example of someone who moved from Tidworth garrison to Catterick garrison. Is it now the case that they could port their EHCP from Wiltshire to Yorkshire, as if they had got it from Yorkshire in the first place? Have we got to that stage yet or not?
Luke Pollard
I think the right hon. Gentleman and I have slightly different recollections of Tuesday’s discussion on this. I would like us to get to a point where armed forces families that move around the country are better able to be supported. The DFE is leading on a piece of work on education, health and care plans, and we know that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is involved in that.
We need to make sure that the development of digital EHCPs and the requirement for common formats between English local authorities will assist in that direction of travel. That will reduce the time taken to convert plans between different local authority formats for mobile families, including those in defence. Additionally, live access plans will offer armed forces families greater empowerment and agency in the planning and management of their EHCPs.
The Ministry of Defence’s local authority partnership outlines a set of voluntary principles adopted by 19 local authorities, predominantly in strong defence areas. The principles enhance the existing provision for armed forces children in the SEND code of practice. This is an issue that we as a new Government are looking at on a cross-departmental basis. I expect us to make further announcements in due course about the details and changes we want to put in place. We recognise that EHCP provision and SEND provision across the country are not what they should be. We have inherited a really poor and concerning picture from the previous Administration, and we are seeking to get to the bottom of it and improve it.
Mr Francois
I take no umbrage at all at what the Minister said about Tuesday—Her late Majesty herself famously said that recollections may vary. I think the point has been made. Could he give the Committee one last commitment before we end the clause stand part debate? Could he assure us that when he gets back to the Department, he or one of his fellow Ministers will chase this up in a timely manner with his colleagues at the DFE, in the hope that we can secure the kind of progress he was intimating at, including on the IT front? It would be a shame if this very pressing issue was held up because of a software glitch between computer A and computer B in two different local authorities. Could he give us his word of honour, which we would take, that he will go back to the Department and press on this to try to get some good news in the new year?
Luke Pollard
Certainly, strides are being made right across Government to improve SEND provision. It is absolutely true that SEND provision is a shame on our nation. We have inherited a situation from the previous Government that is unacceptable for our young people and children. It is unacceptable for civilians and people in service life, and it is something that we seek to change.
I am happy to continue the conversations that the MOD is having with the DFE, in particular, to look at how we can support these provisions. However, in relation to the Bill, I would expect this to be an area that the commissioner could look at. When they are inviting representations—when their office is stood up—I suspect that service families and service personnel will be wanting and able to share their experiences of a system that is not working the way it should be. We are trying to put change in place, and I know that that position is shared on a cross-party basis. We have to do a lot better than the situation we have inherited, in order to support people, and young people with SEND.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Consequential amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 2.
Clauses 6 to 8 stand part.
Luke Pollard
I turn first to clause 5 and schedule 2. Clause 5 sets out that the consequential amendments are contained in schedule 2. The schedule amends existing legislation to ensure that the abolition of the role of Service Complaints Ombudsman and the creation of the role of Armed Forces Commissioner are reflected across a range of provisions on the statute book. Members will be able to see those edits in the Bill, and most of them simply replace references to the Service Complaints Ombudsman with references to the Armed Forces Commissioner, with no practical policy change.
The changes to part 14A of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which covers service complaints, also serve to ensure that there is a clear distinction between references to existing investigations relating to service complaints and references to the new general service welfare investigations, which we spoke about earlier.
I draw the Committee’s attention to paragraph 17 of schedule 2, which amends the powers currently afforded to the Service Complaints Ombudsman to require information, documents and evidence necessary to conduct their service complaints investigations. The change ensures that the powers to request information also apply to the commissioner’s new powers of investigation into general service welfare matters. It is an important change, allowing the commissioner fully to investigate those issues. Similarly, the change in paragraph 18 ensures that, in respect of their new functions, the commissioner has the same enforcement mechanisms as are currently afforded to the ombudsman.
Clause 6 sets out the extent of the Bill. It does that through subsections (1) and (2), extending the Bill to England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and to Scotland, except for the concept of the commissioner being a corporation sole, because Scots law does not have the concept of a corporation sole. Subsections (4) and (5) include a permissive extent provision, which enables the Bill’s provisions to be extended by Order in Council to the Channel Islands, the British overseas territories—except Gibraltar—and the Isle of Man. The Bill does not contain a permissive extent provision for Gibraltar, as Gibraltar legislates for itself on the Armed Forces Act via the Armed Forces (Gibraltar) Act 2018, so it is not appropriate to include it in the Bill.
I have spoken to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, who has been very welcoming of the Bill and has confirmed that he is content to continue to legislate in the Gibraltar Parliament on armed forces matters. In this case, UK and Gibraltar officials will now take steps to mirror the UK legislation in Gibraltar law, thereby continuing to demonstrate the close co-operation and collaboration between the UK and Gibraltar on all defence matters. I thank the Chief Minister and his Government for that co-operation.
It is important that clause 6 be agreed to, as it sets out the legal jurisdictions in which the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill will have legal effect. Clause 7 outlines the provisions that will come into force once the Bill receives Royal Assent. Except for the extent, commencement and short title clauses, the main provisions of the Bill will come into force on a day specified by the Secretary of State in regulations. The clause also enables the Secretary of State to make in regulations transitional, transitory or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of any of the Bill’s provisions.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
Would it be possible for the Minister to provide clarification on how sensitive information will be handled? I imagine that, with these extra powers, the new commissioner will be able to take both physical and digital sensitive information. Does that indicate that there will be a need for a new secure physical facility to allow those documents to be stored and a new digital network to allow those digital files to be handled?
Luke Pollard
I commend the hon. Gentleman, who is clearly using his previous experience in the military to carefully scrutinise how this provision will work in practice. I am very happy to write to him about that. It would be set out in the implementation work that the Ministry of Defence is doing at the moment. However, we have a foundation in the work of the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces, which already handles much of that sensitive information, especially in cases relating to personnel and their issues, and I imagine that that work will carry on. The Armed Forces Commissioner is also subject to the Official Secrets Act, the Data Protection Act 2018 and a whole array of other legislation that seeks to ensure the proper security of information. I am happy to follow up with the hon. Gentleman on the detail of all that.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I apologise for not being here at the start of the sitting; I was in the Etherton review debate in the main Chamber, contributing on important LGBTQ+ issues. I see that my amendments fell in my absence, and I hope that nothing detrimental was said about my absence, considering the importance of the Etherton review for LGBT veterans.
Moving on to recruits, it is essential that the commissioner can also investigate issues facing recruits, who sometimes have to stay on bases overnight. Upon reading the Bill, I saw that there is an absence of consideration of recruits, which is why I tabled the new clause—to make sure that they are also considered in the Bill.
Mr Francois
I only have two points to make. First, if it reassures the hon. Lady, I did read into the record that she had a conflicting appointment downstairs in the main Chamber and that that was why she was not here. I am not so sure about her colleague, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), but I did place it on the record that she had to be downstairs.
As I understand it, recruits would be subject to service law once they have taken the oath and joined the armed forces. If one takes that as one’s handrail, they should already be covered by the Bill. None the less, I understand the point the hon. Lady is making, so perhaps the Minister could kindly clarify whether my understanding is correct.
Lincoln Jopp
It occurs to me that, prior to taking the oath, there is a body of people who are prospective recruits. They have a material impact on morale, because if they take months and months to get through the pipeline to become recruits, the wastage rate increases and fewer people turn up in training, which means that the armed forces are undermanned. I would have thought that that was something the Armed Forces Commissioner might want to do a thematic investigation into. It is tricky, because these people are not subject to military service, but maybe the Secretary of State could nevertheless consider the issue in defining the role with the new commissioner.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell for her new clause and her concerns about potential recruits. First, it is absolutely vital that we fix the recruitment crisis that the armed forces have experienced for much of the last decade. As the shadow Minister confirmed, our armed forces lose more people than they gain, which is an unsustainable position. That is a dire inheritance, which fundamentally shines a light on the failure of the last Government to give our armed forces not only the people they need, but the systems and the support that people need to join and to stay in service.
I recognise that many of the people applying to join the armed forces wait for far too long, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne said. It is for precisely that reason that the Secretary for State gave a commitment in his Labour conference speech on the “10-30 provision”: within 10 days from application we will give a provisional offer to join the armed forces, and 30 days from the point of application we will give a provisional start date. That is being rolled out at the moment. It will take some time to deliver across all three services, but that is an important step towards providing more clarity. When people understand how long the recruitment process will take, they are better able to make decisions about travel, work or their own life in that period.
Lincoln Jopp
If that strategy does not work or if it is seen to be failing, will the Minister make it clear whether that is something that the Armed Forces Commissioner could look at? As the Bill is currently drafted, they would not be allowed to do that.
Luke Pollard
I was coming to that point. At any one time, there are roughly 150,000 applicants in the military joining process, all of whom are still civilians and who would be brought under the scope of the commissioner by this amendment, were it to pass. That could vastly increase the workload of the commissioner and mean that service personnel and their families would not get the attention they need.
Mr Francois
On the point about recruitment, I hope the Minister, who is fair-minded, would be prepared to attest that in the previous Government, when I was on the Back Benches, there was no fiercer critic of Capita than me. I wish the previous Government had done something about their poor record and I invite the new Government to do something about that—the sooner the better.
Luke Pollard
I believe the right hon. Gentleman has not been on Capita’s Christmas card list for quite some time. Speaking as the Minister responsible for recruitment, we have set out some policies in relation to improving our recruitment process, in particular the time of flight issue that I mentioned to the hon. Member for Spelthorne. We will be making further announcements in the new year on how we seek to improve that, but there is work under way in all the single services and across the Ministry of Defence. The right hon. Gentleman invites me to say something now, but I ask him to hold his nerve; there will be further announcements in due course.
On the concern about recruits, potential civilian recruits are unlikely to have encountered general service welfare issues in the same way as those people who are in service, who will be the principal remit of the Armed Forces Commissioner. The experience of potential recruits is very important and we have set a new ambition for the armed forces to make a conditional offer in 10 days and provide a provisional start date in 30 days. On their first day of basic training, candidates complete an attestation that makes them a member of the armed forces, subject to service law and therefore within the scope of the commissioner from that first moment.
To reassure the Committee, the new Government’s work in improving retention and recruitment is part of a package of measures aiming to renew the contract between the nation and those who serve. We are modernising and refining our policies and processes to attract and retain the best possible talents, highlighting that Defence is a modern forward-facing employer that offers a valuable and rewarding career.
There will be further announcements about how we seek to build on recruitment in the new year, but let me put firmly on the record that there are a lot of people who want to join the armed forces, especially young people looking to establish a good career in our military. We and all those with responsibility for supporting our armed forces need to improve the recruitment process to enable them to join, and that will improve the warfighting capability—the lethality—of our armed forces and thus the deterrent effect.
The issues that the hon. Members for Epsom and Ewell and for Spelthorne raised are very important. We do not believe recruits should be within the scope of the commissioner because they are outside the scope of service law, but I entirely recognise that there may be issues that recruits may wish to raise with the Armed Forces Commissioner about the recruitment process subsequent to their joining the armed forces. The commissioner would therefore need to make a decision on whether to take up those issues, based on whether they fall within the definition of a general service welfare matter. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell will withdraw the new clause.
Helen Maguire
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 2
Commissioner’s interaction with Veterans Commissioners
“Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish details of –
(a) how the Commissioner will work with the National Veterans Commissioner, the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, the Veterans Commissioner for Wales and the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner;
(b) how the Commissioner and the Secretary of State will each ensure that veterans receive appropriate and necessary support.”—(Mr Francois.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make clear how the Commissioner will work with the Veterans Commissioners.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Francois
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As we come round the final bend, hopefully the Committee will recall something that cropped up quite a lot in Tuesday’s public evidence session. A number of witnesses mentioned veterans, and there were quite a few questions, so we thought it appropriate to table a new clause to facilitate a debate on this subject, and specifically on how the Armed Forces Commissioner might, if at all, be able to engage on issues of veterans’ welfare, including with the existing veterans commissioners.
There is concern within the veterans’ community about the incoming Government’s decision, first, to remove the Veterans Minister from Cabinet and, secondly, to roll the Office for Veterans’ Affairs into the MOD, whereas previously it was at least independent from that Department, if not wholly independent from the Government, when the OVA lived in the Cabinet Office.
I am not imagining that this is a matter of concern. I have a letter here that was written to the Minister for Veterans and People, dated 30 July 2024, co-signed by the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, the Veterans Commissioner for Wales and the then Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner. The letter highlights very well the issue of genuine independence from the MOD. For the avoidance of doubt, the letter’s tone is in no way personally critical of the Veterans Minister, whose military service we fully acknowledge and salute this afternoon; the nub of the issue is the fact that the OVA has been moved. The letter says:
“Firstly, as a junior minister you have no seat in Cabinet. We understand that SofS will represent veterans at this level but his responsibilities are broad and he is not focusing daily on veterans’ affairs; nor will you, with your entire MoD people portfolio… Secondly, the subordination of the OVA under your control”—
that is, the MOD’s control—
“whilst tidying-up the government wiring diagram, also concerns us. The major factors that impact on veterans, such as health, housing, employment, education and social care are not MoD controlled. As such, locating the OVA in the Cabinet Office made sense, to best coordinate and cajole other departments into taking veterans’ needs into account.”
I have now kept my word to the hon. Member for North Durham, who challenged me to talk about this—I have done my best.
The letter from the three veterans commissioners goes on to say:
“Veterans have little faith in the MoD leading on veteran policy and delivery. This attitude has been entrenched through the perception of adversity and neglect that many veterans have experienced in their dealings with the MoD. It is a tough message, but one that we are duty bound to deliver.”
The previous Government cannot be blamed for this one, because we created the Office for Veterans’ Affairs and deliberately gave birth to it, as it were, in the Cabinet Office and not the MOD. Much of today’s debate has been about the independence, or otherwise, of the Armed Forces Commissioner. Well, here are three veterans commissioners collectively expressing their “concern” about the Government’s decision to take the OVA and roll it back into the MOD, where the risk is that the Department will end up marking its own homework. Veterans clearly preferred it when the OVA was at least semi-independent under the Cabinet Office, and when Johnny Mercer was an extremely proactive member of the Cabinet pushing very hard on a range of these issues.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
As an MP who represents a constituency with an active barracks and many veterans, I totally agree that this is a serious matter, but what does it have to do with the Bill, and is the wording of the new clause not in danger of affecting the independence of the Armed Forces Commissioner, and their right to set how they work independently, by putting what may be artificial timescales on decisions?
Mr Francois
I understand the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s question. What it has to do with the Bill is that this issue cropped up quite a lot in the public evidence session. I respectfully refer him to the Hansard report of Tuesday’s proceedings. A number of witnesses raised the veterans issue, and I believe a number of members of the Committee followed up with questions. We had tabled the new clause by Monday night because we knew that there was concern within the veterans’ community about the independence of the OVA and therefore the independence of the Armed Forces Commissioner, which to be fair is a theme that we have discussed repeatedly today. That is the context in which the new clause was tabled on Monday evening, but it is worrying that one of the three veterans commissioners apparently felt compelled to resign because some in Government were seeking to crimp what they were trying to do on behalf of the veterans they were appointed to serve.
Now that the OVA is back within the MOD, and given that the decision was taken on the Government’s watch, I would like some reassurance from the Minister—we have a MOD Minister here, not a Cabinet Office Minister—that there will be no further attempts to impinge on the independence of any veterans commissioner by anyone in Government, any more than we would want them to impinge on the independence of the Armed Forces Commissioner. I have three very specific questions to that effect; then I will allow the Minister to reply.
First, where is the veterans commissioner for England? We were told, when I raised this issue on Second Reading, that the Department was working on it. At one point, there was going to be a UK-wide veterans commissioner, which then seemingly morphed into a veterans commissioner for England. We have one for Scotland and one for Wales—we had one for Northern Ireland too, but he resigned—so where are we on the veterans commissioner for England? Why should English veterans be at any disadvantage compared with their counterparts from the other three nations of the awesome foursome? Those English veterans served the Crown too. Where is their commissioner?
Secondly, what is the timetable for replacing the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner? Presumably the Government do not want that post to remain vacant for long, particularly with all the utter chaos over the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. Thirdly, what formal assurances can the Minister give on the record that this will not happen again? Those are my three questions.
Amanda Martin
Sorry. The right hon. Gentleman states that the Veterans Minister is vital and the fact that they do not sit in Cabinet now is a concern. Can he tell me which Tory MP sits in the shadow Cabinet to represent veterans?
Mr Francois
The clue is in the name: the shadow Cabinet is there to shadow the actual Cabinet. If there is not a Veterans Minister in the actual Cabinet, it is not necessarily axiomatic that there would be one in the shadow Cabinet.
To be clear, the decision to take the Veterans Minister out of the Cabinet and the Cabinet Office, and roll them in under the Ministry of Defence as—no disrespect—a junior Minister, was a decision taken by the Labour Government—[Interruption.] Excuse me—one at a time! I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley to my left—dare I put it that way—saying that the Prime Minister promised he would not do that. It was a decision taken by the Labour Government. I have read out the comments from the commissioners, who are there to represent the interests of the veterans’ community; I am not imagining it. The community are clearly very concerned, so perhaps we could hear the Minister’s reply.
Luke Pollard
I thank the shadow Minister for his views on engagement with veterans commissioners. To reiterate, the purpose of the Armed Forces Commissioner is to shine a spotlight on and be an independent advocate for serving personnel and their families.
Notwithstanding the really important contribution that veterans make to our communities—and our armed forces community—we are seeking to address the particular deficit of scrutiny on the issues affecting armed forces personnel because they are not allowed to take up the same channels to raise a concern as civilians are. There are preventions on them speaking to Members of Parliament and the media in the way that a civilian can. That is why we are addressing those particular concerns with an Armed Forces Commissioner, who will look at those personnel and their issues alone.
In setting out clearly where we are, however, I turn to some of the issues mentioned by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford. First, I put on the record the importance of the contribution made by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell in the main Chamber just now—she was addressing the Etherton report. All the members of the Committee who were not in the Chamber—because we were here—will have missed the announcement made by the Secretary of State: we have adopted 42 of the 49 recommendations in the Etherton report and implemented them; we will have implemented all 49 by the end of the next year; and, for the shame brought on our society by how LGBT veterans were treated, we are increasing the amount payable to them recommended in the report by 50%, from a fund of £50 million to one of £75 million.
That means a standard payment of £50,000 for those LGBT veterans who were dismissed or discharged because of their sexuality or gender identity, with a further £20,000 for an LGBT impact payment, which depends on their experience of the ban. From the harrowing testimony of many LGBT veterans, we know how they were treated because of their sexuality or gender identity—disgusting medical interventions and imprisonment. Furthermore, we will provide additional support for restoration of rank, if lowering of rank was involved at the point of dismissal, and for correcting their service record. Today’s announcement was a substantial one, and I commend the Secretary of State for it. I thank Lord Etherton for his work and the Minister for Veterans and People for championing it so clearly from day one in office.
In responding to the points made by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, I do not wish to belittle or disregard any of the veterans’ concerns he has mentioned or those in the wider community. The focus on armed forces personnel is really important. As such, his questions sit outside the broad brush of where we are for this Bill, but I entirely understand his passion. I am happy to take those questions back to the Department and ask the Minister for Veterans and People to write to him with further details, which is probably the appropriate way of getting the ideas that he requires.
I gently point out that there is no shadow veterans Minister in the shadow Cabinet, a choice that could have been taken by the leader of the right hon. Gentleman’s party. I would like to—I think—welcome him as the shadow veterans Minister, because he shadows nearly every other Commons Minister, which is quite a lot of work for him. When we were in opposition, having a dedicated shadow veterans Minister—one was my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire, who is now sitting behind me as the Defence Parliamentary Private Secretary—was important, because it gives due regard to the experience of the veterans. I hope that his party will be able to follow Labour when we were in opposition, and appoint a dedicated shadow veterans Minister, in whatever form that may be, in due course.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford that this matter is important. The Defence Secretary sits around the Cabinet table representing veterans, and he does so very well. We have seen from the Etherton announcement today that that voice around the Cabinet table delivers real benefits for veterans in increasing the support available to them, but we need to ensure that this Bill is tightly drawn around the general service welfare needs of our armed forces and the people who serve in them.
Having said that, let me show a little bit of parliamentary leg to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, in terms of where the Haythornthwaite review of armed forces incentivisation reforms could come into play. It is another policy of this Government to create a new area where, instead of people having the binary status of being in the armed forces or not—and we recognise that many veterans face a real cliff edge in terms of their lived experience and career trajectories when they leave service—they can rejoin the armed forces, removing some of the current barriers that prevent them from being able to do so.
That is an important part of being able to address the skills need, but we also recognise that in the modern world people may have careers, in uniform and out of uniform, that could be of benefit to defence. There could be an area of service where people serve, leave, serve outside in a civilian role, rejoin and do so likewise. In such circumstances, the general service welfare matters of the Armed Forces Commissioner would pertain to their experience subject to service law, but the Armed Forces Commissioner may wish to look at the rejoining aspect in due course, as part of a general service welfare matter for them as re-joiners.
Lincoln Jopp
There is something of a twilight zone. We heard from Colonel Darren Doherty on Tuesday that he had done his 38 years’ service and was now entering a period of regular reserved service, which, as the Minister knows, is a residual requirement to answer the call to arms. I have checked with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, and I believe her period has finished. I think mine is finished, but I am always waiting for that knock at the door. I am pretty sure my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East is still well within his window.
When examining the secondary legislation, it might be worth examining this issue. If that cohort of people felt that they wanted to report an issue, would they report it to the Armed Forces Commissioner because they were still liable to call-up, or would they report it to the veterans commissioner whenever that role is introduced? I believe that those on the regular reserve list are not subject to military law, but I think they are subject to criminal law in terms of their requirement. I am genuinely not clear on the matter, and if I am not clear, then each commissioner would not necessarily be clear as to which one is responsible.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for that. The hon. Gentleman is inviting me to use the call-up powers that I have as Minister for the Armed Forces to pick and choose, which is certainly not how I would reflect those powers in a day-to-day operation. However, he raises a really important point, which speaks to the broader challenge of where we are with reserve forces.
At the moment, there are a number of different categories of reserve forces to which a large chunk of legislation pertains, some of which may be relevant and some of which may need updating in order to deliver it. The Minister for Veterans and People is undertaking a piece of work at the moment to look at how we can do so. That is part of the work to renew the contract between the nation and those who have served, but also to make sure that we have available to us as a nation not only a reserve force made up of those people who are subject to service law, but a strategic reserve made up of those people who have left but who—as the hon. Member for Spelthorne says—still await a knock at the door if required. That piece of work is ongoing.
The legislation in relation to the Armed Forces Commissioner clearly deals with people affected by service law, not necessarily by a residual commitment. However, it would be up to the Armed Forces Commissioner, depending on the issue of the thematic investigation, whether he or she wished to invite the opinions of people who may sit outside of uniformed service, as well as of families. That would be a matter for the Armed Forces Commissioner, and the hon. Gentleman will have spotted that there is a clause in the Bill allowing the commissioner to invite views from whoever they see fit in the exercise of their duties. That may be something that the House of Commons Defence Committee wishes to interrogate further, or something that we should pick up once the commissioner’s office has been stood up.
Mr Francois
To begin on a light-hearted note, I thank the hon. Member for Portsmouth North for pointing out that I do not sit in the shadow Cabinet. If she wants to drop my leader a note recommending that, I promise not to stand in her way. Bless you—have a good weekend!
On a more serious note, there is concern, which I hope I have managed to evidence, about the decision to move the Office for Veterans’ Affairs into the MOD. I think that point has been made, but now that it is the MOD’s responsibility departmentally it would be very helpful if, when the Minister writes to me—obviously, he will write to every member of the Committee; it is copy one, copy all for anything that relates to a Committee proceeding, as you will recall, Mr Betts—he gives some detail in reply to the questions I have asked. Where is this English and/or UK veterans commissioner? We raised that question on Second Reading, so when the Minister replies, perhaps we could be updated and given a date for when that is actually going to happen. If it is not going to happen, perhaps we could be told why. Perhaps we could also have some response to what has clearly happened in Northern Ireland, which is obviously undesirable.
Perhaps in his note, the Minister could also explain the Government’s conception of how the Armed Forces Commissioner will relate to these three, possibly four—hopefully four—veterans commissioners. When somebody makes the transition from being a serviceperson to being a veteran, that is a big thing in their life, particularly if they have served for quite a number of years. When they hand back their MOD 90 ID card—which as the Minister knows, servicepeople are supposed to do, but some forget—and get their veteran’s ID card in return, that is a big thing in their life, particularly if they have served for 22 years, say. That is a massive transition, so if the Armed Forces Commissioner is going to do their job effectively, remembering what armed forces personnel go on to do and the changed status they have is something that should legitimately be at the forefront of their mind. There should be some mechanism whereby they can interact with the veterans commissioners around the United Kingdom, so I do not think it is an unreasonable ask.
Luke Pollard
At the risk of repeating myself, it would be for the Armed Forces Commissioner to determine interactions, but I would expect the commissioner to establish procedures for consulting and engaging with a whole range of armed forces communities’ representatives, including those who represent veterans’ communities. As we know, many veterans’ organisations have interests similar to those of the serving population, so I suspect that the commissioner themselves would establish those procedures. None the less, I am happy to include that in the note.
Mr Francois
I take the point. We have made the case, and I hope the Minister will reply promptly—let us say January, please, not March or June. Perhaps the Minister could write to me and the other members of the Committee in January, when we come back from our Christmas break, specifically about what is going to happen to those veterans commissioners, because they are now under the purview of his Department.
With that said, Mr Betts, we do not want you to miss your train. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Francois
If I may, Mr Betts, that was clearly the voice of experience.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 12th December 2024
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill 2024-26 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 December 2024 - (12 Dec 2024)
The Chair
Will everyone ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? Members should send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the Parliament website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped for debate. A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first or, in the case of a clause stand part debate, the Minister will be called to speak first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak in the debate by bobbing. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, new clauses and schedules, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw or to seek a decision on the amendment or new clause. If any Member wishes to press another amendment, new clause or schedule in a group to a vote, they need to let me know. I hope that explanation is helpful. It was to me, at least. If any Member wishes to make a declaration of interest, they can do so now.
Clause 1
Determination of additional multipliers
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(a) must provide discretion for billing authorities with regard to the application of the higher multiplier.”
David Simmonds
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. We have tabled a number of amendments to this legislation, but I want to be clear from the outset that we are not proposing to press them to a vote. We hope to have a response from the Minister; in many cases, that will follow up on the evidence that we heard in yesterday’s evidence sessions.
The purpose of amendment 13 is to introduce an element of discretion for billing authorities in the application of the higher multiplier; the significance of local flexibility and discretion in that was highlighted in yesterday’s oral evidence and in written evidence to the Committee. The amendment would ensure that a billing authority, which is the local authority for the area, has discretion to apply a different figure, where the authority considers that it would benefit the local economy or its residents by doing so. That flexibility has been reflected in the business rate system that has been in operation in England since the 1990s.
As we heard yesterday in evidence, the impact of the Bill is considered by most sectors and by most of the witnesses to be moderate. Therefore, the level of flexibility in the Bill does not allow for a hugely different figure from one type of business rate payer to another. However, local authorities are sometimes keen, for example, to support a local business for the purposes of sustaining employment for a period of time or because the local authority believes that the business provides an important local facility. In such an instance, the local authority may see it to be in the interests of local taxpayers to vary the application of the higher multiplier.
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
Amendment 13 seeks to give local authorities discretion over where the higher multiplier enabled by the Bill should apply. In England, there are currently two non-domestic rating multipliers: the non-domestic rating multiplier for properties with a rateable value of £51,000 and above, and the small business non-domestic rating multiplier for lower value properties. The Bill will enable the Treasury, through regulations, to introduce permanently lower multipliers for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties, and to fund this by introducing higher multipliers for properties with a rateable value of £500,000 or more.
Narrowing the scope of the higher multiplier would inevitably reduce the funding available to support the lower rates for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties. Ratepayers in England may, however, be eligible for a range of different reliefs from business rates. Some reliefs are mandatory and provided for in legislation, whereas others are given at the discretion of the billing authority.
The Bill will not affect the very wide powers local authorities have to award this discretionary rate relief, as set out in section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Those powers already allow local authorities to devise and deliver their own relief schemes without the intervention of central Government, where the authority is satisfied that that would be in the interest of its council tax payers. Once the Bill has come into force, local authorities will be able to use their discretionary powers to provide relief, should they so choose, to offset any impact of the new, higher multiplier. I hope that gives enough assurance to the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment. Local authorities will still have the powers they have always had, with the flexibility to respond to local concern.
Clause 1 adds into the business rate system new additional multipliers, or tax rates. Currently, there are two multipliers, as I set out before: the non-domestic rating multiplier and the small business non-domestic rating multiplier. The legislation for those is found in part A1 of schedule 7 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Clause 1 adds a new chapter 3A to part A1 for the new additional multipliers.
As set out by the Exchequer Secretary on Second Reading last month, the introduction of the new additional multipliers that this clause enables is the Government’s first step towards creating a fairer business rate system. The intention of these new multipliers is to first, once set at autumn Budget 2025, provide a permanent tax cut to qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, ending the uncertainty of annual retail, hospitality and leisure relief. Secondly, it will ensure that the tax cut is funded sustainably through the introduction of higher multipliers levied on the most valuable properties. The new chapter 3A gives the Treasury new powers to set these additional multipliers.
I understand the concerns of hon. Members that we are providing for new taxation through powers in a Bill, but we face a challenge in business rates in setting the multipliers, because demand notices are issued by individual local authorities, and these must be ready to go out several weeks before the start of the financial year. We must confirm and give notice of the multipliers to local authorities before they prepare those demand notices, and that simply does not allow time for us to return to Parliament with a Bill each time we want to change the multipliers.
In recognition of hon. Members’ concerns about providing new taxation through powers in a Bill, clause 1 includes some important safeguards over the use of the powers. First, paragraph A6A(1)(a) of the new chapter 3A ensures that the Treasury cannot set a multiplier that is more than 0.1 higher than the non-domestic rating multiplier. We often, in practice, refer to multipliers as being so many pence in the pound. For example, the current non-domestic rating multiplier is 54.6 pence in the pound. In those terms, this clause ensures that the multiplier cannot be more than 10p higher than the non-domestic rating multiplier.
Secondly, paragraph A6A(1)(b) of the new chapter 3A ensures, in a similar way, that the Treasury cannot set the lower multipliers more than 0.2—20p in the pound—below the small business non-domestic rating multiplier. Thirdly, clause 1(5) ensures that where the Treasury is using those powers to set a higher multiplier, it will need to bring a statutory instrument before the House of Commons in draft for approval before that multiplier can be confirmed. To be clear, those values are the maximum parameters at which the new additional multipliers may be set. They do not represent the changes that the Government intend to implement. The parameters are guardrails that offer sensible limits with proportionate flexibility.
The decision on the level at which the new multipliers will be set will be taken at the autumn Budget 2025, factoring in the impacts of the 2026 revaluation on the tax base, as well as the broader economic and fiscal context. The clause also ensures, in new paragraph A6A(2)(a), that the Treasury cannot set more than two lower multipliers. That reflects our intention to have two multipliers for retail, hospitality and leisure: one for properties below £51,000 rateable value, and one for properties between £51,000 and less than £500,000. However, the new paragraph A6A(2)(b) ensures that we can still make adjustments to those two new multipliers if the hereditament is unoccupied or on the central rating list—although our current intention is for the same multipliers to apply across all occupied, unoccupied and central list properties.
Finally, clause 1(4) ensures that the existing arrangements in chapter 4 of part 1A of schedule 7, which concern the making and giving of notices of the multipliers, will also apply to the new multipliers. It will ensure, for example, that we must give notice of the multipliers as soon as reasonably practicable after they have been calculated, and that they are rounded to three decimal places.
David Simmonds
The Minister and I had the joy of parallel careers in local government for many years. I cannot imagine he spent a great deal of that time looking forward to the opportunity to explain non-domestic business rate multipliers in a Bill Committee. However, as he acknowledged, it is important to ensure that there is a sufficient degree of local scrutiny and flexibility so that those local authorities that are billing authorities are able to exercise their discretion in order to support their local economy. I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the Government’s intentions in that respect. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Special authority multipliers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jim McMahon
Clause 2 concerns additional multipliers in special authorities. The meaning of a special authority is already defined in section 144(6) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 as one which on 1 April 1986 had a population of less than 10,000 and a total rateable value per population number of more than £10,000. The City of London Corporation is the only authority that meets that test. The City of London has powers to set its own non-domestic rating multipliers. For example, for the current year the non-domestic rating multiplier in the City of London is 56.4p, compared to the same multiplier in the rest of England of 54.6p. Those existing powers are in part 2 of schedule 7 of the 1988 Act.
Clause 2 inserts new paragraph 9B into part 2 of schedule 7, giving the Treasury powers to make provision for the additional multipliers in the City of London. The Treasury may only do that where it has exercised those equivalent powers in clause 1 for the rest of England. The unique powers of The City of London reflect its special circumstances, notably its very small resident population. The clause reflects the Government’s intention for the new multipliers to apply across England. In clause 2, we have replicated the same safeguards for setting the additional multipliers as apply in clause 1.
Proposed new paragraph 9B(1)(a)(i) of schedule 7 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 will ensure the higher multipliers in the City of London cannot be more than 0.1, or 10p in the pound, higher than the City’s non-domestic rating multiplier, and proposed new paragraph 9B(1)(a)(ii) will ensure the lower multipliers in the City of London cannot be more than 0.2, or 20p in the pound, lower than the City’s small business non-domestic rating multiplier.
David Simmonds
I have no objection to these measures. Could the Minister confirm, in writing if that is more convenient, that there has been a degree of consultation with the corporation to establish what, if any, impact it would expect on its budget?
Jim McMahon
I can confirm in writing the exact consultation that has taken place. Conversations will certainly take place. I return to the point that, if we do not take these measures to include the City of London, there will be many high-value properties that we can use to support retail, hospitality and leisure in the rest of England to which these measures would not be applied. It is an important measure. I will certainly confirm in writing via my officials the consultation that has taken place.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Application of multipliers
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 3, page 3, line 25, after “more,” insert—
“and is not a retail premises which is open to customers for more than 18 hours a day”.
This amendment would exempt retail premises which are open to customers for more than 18 hours a day from having the higher multiplier used to calculate their non-domestic rates. It is linked to Amendments 15 and 16.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 17, in clause 3, page 3, line 25, after “more,” insert—
“and is not a premises which is shared with a Post Office”.
This amendment would exempt premises which are shared with a Post Office from having the higher multiplier used to calculate their non-domestic rates. It is linked to Amendments 18 and 19.
Amendment 20, in clause 3, page 3, line 25, after “more,” insert—
“and is not a premises which is shared with a banking hub”.
This amendment would exempt premises which are shared with a banking hub from having the higher multiplier used to calculate their non-domestic rates. It is linked to Amendments 22 and 24.
Amendment 21, in clause 3, page 3, line 34, leave out “has such meaning” and insert
“and ‘banking hub’ have such meanings”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 20.
Amendment 15, in clause 3, page 4, line 5, after “more” insert—
“and is not a retail premises which is open to customers for more than 18 hours a day”.
This amendment would exempt retail premises which are open to customers for more than 18 hours a day from having the higher multiplier used to calculate their non-domestic rates. It is linked to Amendments 14 and 16.
Amendment 18, in clause 3, page 4, line 5, after “more” insert—
“and is not a premises which is shared with a Post Office”.
This amendment would exempt retail premises which are shared with a Post Office from having the higher multiplier used to calculate their non-domestic rates. It is linked to Amendments 17 and 19.
Amendment 22, in clause 3, page 4, line 5, after “more” insert—
“and is not a premises which is shared with a banking hub”.
This amendment would exempt retail premises which are shared with a banking hub from having the higher multiplier used to calculate their non-domestic rates. It is linked to Amendments 20 and 24.
Amendment 23, in clause 3, page 4, line 14, leave out “has such meaning” and insert
“and ‘banking hub’ have such meanings”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 22.
Amendment 16, in clause 3, page 4, line 27, after “more” insert—
“and is not a retail premises which is open to customers for more than 18 hours a day”.
This amendment would exempt retail premises which are open to customers for more than 18 hours a day from having the higher multiplier used to calculate their non-domestic rates. It is linked to Amendments 14 and 15.
Amendment 19, in clause 3, page 4, line 27, after “more” insert—
“and is not a premises which is shared with a Post Office”.
This amendment would exempt retail premises which are shared with a Post Office from having the higher multiplier used to calculate their non-domestic rates. It is linked to Amendments 17 and 18.
Amendment 24, in clause 3, page 4, line 27, after “more” insert—
“and is not a premises which is shared with a banking hub”.
This amendment would exempt retail premises which are shared with a banking hub from having the higher multiplier used to calculate their non-domestic rates. It is linked to Amendments 20 and 22.
Amendment 25, in clause 3, page 4, line 36, leave out “has such meaning” and insert
“and ‘banking hub’ have such meanings”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 22.
David Simmonds
This group revolves around amendments 14, 17 and 20 and includes consequential amendments on relevant language in further paragraphs. They aim to address an issue that has been raised extensively in public evidence sessions, written evidence submitted to the Committee and the wider debate about measures in the Bill. That is, the circumstances of certain types of businesses, for example those that are unusual in that they are open for very long hours because they may be the only retailer in a location and are therefore of particular significance to that community, or those that are host to a post office. We all hear examples of local post offices co-locating with shops. We are very keen to ensure that those businesses are sustainable for the wider benefit of that community and access, particularly for vulnerable residents, to those services is maintained.
Progress has been made in developing banking hubs, often in premises that are co-located, sometimes with post offices. We know that has been important in ensuring access to cash in communities where it might otherwise be lost, as well as access to more general banking services, for both small businesses and vulnerable residents. These types of business can be absolutely critical, especially in rural locations, but sometimes also in suburban areas where elderly residents in particular may struggle to access those types of shops and services if we do not ensure their continued support.
The purpose of the amendments is to introduce specific exemptions or provisions to ensure that the measures are enacted in a way that continues to support retailers with long opening hours that provide services that might otherwise not be available, access to a post office or access to a banking hub.
Jim McMahon
Amendments 14 to 25, tabled by the shadow Minister, would exclude certain properties from the higher multiplier. Properties that are open to customers for more than 18 hours a day, properties that are shared with a post office and properties that are shared with a banking hub would be excluded from the higher multiplier.
These are very important sectors. The Post Office delivers essential services that are hugely valuable to both individuals and small or medium-sized enterprises in urban and rural areas across the country. Those services include mail, parcels, cash, basic banking, utility bill payments and Government and public services. That is why post offices are eligible for the existing retail, hospitality and leisure relief, which gives eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties 40% relief on their business rates bills, up to a cash cap of £110,000 per person, in the 2024-25 financial year.
With regard to banking hubs, the Government understand the importance of face-to-face banking to communities and high streets, and we are committed to championing sufficient access across the country as a priority. That is why the Government are working closely with banks to roll out 350 banking hubs across the UK. The UK banking sector has committed to deliver those hubs by the end of the Parliament. Over 90 banking hubs are open to the public, and the Government continue to work closely with high street banks to ensure communities and local businesses have access to the banking services they need.
To provide certainty and permanent support for the retail sector and the high street, through the Bill we are introducing permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties with a rateable value under £500,000. The existing RHL relief has been repeatedly extended year on year as a temporary stopgap, creating cliff edges for businesses and significant financial pressures. The Government are currently developing with the sector the definition of “qualifying RHL properties”, which will be introduced through secondary legislation in 2025. The sector definitions will broadly follow those already defined in the current retail, hospitality and leisure relief system.
To ensure that this tax cut is sustainably funded, we intend also to introduce a higher rate on the most valuable properties—those with a rateable values of more than £500,000. To be clear, that only applies to the highest value properties, and less than 1% of all non-domestic properties across England. I understand that the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner wants to exclude some properties from the higher charge. However, the Government want to take a fair approach, which is why we intend to ask all properties with rateable values of £500,000 and above to contribute more to support the high street. The Government do not intend to exclude any properties with a higher value, applying the approach in the fairest possible way.
There are practical implications that make it difficult to apply different multipliers to retailers based on their opening hours. Local authorities require certainty about which multiplier will be applied to which property ahead of the billing year. That cannot be determined based on opening hours, which businesses can rightly change at their own discretion, subject to legal requirements. For the reasons I have set out, the Government cannot accept the amendment, which would carve out certain premises from the higher tax rate. However, I hope the Committee is reassured of the Government’s commitment to post offices, banking hubs and the retail sector.
David Simmonds
I am grateful to the Minister for talking us through the complex set of reliefs that are available. It is an issue that colleagues who represent rural areas have been concerned about, because there are often multi-use sites in those areas—a petrol station and a post office, or a banking hub and a small supermarket. Those are potentially larger premises that are critical to the operation of the local community. I am grateful that the Minister has set out how existing reliefs may operate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
In the absence of the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, I call Martin Wrigley.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 3, page 3, line 29, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.
This amendment would add manufacturing businesses to the types of business that could qualify for use of the lower multiplier.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in clause 3, page 3, line 33, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 4, line 9, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 4, in clause 3, page 4, line 13, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 5, in clause 3, page 4, line 31, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 6, in clause 3, page 4, line 35, after “hospitality” insert “, manufacturing”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Martin Wrigley
We have tabled this amendment to explore the possibility of including manufacturing businesses. Manufacturing is important, and we know that it is struggling. By adding manufacturing businesses, we might be able to help them in the same way as we intend to help hospitality, retail and leisure. Manufacturing is a vital area that we have lost too much of in the past however many years. This relief would be a small help to enable manufacturing businesses to recover. That is why we would like to add the category of manufacturing to the provision.
Jim McMahon
Amendments 1 to 6 deal with eligibility for the new lower multipliers. Under the amendments qualifying manufacturing properties would be eligible for the two new lower multipliers the Bill introduces for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27.
Let me start by highlighting that the Government recognise the importance of the manufacturing sector, and we have identified advanced manufacturing as one of the eight growth-driving sectors as part of our industrial strategy, recognising the contribution it makes to our economy. However, the provisions in the Bill are about delivering our manifesto pledge to protect the high street. To that end, we aim to introduce permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27. To ensure that this tax cut is sustainably funded, we intend also to introduce a higher rate on the most valuable properties—those with rateable values of £500,000 and above. As I said before, this represents just 1% of the ratings system; the context is important here.
The measures in the Bill will provide certainty and support for RHL businesses, which are the backbone of the high street. The existing RHL relief has been repeatedly extended year on year as a temporary stopgap. It has created a cliff edge for businesses, and those sectors have repeatedly demanded clarity and certainty. We have been clear that the eligibility for the new lower RHL multipliers will broadly follow those already defined in the current retail, hospitality and leisure relief system. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole spoke about her experience of owning a café and the need for Government support for such businesses. That is precisely why we are enabling the introduction of these new multipliers for those types of property through the Bill.
The amendments in the hon. Lady’s name would expand the scope of this support to include manufacturing properties, but that does not match our intended goal of supporting the high street in a targeted way through the Bill. Against the current fiscal backdrop, extending eligibility to other sectors may dilute the support that the Government can offer to retail, hospitality and leisure properties. It may even require a higher rate on properties with rateable values of £500,000 or more to fund the new lower multipliers sustainably.
I reiterate that the Government are committed to supporting the manufacturing sector. At the Budget, the Government announced £975 million for the aerospace sector over five years, over £2 billion for the automotive sector over the same period, and £520 million for a new life sciences innovative manufacturing fund. For the reasons I have outlined, we cannot accept the amendments, but I hope that the Committee is assured of the Government’s continued commitment to the manufacturing sector.
Martin Wrigley
I am a little reassured by the Government’s intentions to support the manufacturing industry and look forward to their efforts to do so. I am certainly reassured by the support for the high street, which is very important to all. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 10, in clause 6, page 6, line 20, at end insert
“, provided that the condition in section [Requirement for the Government to commission an independent review on the impact of the higher multiplier] is met.”
This amendment provides that the provisions of Clauses 1 to 4 of the Bill would only come into effect when the Government has held an independent review that will consider the impact the new higher multiplier will have on businesses with a rateable value of over £500,000.
New clause 2—Requirement for the Government to commission an independent review on the impact of the higher multiplier—
“(1) The condition in this section is that the actions set out in subsections (2) to (5) have been completed.
(2) The Secretary of State must appoint an independent person to carry out a review assessing the impact that the new higher multiplier will have on businesses with a rateable value of over £500,000.
(3) After the review, the independent person must—
(a) prepare a report of the review, and
(b) submit the report to the Secretary of State.
(4) A report prepared under subsection (3)(a) must be submitted to the Secretary of State within twelve months of the appointment of the independent person under subsection (2).
(5) On receiving the report, the Secretary of State must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, lay a copy of the report before Parliament.
(6) In this section, references to an ‘independent person’ are to a person who appears to the Secretary of State to be independent of the Government.”
This new clause requires the Government to hold an independent review on the impact of the higher multiplier on businesses with a rateable value of over £500,000.
New clause 4—Review of impact of new multipliers—
“(1) Within eighteen months of the day on which sections (1) to (4) of this Act are commenced, the Secretary of State must conduct a review of the impact of those sections.
(2) The review must consider —
(a) the impact of the introduction of the lower multiplier on qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure hereditaments,
(b) the impact of the introduction of higher multipliers in relation to a hereditament for which the value is £500,000 or more.
(3) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, publish the review and lay a copy of that review before Parliament.
(4) As part of the review the Secretary of State must consult with such parties as they see fit including—
(a) businesses,
(b) the Valuation Office Agency; and
(c) Billing Authorities.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State, within 18 months of sections 1 to 4 of the Act being commenced, to review and consult on the impact of new multipliers.
Jim McMahon
For this grouping, I will first speak to clause 3, then return, after other contributions, to amendment 10 and new clauses 2 and 4.
We have previously discussed clause 1, which allows the Treasury to introduce new additional multipliers. Clause 3 deals with how we will determine which properties those multipliers should apply to. The clause is split into three main parts, dealing with occupied hereditaments in subsection (2), unoccupied hereditaments in subsection (3), and hereditaments on the central list in subsection (4). Properties on the central list are typically utility networks spanning many local authority areas, such as gas, electricity and water networks. Each of those subsections is essentially identical, so, to save the Committee from much repetition, I will explain the provisions on occupied hereditaments in clause 3(2) only.
The most important part of subsection (2) is the small amendment made by paragraph (a) to existing powers in the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Under those powers, the Treasury already has the ability to determine in regulations which multiplier applies to which property. Those powers, in respect of occupied properties, are in paragraphs 10(9) and 10(10) of schedule 42A to the 1988 Act. Clause 3(2)(a) amends that part of the 1988 Act to extend those powers to cover all the additional multipliers. This means that the Treasury will be able to determine, by regulations, which properties pay on which multiplier. Actually, Dame Siobhain, may I just correct the record? I think that I referred to “schedule 42A”, but it is actually schedule 4ZA.
As in clause 1, we have included in clause 3 safeguards on to how the Treasury may use these powers. First, clause 3(2)(b) amends paragraph 10 of schedule 4ZA to ensure, through proposed new sub-paragraph (9B)(b), that the Treasury cannot apply the higher multipliers to any hereditaments with a rateable value of less than £500,000. This will ensure, based on the current rating list, that 99% of hereditaments are unaffected by the higher multiplier.
Secondly, proposed new sub-paragraph (9B)(c) will ensure that the Treasury, when setting new lower multipliers, can apply them only to qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure hereditaments. The precise meaning of qualifying RHL properties will be set out in regulations, but we have been clear that we intend to broadly follow the existing definition that applies to the current relief scheme for those sectors.
Thirdly, the Treasury, when using the existing powers to determine who pays on which multiplier, will need to bring that statutory instrument in draft to both Houses of Parliament for approval before that can be confirmed. This requirement is not on the face of the Bill because the powers already exist, but if hon. Members wish to be reassured on this point, it can be found in section 143(7B) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
The power to define qualifying RHL properties—in proposed new paragraph 10(9C) of schedule 4ZA to the 1998 Act—follows the negative resolution procedure, given that this power only allows us to reduce the rates for certain ratepayers.
Finally on clause 3, the existing powers for determining the application of the multiplier allows the Treasury to do that by reference to a list of factors found in paragraph 10(10) of schedule 4ZA to the 1988 Act. This is a non-exhaustive list that includes factors such as its rateable value, its location or its use.
For the introduction of the lower multipliers in 2026, we intend to replicate the process and the broad eligibility in the current RHL relief. As with the current system, local authorities will determine eligibility, but rather than that being against guidance, we will lay down criteria in regulations. Clause 3(2)(c) gives the Treasury the scope also to determine the application of the multipliers by reference to the description that the Valuation Office Agency will put in the rating list.
As I have said, the remaining parts of clause 3 make the same provisions that I have described, but in relation to unoccupied properties and those on the central rating list. It is usual for powers applying multipliers across occupied, unoccupied and central rating list properties to align.
David Simmonds
I will speak to amendment 10 and new clauses 2 and 4, which stand in my name. They are designed to address concerns raised in evidence which there was some debate about yesterday: the objective of setting out, as far as we can in advance, the impact these measures would have on affected businesses; providing for a review and scrutiny process to follow up to confirm that the assessment had been correct or otherwise; and seeing what lessons can be learned from it. I appreciate that the Government are very keen to press ahead on this and will be reluctant to accept amendments that have that effect.
None the less, I am sure Members will recognise that when making decisions it is important to have a sense of what the impact is likely to be, in particular when we know that the impact of some of the measures will affect businesses that may be marginal. In many communities the loss of a large supermarket or warehouse or logistics centre that may be affected will have a major impact on the availability of services and local employment. That is the thinking behind bringing these measures forward. With your leave, Dame Siobhan, I will move them for debate.
The Chair
We will come on to whether you wish to withdraw those amendments later.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Consequential amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 1—Review of impact on businesses, high streets and economic growth—
“(1) The Secretary of State must review the impact of sections 1 to 4 of this Act on—
(a) businesses,
(b) high streets, and
(c) economic growth.
(2) The review must consider—
(a) the impact on different types of business, including small businesses,
(b) the impact on businesses operating mainly or solely on high streets,
(c) whether the provisions have had a measurable impact on economic growth, and if so what that impact has been.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the review before Parliament within six months of those sections coming into effect.”
This new clause would require a review of the impact of clauses 1 to 4 of the Act on businesses (including small businesses), high streets and economic growth.
Jim McMahon
Chair, can I just confirm that we are discussing amendment 10 and new clauses 2 and 4? Or have we moved on to clause 4?
The Chair
If you wished to speak to those amendments, it should have been in the previous debate.
Jim McMahon
I thought I was going to come back at the end of that debate, but it is fine.
David Simmonds
On a point of order, Dame Siobhan, having moved those amendments, I did indicate that subsequent to the debate I would be minded to withdraw them. I have moved them, but I am not aware that we have made a decision on withdrawal.
The Chair
It has been suggested that the decisions on those amendments come later, and there is no further point to debate them. Is that okay?
David Simmonds
Further to that point of order, Dame Siobhan. I will not press the amendments to a vote.
Jim McMahon
New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to review and report on the impact of the introduction of new multipliers. Let me first set out that I understand full well why the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner has been pressing this point, and I agree with it in principle. Chair, can I just check that I am speaking to the right provisions?
Jim McMahon
I will speak to both now. Clause 4 makes two small consequential amendments to the existing legislation to reflect the addition of the new multipliers. There are other amendments we will need to make to regulations to reflect the changes in the Bill, but we will do that using existing powers once the Bill has passed. We have not taken any further powers to make consequential changes.
As hon. Members will know, the Bill provides the basis for how the two new retail multipliers and the higher multiplier will be set. In doing so we are deliberately constraining the maximum levels of the new tax rates by reference to the existing business rate multipliers. Those guard rails prescribed in the legislation provide that the basis for how the new rates will be set will be at the next Budget. For the two retail, hospitality and leisure multipliers, the Bill ensures that the rate may not be more than 20p in the pound lower than the small business rate multiplier. For the higher multiplier, it cannot be more than 10p above the standard multiplier.
I have outlined how the new multipliers will be set at the next Budget, but I trust that hon. Members will also be reassured that when the new multipliers are set, the Treasury intends to publish analysis of the effects of the new multiplier arrangements, taking into account the effects of other changes in the 2026 Budget. The impact assessment that has been referred to in this debate and in the evidence session will be picked up later on in the process. That work will not stop with the next revaluation. As with all taxes, the Government will keep the policy and its effects under review. It is therefore not necessary to impose that requirement in legislation.
With that explanation of the Bill provisions, the process for setting the tax rates, and HMT’s intention to provide analysis of the effects of the new multiplier arrangements, I hope I have provided the necessary assurances for new clause 1 to be withdrawn.
Martin Wrigley
I rise to speak to new clause 1. I thank the Minister for his words. It is, as we are discovering, an incredibly complex and arcane way of creating taxes that will have an impact on many high street businesses. While the Treasury analysis will tell us how the multipliers have hit, and the numbers that are done from a taxation point of view, it will not answer whether the Bill has achieved what it set out to do, which is to provide the necessary relief.
New clause 1 looks more at the impact on the businesses and whether the provisions had a measurable impact on economic growth. That is not the same as an analysis from the Treasury of the changes in the bills that are being presented to people; it is looking at the effect and impact, to see whether the Bill is achieving the desired outcome. That is why we would like to see the measurement included.
As an engineer and a scientist, I believe in a feedback mechanism: something that measures what has been achieved against what has been required. We believe that was missing in the Bill, and we would like to see it, which is why we have asked for new clause 1 to be considered. The work is there and will be beneficial to one and all. I do not see it as a significant barrier to the Bill progressing, but as a positive feedback mechanism that will enable us to determine the effectiveness of the support on the desired areas and businesses, including high streets, which are so important.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 5, page 5, line 37, leave out from “persons” to the end of line 38 and insert
“who have special educational needs.
(5A) In subsection (5) ‘special educational needs’ has the same meaning as in section 20 (when a child or young person has special educational needs) of the Children and Families Act 2014.”
This amendment would mean that a school that is wholly or mainly concerned with providing education to persons with special educational needs would not be a private school for the purposes of the Act, and as a result would retain charitable relief from non-domestic rates.
We are moving on to a different area. This amendment is designed to address concerns raised in evidence, and by many across the House in debates, about the impact on children with special educational needs and disabilities. We recognise that the Government have introduced measures to address some of those concerns, but there have been many changes to the SEND system over the years. In particular, the provision about wholly or mainly providing education to children who are in receipt of an education, health and care plan specifically addresses those at the most significant end of special educational needs and disabilities.
The previous Labour Government introduced a system, in the days of statementing, that included measures called school action and school action plus. If a child had a form of special educational needs that was not so severe that they required the statementing process, but needed additional resources in the classroom, that classification triggered additional resources for the school. In the 2014 reforms, that was morphed into SEN support. Beneath the education, health and care plan, for the most significant levels of need, there is an SEN support set-up whereby local authorities direct additional funding towards schools because children are classified at those levels.
One of our concerns is that some children who have found their way to an independent school—for example, because it has a reputation for providing a good level of support to children with SEN—have not been through a process whereby they have been formally categorised. Gesher in my constituency is an independent special educational needs and disability school that charges fees. A proportion of its students are there because their parents have made the choice, and have not been through a local authority process. Others are there because they have an education, health and care plan and it is the named school paid for by the local authority. All children attending that school have some form of special educational need or disability and are therefore attending private school.
The rationale behind this amendment is that we do not want independent schools that provide education to large numbers of children with SEND but are below the education, health and care plan threshold to be put in a very difficult financial position. Potentially, the Government do not intend to go down that route. Most of us are aware that the extent of SEND provision in the independent sector is very large. Indeed, the amount of money that local authorities have to pay in fees to place significant numbers of children in sometimes very specialist provision is a major concern to them. We also hear from constituents who have identified that a moderate level of special educational needs may be met in the independent sector without the child’s having gone through the process of an education, health and care plan.
We are seeking to ensure that schools that educate children with special educational needs, in a broader sense, are not missed. For those reasons, I commend the amendment to the Committee. I am sure the Minister will have more comments to make, further to what he said in the evidence sessions.
Jim McMahon
Amendment 26 would result in the exemption of fee-paying schools from the measure if they wholly or mainly cater to pupils with special educational needs, whether or not those pupils also have an education, health and care plan, as defined in section 20 of the Children and Families Act 2014.
The Government are aware of the concerns raised about pupils with special educational needs in private schools that may lose their charitable relief because they are not wholly or mainly composed of pupils with EHCPs. We have carefully considered our approach to minimise the impact on pupils with the most acute needs. The Bill provides that schools that are charities that wholly or mainly provide education for pupils with EHCPs will remain eligible for charitable rates relief. For business rates, “wholly or mainly” generally means more than 50%. In practice, that will ensure that most special schools are not affected by the measure. We expect any special schools losing charitable rates relief to be the exception; the number may even be in the single figures.
Private schools that benefit from the existing rates exemption for properties that are wholly used for the training or welfare of disabled people will continue to do so. Most children with EHCPs already have their needs met in mainstream, state-funded schools. If an EHCP assessment concludes that a child can be supported only in a private school, the local authority funds that child’s place. Any changes to fees as a result of this measure will not impact on the parents or families of those pupils.
In private schools, just 5.7% of pupils have an EHCP, and they are predominantly in private special schools. Some 97% of pupils with an EHCP in private schools already have their place funded by a local authority. Where an EHCP has not named a private school in its assessment of the child, the parent or carers may choose to place the child in a private school. That is a choice made by the parent, and does not detract from an assessment that a pupil’s needs can be catered for in a mainstream, state-funded school. There may be instances where a child’s parent disagrees with the local authority’s assessment that their child’s needs can be met in the state sector, and the EHCP system is the most appropriate channel for resolving such disagreements. Amendment 26, which would amend the basis on which fee-paying schools can retain charitable rates relief, would undermine the Government’s intention of removing tax breaks from private schools in order to raise funds to support the more than 90% of pupils who attend state schools.
The approach chosen in the Bill is targeted to ensure that the impact on pupils with the most acute needs is limited. That is ensured by exempting schools that wholly or mainly cater to pupils with EHCPs from the measure. As the Committee will know, the majority of children in England who have special educational needs, with or without an EHCP, already have their needs catered for in the state-funded sector. The Government support local authorities to ensure that every local area has sufficient places for all children of compulsory school age who need one, and work to provide additional appropriate support for pupils with SEN requirements at state-funded schools.
David Simmonds
I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging that the vast majority of the children that we are talking about will have their needs provided for in the state sector. I think we are all very much aware of that, and generally consider it something of which we can be proud. However, a significant number of children find their way into the independent sector because their parents did not pursue the process of statementing, or of seeking SEN support with an attached budget. Conservative Members are concerned that there is a risk that a significant proportion of those children will find themselves displaced into the state sector by a range of measures that the Government have taken—a sector that is not especially well geared to cope with their needs at the moment. In particular, the restriction of the relief solely to those who have an education, health and care plan will mean it is available solely to those with needs that are at the most significant end of the range, so a large number of children will be at risk of losing out. However, I recognise that the Government have the numbers, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 5, page 5, line 38, at end insert
“, or
(b) a local authority makes a determination that they wish to apply discretion to the application of rate relief for the institution within the meaning of section 47 (Discretionary relief) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.”
This amendment would provide that a school is not a private school for the purposes of exempting it from charitable rate relief if a determination is made to that effect by the billing authority.
The amendment is on a related subject to one that we have already debated, so I will not speak about it at great length. We are very much aware that the independent sector is critical to our catering for special education needs and disability. Its coverage across the UK is variable, especially when it comes to provision for children with very significant special needs that a wide range of SEND provision cannot easily address. A local authority that hosts a small school providing for a very small number of children may wish to exercise discretion.
There are charities of many types that are service providers that charge people fees for the provision of such services. That can include anything from adoption placement to fostering and safeguarding in the children’s sector. A large variety of charities charge to provide services such as home care, and care for adults with disabilities. The point was made yesterday in evidence that there is a risk of creating a two-tier charity sector; a school that charges for providing for children with significant needs might not be considered a charity for the purposes of business rates relief, whereas a charity providing, for a fee, residential care for adults with a learning disability would be eligible for relief. That remains a concern for Opposition Members. We need to make sure that we sustain our network of provision—particularly provision at the complex end of need—in the UK. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on the amendment.
Jim McMahon
Amendment 7 seeks to preserve the discretion of local authorities to award relief to private schools. Currently, any charity that uses its property wholly or mainly for charitable purposes is entitled to a mandatory 80% relief. The local authority must award that 80% relief when the conditions are met. The Bill will remove private schools’ entitlement to that mandatory 80% relief. However, it will not disturb the very wide power that local authorities have to award discretionary rate relief above and beyond that.
That power is found in section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. It already allows local authorities to top up the mandatory 80% charity relief with a further 20% discretionary relief. When the Bill is in force, local authorities can still use section 47 to grant discretionary relief to private schools, if they wish. They can grant relief of 80%, or any other level of relief that they consider to be appropriate. That is a matter for local discretion, and for local authorities to decide. With the assurance that that will still be in place, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be content to withdraw his amendment.
David Simmonds
I am pleased to hear the Minister once again championing the value of local discretion in decision making; I think we mutually acknowledge that it is incredibly important. I am aware that concern remains, particularly in the SEND sector and especially for residential special schools, about how the change will play out. Local authorities may face a Hobson’s choice between being expected to raise a certain amount of revenue by applying the maximum possible business rate to a setting, and doing what they need to do to support the needs and interests of children in their community—and of schools that may be the only centre nationally that can provide for very special needs. However, again, I recognise that the Government have the numbers, so with the leave of the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 5, page 5, line 38, at end insert
“, or
(b) has a religious character or other special character and there is no maintained school or academy of the same character within the specified distance from that school.
(5A) In sub-paragraph (5)(b)—
(a) ‘religious character’ has the meaning given under section 69 (Duty to secure provision of religious education) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998,
(b) ‘other special character’ has the meaning as defined by the Secretary of State by regulation,
(c) ‘specified distance’ is the distance specified under section 445(5) (Offence: failure to secure regular attendance at school of registered pupil) of the Education Act 1996.
(5B) Regulations under this section (5B) are to be made by statutory instrument.
(5C) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would provide that charitable rate relief would continue to apply to a school with a religious or other special character, if no maintained school or academy with the same character was within the statutory walking distances (as set in the Education Act 1996) from that school.
On Second Reading, we heard representations from a number of Members about access to faith schools, but those are not the only schools with a special character; there are a number of types of education of a special character. Some schools offer particular sporting opportunities. Organisations such as Montessori provide a particular method of education, and parents may wish to exercise their discretion to access that for their children. The objective of the amendment is to ensure that where the only school that has a particular special or religious character in a given location is an independent school, it is not subject to the measures in the Bill. That will support access to those schools of special character for mums and dads, and for the children who need those schools, across the country.
The amendment relates to legislation on the distance travelled to school. There are regulations designed to ensure, in the interests of health, the environment and the community, that children can access sustainable transport—can walk, cycle, or use public transport where possible. We are very conscious, however, that in many parts of the country there is limited access to certain types of faith school and schools of special character. Clearly, it would therefore inhibit parental choice if those schools could not be accessed, if that were the only way for those families to access the type of education that they wished to access.
Jim McMahon
Amendment 8 would require a private faith school to maintain its eligibility for charitable relief if there is no maintained or academy school of the same faith within the statutory walking distance, as set out in the Education Act 1996. The amendment would also provide that schools with a currently undefined special character be exempted from the Bill measure when defined in regulations. The Government value parental choice and recognise that some parents want their children to be educated in schools of a particular faith, but all children of compulsory school age are entitled to a state-funded school place if they need one. State education is suitable for children of all faiths, and all schools are required to follow the Equality Act 2010, which means fostering and promoting an environment that encourages respect and tolerance of children and families of all faiths and none.
We have already made provision to ensure that private schools “wholly or mainly” concerned with providing full-time education to pupils with an education, health and care plan remain eligible for business rate relief. The Government are not considering any further exemptions to the policy, so there is no need to give the Secretary of State the power to establish and define new designations of school character to then exempt schools of that character from the measure in future, as the amendment would provide for.
The Government have listened carefully to arguments on this matter, and have decided that a carve-out for faith schools or similar schools cannot be justified. It is the Government’s position that state-funded education is suitable for all children of compulsory school age. For that reason, we are unable to accept the amendment.
David Simmonds
I need to be clear that I am not here to act as an advocate for faith education; I am not personally a fan of it. I recognise the Minister’s point, but we need to acknowledge that many Members on both sides of the House, and many of our constituents, believe very strongly that they should be able to access a school of a particular character.
There will be some children in the state sector who may be able to access, for example, a specialist sports academy with particular facilities to develop and nurture their talent, but such a school may not be available in all parts of the country. An independent school may be the only one able to foster and nurture that talent, and we would not wish to see any measures taken that would deprive anybody of that opportunity. Once again, however, I recognise that the Government have the numbers, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 5, page 5, line 38, at end insert—
“(5A) Where a private school offers nursery provision, that school must be considered to be comprised of two separate hereditaments, one of which would be a nursery school.”
The question of hereditaments is certainly not one that I remember from English classes when I was at school, but it is quite significant in the context of business rates. The way in which business rate legislation operates is that it designates a given property, which clearly makes it easier to tax, because the ownership or possession of a property is very hard to move or disguise.
In respect of schools where, for example, there is a nursery on site as part of the overall premises that are considered to be the hereditament for the purposes of business rate legislation, the Opposition are concerned that such premises that would be exempt from business rates or eligible for relief if they were physically separate from the school to which they are connected will not be eligible for that relief because they are on the same site. We know that the Government are very keen, as we were in government, to see an expansion of access to high-quality childcare, a very large proportion of which is in the private sector. The Government—commendably, in my view—have set out a policy of expecting maintained state schools that have nurseries on site to significantly increase the childcare offer to support local parents, which is a very good thing.
In many locations, a nursery connected to a private school may be chosen by parents using tax-free childcare, and there are measures in legislation to support all parents, but primarily lower-income parents, to access that provision. If business rates apply to such premises, however, that would load an extra cost on to them because they are, in effect, co-located and part of a single hereditament.
The purpose of the amendment is to separate those premises out. Where there are premises on a site that become subject to business rates as a result of the Bill, but would not otherwise be subject to them because of their purpose, use and location, they should be considered as separate institutions, so we do not apply the measures to those institutions that we seek through other parts of legislation to support and encourage.
Jim McMahon
I am grateful to the hon. Member for tabling the amendment. It may assist the Committee if I briefly explain how the Bill will apply to nurseries and nursery classes within the setting of private schools.
The Bill will ensure that nursery schools, where they have their own hereditament and therefore their own rates bill, will be excluded from the provisions and, where they are charities, will retain their charitable rate relief. That is the effect of proposed new sub-paragraph (4)(a)(iii) to schedule 4ZA of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, at line 23 of page 5, in clause 5.
A nursery school is likely to have its own hereditament and therefore its own rates bill when it is run and occupied by a separate body from the private school. An example would be where a separate charity from the private school runs the nursery. A nursery school may also have its own hereditament if it has its own dedicated buildings site that is located away from the rest of the school. Where the same charity runs the private school with some nursery provision, however, and does so from the same site, it is likely to have one hereditament and one rates bill.
I want to make it clear that private schools that include some nursery classes in the way I have described will still be considered as private schools and will lose their relief entirely. The Government have decided that where private schools that mainly provide education for pupils of compulsory school age also have nursery classes within the school, the presence of a minority of nursery-age children should not remove the whole school from the business rate measure. That approach best ensures consistency with the underlying policy intent.
For that reason, we are unable to accept the amendment. It would not be appropriate to attempt, as the amendment would do, to create new artificial hereditaments for nursery classes at private schools merely to preserve some of the charity relief for that private school. I hope the Committee will recognise the steps we have taken to protect nurseries with their own hereditaments, and it will, of course, continue to be the case that nurseries that are run and occupied by separate charities with their own hereditaments will continue to receive relief.
David Simmonds
Once again, I recognise that the Government have the numbers to do as they wish, but I am concerned by what the Minister has outlined. This is not simply an amendment about nursery schools, which are a specific thing. It is about nurseries, which provide childcare. For younger children we have the early years foundation stage, which is not compulsory but is provided and followed by the vast majority of childcare settings, and which aims to ensure a level of educational progression that can be measured from the very youngest children to those who are ready to start school. That is provided in a different way from what is provided by nursery schools, which are specific institutions of which there are several hundred in the country.
In London constituencies such as the one that I represent, it is quite common to find nursery providers that are run as part of private school institutions in the same location, but that are used by parents who have no intention of sending their child on to that private school. Because the fees charged are in line with the local childcare market, and those fees are significantly supported by measures such as tax-free childcare, those nurseries are an affordable means of securing good-quality childcare. Those children will go on to a range of local provision.
I remain concerned about the Bill insisting that a nursery located on a premises shared by a private school within the scope of these measures should be subject to a significantly higher rates bill than if it were located in a physically separate building just down the road. I suspect that that will remain an issue of contention during the passage of the Bill. Clearly, although an impact assessment or a review will not be specifically proposed in the legislation, there will be an opportunity to see its impact in due course. For those reasons, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jim McMahon
Clause 5 removes charitable rate relief from private schools. Under the current law, all charities are entitled to 80% charitable relief on any properties that they occupy and use wholly or mainly for charitable purposes. That rule is found in paragraph 2 of schedule 4ZA to the Local Government Finance Act 1988, and clause 5(2) amends it to exclude private schools from that rule. Proposed new sub-paragraph (3) removes from charitable relief hereditaments wholly or mainly used to carry on a private school. That will ensure that ancillary and support buildings, such as offices, will also lose their relief—for example, classrooms and sports fields wholly or mainly used for the purposes of a private school.
The policy to remove the eligibility of private schools that are charities from charitable rate relief is a tough but necessary decision that will secure additional funding to help to deliver the Government’s commitment to education and to young people.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. Yesterday, we heard plenty of evidence from lots of witnesses, specifically about private schools. We also heard from Professor Francis Green, who stated that the measure would have a negligible impact on private schools. At the same time, as the Minister stated, it will raise much-needed funds to support the policies that we promised in the build-up to the general election. Does he agree that although this is a tough choice, since the Bill’s impact on private schools is relatively negligible, it is a necessary measure to raise the funds that we need to deliver our policies?
Jim McMahon
That is an important point. There is political intent behind this measure: to deliver on the manifesto commitment. At a time when, let us be honest, trust in politics is tested, delivering on an election manifesto is important. More than that, the vast majority of young people attend state schools.
In every community across the country over the past decade, all of us have seen the impact of reduced support, with many schools struggling. In some cases, that has created demand for private schools, because parents with children who have SEND or other conditions, who do not believe that their needs are being met by the state sector, feel that they have no choice but to look to the private sector. We are determined to rebuild the state sector so that every parent can have confidence that children who need additional support will get it in a mainstream setting.
David Simmonds
Clearly, the Government have set out their direction of travel and they are determined to proceed. It is important to acknowledge, given the rationale around diverting funds to the state sector, that our state schools, by all significant measures, are now the highest performing that they have ever been. Although I would be the last to claim that everything in the state sector is perfect—there are significant issues that need to be addressed, as there always are—there has been enormous progress in the last decade or so both in the educational outcomes for children in our state schools and in the opportunities for those young people. That is reflected in that fact that youth unemployment today is half what it was in 2010.
I suspect that there will be a degree of disappointment among many state school heads who heard that a tidal wave of money was coming in their direction, because it must be acknowledged that even if all the funds raised by the changes to business rates, VAT and so on were diverted to them, it would amount to less than one third of the cost of a single classroom teacher. We have already seen announcements, however, that that money will also fund a wide range of other activities.
Clearly, the purpose to which the Government seek to put the funds is outside the scope of the Bill, but many people will look at the clause and recognise that the significant harm that it does to part of our education sector is simply not justified by the benefit to anybody else. For that reason, I am sure that we will oppose the measure when it finally comes back to the House. I recognise that the Government have the numbers in Committee, however, so I look to them to proceed.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Commencement
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 6, page 6, line 20, at end insert
“, provided that the condition in section [Requirement for the Government to commission an independent review on the impact of the 2026 revaluation of hereditaments on provisions of this Act] is met.”
This amendment provides that the provisions of Clauses 1 to 4 of the Bill would only come into effect when the Government has held an independent review that will consider the impact the effect of the 2026 revaluation on those provisions.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 12, in clause 6, page 6, line 22, at end insert
“, provided that the condition in section [Requirement for the Government to commission an independent review on the impact of the 2026 revaluation of hereditaments on provisions of this Act] is met.”
This amendment provides that the provisions of Clause 5 of the Bill would only come into effect when the Government has held an independent review that will consider the impact the effect of the 2026 revaluation on those provisions.
Clause stand part.
New clause 3—Requirement for the Government to commission an independent review on the impact of the 2026 revaluation of hereditaments—
“(1) The condition in this section is that the actions set out in subsections (2) to (5) have been completed.
(2) The Secretary of State must appoint an independent person to carry out a review assessing the potential impact of the 2026 revaluation of hereditaments for the purposes of non-domestic rates on the operation of the amendments made to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 by this Act.
(3) After the review, the independent person must—
(a) prepare a report of the review, and
(b) submit the report to the Secretary of State.
(4) A report prepared under subsection (3)(a) must be submitted to the Secretary of State within twelve months of the appointment of the independent person under subsection (2).
(5) On receiving the Report, the Secretary of State must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, lay a copy of the Report before Parliament.
(6) In this section, references to an ‘independent person’ are to a person who appears to the Secretary of State to be independent of the Government.”
This new clause requires the Government to hold an independent review that will consider the effect of the 2026 revaluation on the provisions of the Bill.
David Simmonds
I will be brief, because we touched on this matter in the evidence sessions yesterday. The amendment and new clause both seek to ensure that the measures contained in the Bill have a review mechanism and impact assessments. The Minister said earlier that he was minded to proceed, regardless of the outcome, but there will no doubt be an opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise the impacts in due course. It is my intention, subject to the Minister’s response, to withdraw the amendment and new clause.
Jim McMahon
Clause 6 provides for when the provisions in the Bill will commence. The provisions in clauses 1 to 4 provide for the new additional multipliers to take effect from 1 April 2026. As hon. Members will have heard, the Chancellor will set out the new multipliers at the Budget in autumn 2025, and those multipliers will take effect from 1 April 2026. Clause 5, which removes charitable relief from private schools, will take effect from 1 April 2025.
As hon. Members will be aware, this Government are determined to fulfil the aspiration of every parent to get the best possible education for their child. It is right that, in pursuing that aim, we focus on the more than 90% of school-age children who attend state schools. The clause will raise approximately £140 million per year by 2029-30. By introducing the clause and the policy to apply VAT to private school fees, the Government will raise around £1.8 billion by 2029-30, which will help to deliver our commitments to education and young people.
Ahead of 1 April 2025, my Department will work with local government to explain the Bill’s provisions so that private schools that should not receive relief can be identified. As we have shown in the impact note published alongside the Bill, we expect around 1,000 private schools across England to be affected by the measures, so we are confident that the relief can be removed from 1 April 2025.
David Simmonds
I am sure that most mums and dads will be glad that excellent education is already available in England’s schools, given the transformation that has taken place in standards. However, we are here to concentrate on finances. For that reason, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Short title
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jim McMahon
Clause 7 merely states the short title of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Review of impact on businesses, high streets and economic growth
“(1) The Secretary of State must review the impact of sections 1 to 4 of this Act on—
(a) businesses,
(b) high streets, and
(c) economic growth.
(2) The review must consider—
(a) the impact on different types of business, including small businesses,
(b) the impact on businesses operating mainly or solely on high streets,
(c) whether the provisions have had a measurable impact on economic growth, and if so what that impact has been.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the review before Parliament within six months of those sections coming into effect.”—(Martin Wrigley.)
This new clause would require a review of the impact of clauses 1 to 4 of the Act on businesses (including small businesses), high streets and economic growth.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Question accordingly negatived.
New Clause 5
Local retention of additional receipts
“(1) The Local Government Finance Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) In Schedule 7B (Local Retention of Non-Domestic Rates), after subsection (4) insert—
‘(4A) In the case of any billing authority to which 100% local retention does not apply, as far as practicable, the local and central shares are set so that any additional receipts arising from changes made to this Act by the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Act 2024 are locally retained.’”—(David Simmonds.)
This new clause would provide that local authorities could retain any additional funds raised by the provisions of the Bill.
Brought up, and read the First time.
David Simmonds
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
You will be relieved, Dame Siobhain, to hear that these are the last of the amendments and new clauses that I will move for debate.
The purpose of the new clause is to bring in a measure to support the local retention of additional receipts that come from the measures in the Bill. We know that we have been on a journey with local government finance over many years to ensure a greater degree of local retention of business rate proceeds, something that has had cross-party support. It has been done for a variety of reasons, and partly to encourage local authorities to promote growth in their local business community by growing their business rate base and retaining a greater share of the proceeds.
On this specific Bill, the aim is to ensure that the additional revenue derived from the measures is retained by the billing authority, rather than going to another pool elsewhere. The rationale for that is manifold. In respect of the additional proceeds that may come from private schools that are subject to the measures, we know that local authorities may find it challenging, particularly given the timing of the introduction of this legislation, to ensure that there is a place available for any child who is displaced from the independent sector into the state sector—particularly so if that child has significant special educational needs or disabilities. Therefore, ensuring that those resources are retained locally will give some additional element of resource to local authorities seeking to meet that challenge.
We know that one particular dynamic is that the areas where the private schools are fullest are often also the areas where the state schools are fullest; although there is overall a declining population of children in our state schools in England as a whole—I know that my own constituency and local boroughs are a particular example of that, having seen a very large drop and a significant vacancy rate—that is not the case at all phases of education or in all year groups. Therefore, there is already a significant challenge for those parents who have to seek an alternative place for their child, where the retention of the resource locally would give some additional support.
Further, in respect of the additional revenue that may be raised from a variety of different types of businesses, the retention of that support locally would further enable the local authority to use that money to support its local economy, for example to invest in measures to support employment or the development of new businesses. That would be in line with the agenda being set out by the Government, who wish to see growth as a major priority, and it would create a direct link between the local decisions of the billing authority and the financial outcomes that would follow. For all those reasons, I commend the new clause to the Committee.
Jim McMahon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling his new clause. As we have explained, where, as a result of the introduction of additional multipliers from 2026-27, local authorities collect additional business rate income, new clause 5 would allow them to keep that income in its entirety. It would do so by requiring the Government to alter the percentage share of business rates to be retained by local government and the share to be sent to central Government.
In practice, of course, any additional income from the new multipliers introduced by clauses 1 to 4 will vary from local authority to local authority and change from year to year. Those local authorities with fewer large properties may well collect less income as a result of the new multipliers and will therefore be worse off as a result of this amendment. Furthermore, accurate data on that will not be available until some time after the end of the year, whereas the central and local percentage shares need to be set before the start of the year. In practice, we do not think this new clause would effectively achieve the intended outcome. Instead, the Government will work to ensure, as far as is practicable, that local government income from business rates is unaffected by the introduction of new multipliers. That will result in a much fairer and more stable outcome for local government than the one suggested by the new clause.
More generally, the Government have announced their commitment to reform the way in which local government is funded, to return the sector to a sustainable position. That includes the already announced reset to the business rate retention system, as intended when the previous Government established the system. We will use the reset to restore the balance between aligning funding with need and rewarding business rate growth, and we will work in partnership with local government to ensure that the new local government finance system takes into account the impact of the new multipliers on the business rates collected by local government.
I hope I have given the Committee some assurances about how local government income will be protected from the changes in the Bill. In the light of that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the new clause.
David Simmonds
I know that the Minister is a localist at heart and will generally support measures that increase autonomy and decision making at local level. I recognise that the Government have the numbers to reject the measure. I think the point that it is hard to model the outcome was addressed in previous amendments that the Government chose not to accept, and undertaking a forward-looking impact assessment would enable us to understand better the impact of some of the measures. Given the Minister’s observations and the numbers in Committee, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.
The Chair
I understand that at this point, you all have to be nice to each other. Does anybody want to do that, or are you ready to get on with it?
Jim McMahon
I was going to go on an errand to Tesco to buy some mince pies. This process has been a very useful one. The time that both Opposition parties have given to the preparation of the amendments has really helped the scrutiny of the Bill. That has helped the Government to ensure that the Bill does what is intended, and to provide safeguards to ensure that it does nothing unintended. We have set out our position on the Bill clearly. The spirit in which the Opposition have approached the amendments, by withdrawing them and not pressing them to a vote, and the constructive nature of our exchanges today are to the credit of the Committee.
David Simmonds
As always, it has been a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. In that Christmas spirit, I thank the Minister for his constructive engagement. It is characteristic of several of the Ministers in the Department, and it has been enormously helpful. I put on record my thanks to the Whips; I appreciate that the scheduling of this relatively short piece of legislation meant that it could have taken up a great deal of time. We have recognised the point, which was made impactfully yesterday, that its overall impact is limited and moderate, so we have sought to approach it in the light of that.
We may have a fairly significant disagreement with the Government about the intent behind the Bill, in the way that it approaches both local government funding and the situation with independent schooling, but we have to recognise the numbers. I thank the Minister and his colleagues very much for the way in which they have addressed this.
Martin Wrigley
This has been my first Bill Committee experience, and it has been interesting and delightfully short. I am delighted to see it executed so effectively and efficiently. I thank the Minister for all his thoughtful and thorough explanations of the different bits and pieces, and I really hope that the legislation will provide good support to our high streets, which desperately need surety about their situation. I thank everybody involved, and I particularly thank the Clerks for their help in explaining to me how the process would work and helping us through it.
The Chair
I think the niceness is complete.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.
Westminster Hall
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Disability History Month
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Disability History Month.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark, and I am grateful to the members of the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this important and timely debate.
As a disabled woman and mother to a disabled daughter, I feel real personal pride in leading this debate, and I am grateful to other hon. Members who have turned up to take part. It is an opportunity to reflect on the important place that disability and disabled people have in our history, to raise awareness of the ongoing challenges that people living with a disability face, and to look forward to continuing to build a truly inclusive society.
Disability History Month is a chance to celebrate our achievements to make the UK more inclusive to disabled people. A huge amount has already been achieved since the end of world war two, when over 300,000 servicemen and women came home disabled. That homecoming exposed huge numbers of people in Britain to the realities of life with a disability, acting as a catalyst for an important change in attitudes towards disabled people. The country saw changes to the law to improve disabled people’s standards of living and work. The Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 promised sheltered employment, reserved occupations and employment quotas for disabled people. Initiatives to restore the fitness and morale of disabled servicemen and women spread to the rest of the disabled population. The NHS extended rehabilitation services to workers disabled by industrial accidents, for example.
Many disability rights charities formed in the 1940s and 1950s, and in 1951 a new social movement was started by a silent reproach march of 800 disabled ex-servicemen walking to Downing Street. The civil rights movement in America inspired disabled groups to take direct action against discrimination, poor access and inequality. A social, rather than medical, model of disability emerged.
In the years since, we have seen increased understanding of disabled people’s experiences: the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970—the first in the world to recognise and give rights to disabled people—created support services and specialist educational facilities for disabled people, and introduced the blue badge scheme; 1995 saw the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act, which made it unlawful to discriminate against disabled people in employment, the provision of goods or services, education, and transport; and the Equality Act 2010, passed under the last Labour Government, made disability a protected characteristic in law, strengthening the measures in the 1995 Act, and safeguarding disabled people from direct and indirect discrimination.
Disabled campaigners who refused to accept a status quo where their experiences and lives were valued less than others in society were at the heart of those changes, as they are at the heart of calls for change today. I want to mention just one of these campaigners. Ruth Bashall, who passed away earlier this year, co-founded the Campaign for Accessible Transport in 1989, taking part in direct action protests that saw wheelchair users block central London streets. Ruth also set up Stay Safe East, a user-led organisation dedicated to tackling abuse against disabled people from diverse communities. Today the group provides advice and advocacy for victims of violence and harassment while working to improve the knowledge and practices of the police, health professionals and others as they interact with disabled people.
If we are to honour that work, we must listen to organisations like Stay Safe East when they tell us what changes are needed to ensure that disabled people can access the opportunities for self-empowerment and self-agency that we all want. We must also listen to the new generation of activists, including the young people I met last week at an event in Parliament organised by Scope, who were sharing the challenges they have faced. Storytellers like them will be a key part of the journey to equality—because it is a journey, and it is one that we are still on.
On average, one in three disabled people say that the UK is a worse place to live now than it was a decade ago. Discrimination and stigma have not gone away, with three out of four disabled people having experienced negative attitudes or behaviour in the past five years. Disabled children are too frequently deprived of the life chances that they deserve, with a special educational needs and disabilities system that is broken after 14 years of neglect.
The theme of this year’s Disability History Month is livelihood and employment, an area that sadly illustrates those ongoing barriers well. The disability employment gap has sat stubbornly at around 30% for over a decade, and behind every statistic is an individual denied the independence and security that comes with a job. According to research by Scope, more than a million disabled people want to work, but poor employer attitudes, insufficient employment support programmes and a lack of flexibility and adjustments at work make it impossible. Two thirds of disabled people said that the most common issue when applying for jobs was a fear of disclosing disability. Disabled people who are supported into work are more likely to find themselves in lower-paid roles or on a zero-hours contract.
The disability pay gap stands at around 17%, which equates to a disabled person working on average unpaid for 54 days a year. This exclusion and discrimination in employment has devastating knock-on effects for a disabled person’s livelihood and wellbeing. We know the benefits that good employment brings—better incomes, financial stability, security and a greater sense of purpose—whereas disabled people who are out of employment suffer from high levels of anxiety and lower rates of personal wellbeing. The bottom line is the financial impact, as disabled households need on average an additional £1,010 a month to have the same standard of living as non-disabled households.
All that is against the backdrop of the number of vacancies in the UK, which stands at around 831,000. By failing to recruit disabled people and support disabled employees to stay in their jobs, employers are missing out on a wealth of talent and the benefits of a diverse workforce. I will look at some of the causes of that gap, because this is an untenable situation.
In 2023, the all-party group on eye health and visual impairment commissioned YouGov to carry out polling to look at employer attitudes towards partially sighted or blind people. The polling found that 48% of employers said that they did not have accessible recruitment processes and, more shockingly, around a quarter said that they would not be willing to make workplace adjustments to employ someone who was blind or partially sighted. One of the recommendations that the APPG published as part of its report following the poll was that the Government should review the Equality Act to ensure that it is fit for the modern labour market and that employers comply with their existing obligations under the Act. I would welcome the Minister’s views on how he can work to make that happen, taking into account the views and voices of disabled people.
With proper support, disabled people can thrive in the workplace. Organisations across the country demonstrate that, doing fantastic work to support disabled people to fulfil their career ambitions and potential. Last week, I met Charlie, who has experienced sight loss since birth and found employment through Scope’s support to work service. He spoke about how the employment adviser encouraged him to talk about his disability as a positive factor at interview, building his confidence to apply for jobs. He has now been in work for five years.
The WorkFit scheme run by the Down’s Syndrome Association promotes the skills and abilities of people who have Down’s syndrome, focusing on the positive contribution that they can make in the workplace. It is guided by the belief that in the right job and with the right support, everyone is able to work. By engaging directly with employers and candidates to provide training and advice, the scheme has supported 1,000 candidates into employment with more than 750 employers. The scheme has created lasting change, with nine out of 10 people in paid work through WorkFit retaining their job.
In my constituency, Thurrock Lifestyle Solutions is an excellent example of good practice in helping disabled people to enter and stay in the workplace. It is particularly successful because it embodies the maxim, “Nothing about us without us”; it is run, led and designed by disabled people themselves. That maxim must guide Government policy on disability.
For too long, disabled people have been sidelined in the policymaking process. They have been denied a voice while successive policy agendas on areas such as employment, education and transport have ignored their needs and left them to suffer the consequences as a result. I am encouraged by the steps that this Labour Government are taking to put disabled voices at the heart of decision making. I know that the Minister is deeply engaged with these issues, and I thank him for his commitment.
The creation of a disability lead in every Department is a very welcome step. This recognises the need to look at the experiences of disabled people through a cross-Government approach to truly understand the full societal impact of living with a disability. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government will continue engaging and working alongside disabled individuals, campaigners and charities as they seek to drive reform? And is he able to give further details on the roles and responsibilities of the departmental disability leads?
I also welcome the Government’s White Paper, “Getting Britain Working”, and particularly the pledge to put disabled people at the heart of design and delivery. I look forward to the review of the role of employers in promoting health and inclusive workplaces, to support the recruitment and retention of those with a disability.
There is an important recognition in the White Paper that the current system focuses on assessing capacity to work, rather than helping people to adapt to their health condition. The White Paper also acknowledges that too many people who would like to work are held back by the fear of losing social security payments, if they end up needing them again in the future. I hope the Minister will assure me today that that will not be forgotten. Disabled people need to know that support will be there when they need it, and that if, for whatever reason, having tried employment they find that a particular workplace does not work out, they will not lose their financial benefits as a result.
Will the Minister reassure me that the Green Paper, due to be published next spring, will not see a return to punitive measures or an assessment system so restrictive that it is, in fact, punitive? To truly deliver the huge shift necessary to see more disabled people in secure employment, we must look at these issues in the round. That starts with fixing the broken SEND system for our children, and it will take a sustained, long-term focus on the experiences of disabled children and their families to deliver an education system that meets the needs of every child. The extra £740 million of investment to increase places for pupils with SEND in mainstream schools is a significant step, because in education, employment and across Government, policy that gets it right for disabled people gets it right for everyone.
Progress has been made, and we should celebrate that and reflect with gratitude on the work of disabled campaigners who have brought us so far. However, there is still so much to be done, not only in the realms of employment and livelihood, but in accessible transport, accessible public, social and sports spaces, and ensuring that there is no place in society that disabled people are not able to rightly play their part. I have one final question to the Minister: when he chairs the meetings of the Government’s disability leads, will he work to ensure that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Transport, the Department for Business and Trade, and the Office for Equality and Opportunity are all working together to speed up progress in order to make the UK a truly inclusive place for the millions of disabled people who live here?
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they need to bob, as some of you are, if they wish to be called in the debate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for setting the scene so well on a subject that we all engage with every day in our constituencies. I believe, as I think we all do, that we should encourage those who wish to work, and might not have had the opportunity, to do so. This debate is an opportunity to highlight this issue, raise awareness and encourage my constituents back home. I always try to give a Northern Ireland perspective to debates relating to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This is that sort of debate and hopefully the Minister will answer some of our questions.
The most recent census was in 2021—indeed, this is the season to talk about the census after all. It showed that one person in four in Northern Ireland——24.3%, or some 463,000 people—had a limiting long-term health problem or disability. Forty per cent of those, or some 185,300 people, were aged 65 or over. Statistics and figures sometimes go over our heads, but if we think of those 185,300 people, that is also 185,300 families, and that impact on a population of 1.9 million in Northern Ireland is great.
It was also interesting to note that the number of people with a limiting long-term health problem or disability increased from the 2011 census to the 2021 census. Unfortunately, this shows a worrying trend. The 23.6% increase from 374,600 people in 2011 to 463,000 people in 2021 is notable and the response to it must be, too. I will ask a question to the Minister that I always ask: has he had an opportunity yet—he is in a new role as Minister—to discuss these matters with the appropriate Minister back home in the Northern Ireland Assembly? We need to ensure that we co-operate better and that our policies, strategy and response are co-ordinated right across the whole United Kingdom.
Ards and North Down borough council in my local area recently had a motion to ensure that signage was visible in council facilities to remind people that not every disability is visible. I have seen on the tube whenever I travel here that, as well as seats for disabled people, there is always a wee poster that says, “Not every disability is visible”. In this age when everybody is hustling and bustling and rushing, it is interesting to see how many times people will give up their seat maybe unknowingly to someone who has a disability. Their pride sometimes prevents them from taking the seat, but the fact is that people are kind. In this fast world we live in, it is always good to remind ourselves that people do reach out and help. It is important that we do so.
I thank my local council for its motion and for ensuring that awareness is raised. I believe that has, in its own small way, had a real impact and changed the conversation around disability. The hon. Member for Thurrock is right that we need a change in the conversation. We want people to think and talk about this issue, so she deserves a lot of credit for bringing this matter forward. We must try to teach people to understand that while a person may seem healthy at first glance, they may also be someone who needs a little more help or assistance. Anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder crops up across my constituency all the time. Understanding that will help us to understand why the numbers are not what we expect. We need to ensure that every disability is acknowledged, and we must do all we can to ensure that every disabled person is heard.
This debate was in my mind during a debate we had the other day that was not specifically about this issue. We need to think about our veterans, some of whom have lost limbs, whether legs or arms, or have had terrific internal injuries. Through the Invictus games and the Paralympics, those with disabilities have been able to shine, and that should inspire us all. It should probably also humble us when we think of what those people can do with their disability. For me and for others in the House, the Invictus games and the Paralympics have become something we want to see even more, with great respect to those who are able-bodied. It is really important that we see the achievements they can reach.
I believe this is the main drive behind Disability History Month. We see where we started off, by removing the workhouses and those institutions. As the hon. Member for Thurrock said, we saw soldiers returning from war who could do more with more help. We acknowledged that there was a functioning place in society for these individuals, and the real discovery was that our society is the better for inclusivity.
I want to mention one last point about children. I have six grandchildren. Three of them have speech issues and require therapy. One of them is non-verbal, which is another disability in our children. The hon. Member for Thurrock referred to children, and it is important that we have the institutions in place, although this is a debate about disabilities, not SEND education, so I will focus on disabilities. As I say, one of my grandchildren is non-verbal, but he and children like him still have a smile and an interest in what happens around them. Education is very important to help those children to achieve their goals in life.
I have seen at first hand how many steps can be taken forward under the expert help and support that is available. The question for us in this place is this: is there enough help and support available for the massive spectrum of disability? My wife is obviously a very wise lady and a very sensible lady, given that she married me; she has been even more sensible to stay with me. She refers to disability as “difability”—a different kind of ability.
We can do more to support parents and help them to unlock their children’s potential; to ensure that mainstream schools have the capacity and finance to be a safe and engaging place to learn, with no child left behind; to help people into the workforce by supporting them and helping workplaces to afford the changes they need to make to become “difability” friendly; and to ensure that families can afford what they need and can grow. Lastly, we can do more with our ageing population, to ensure that they have the enhanced support and care required to remain at home for as long as they wish.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this debate, during which we can reflect on the treatment of disabled people in the past and on how we can learn from the experiences of our constituents to shape a better future.
As we focus on this year’s theme of disability, livelihood and employment, the optimists among us like to think that the arc of history tends towards progress. We have heard about the important 1944 and 1970 Acts, and the fact that 2010 was a landmark year in disability history, with the introduction of the Equality Act. Prohibiting discrimination against disabled people, the Equality Act is still one of the most progressive and long-standing legacies of the previous Labour Government.
Unfortunately, in 2024, after 14 years of Conservative Government, it feels like we are going backwards. In March this year, the UN’s Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities found that we have a system that “devalues” disabled people and that which results in
“hate speech and hostility”
towards them. A fragmented and inaccessible system that undermines human dignity is not one that this Labour Government stand for.
Today the disability employment gap—the difference in the employment rates for disabled people and non-disabled people—stands at around 25 percentage points in West Bromwich. That is slightly less than the national average, but it is still far too large, which is why I am pleased that the Government are addressing this disparity and listening to disabled people regarding how to do that.
It is clear that the employment support system for disabled people is not working properly, which is why the Government’s recent White Paper has a focus on enabling disabled people to find long-term work and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said, well-paid work that they can thrive in. I am glad that the Government are investing £115 million next year to deliver Connect to Work, a new supported employment programme to match disabled people with job vacancies. It is hoped that from 2026 onwards the programme will support nearly 100,000 people a year. I can think of many very qualified disabled people in my constituency who do not have the jobs that they deserve and would do well in.
In the Budget, the Government also addressed an issue that affects many disabled people: the carer’s allowance. The previous cap was trapping people in poverty and penalising them like criminals for earning just a few pounds over the threshold. We have raised the earning limit on carer’s allowance, meaning that it is easier for people who are caring for loved ones, many of whom are disabled, to go out and work. We should be clear, though, about the scale of the challenge that many disabled people come up against when looking for work, or just going about their daily lives, whether it is the social barriers presented by other people’s perceptions of their disability or the physical barriers presented by public transport, as my hon. Friend mentioned.
Disabled people are more likely to rely on buses to get around, but unfortunately our bus system is just not good enough. The new Government are doing something about that, and I hope the Minister will say more about that in his response to the debate. Unfortunately, the 45 bus service from West Brom to Walsall, which I campaigned to save, is still so unreliable that it often leaves passengers stranded or forces them to abandon their journeys; the loss of the 46 bus means that elderly and disabled people on Old Walsall Road now have to navigate an enormous hill; and the fact that there are no direct buses to the train station from Oakham means that many residents find it hard to work further afield, go shopping in the city centre or take part in sport.
I will touch on sport, as other Members have, because it is worth mentioning areas where progress has been made. Of course, we have a long way to go to make sure that all sport is accessible, but I will pay tribute to a few people in my area. In West Brom, we are proud that our local football club is famous up and down the land, but there is one part of the club that is not so widely known. West Bromwich Albion are the reigning champions of at least one league—the national league premiership for powerchair football. Their goalkeeper and player-manager Chris Gordon, who has spinal muscular atrophy, has a career and livelihood that is centred on sport—not despite his disability but because of it.
Another local champion of sporting opportunities for people with disabilities and learning disabilities was Norma Hyde from neighbouring Halesowen. In 1983 she set up Special Olympics Sandwell, for which this year she was rightly recognised in the King’s birthday honours list.
Finally, Blind Dave Heeley—as he calls himself—is a local legend in West Brom. Having lost his sight at a young age, he committed himself to fundraising through sport. He recently cycled 1,000 km along the western front in Europe, and once did seven marathons in seven days on seven continents, becoming the first and only blind person in the world to achieve this. In the process, he raised millions of pounds.
Of course, not every disabled person needs to be inspiring, run marathons or be at the top of the league to deserve fulfilling employment, a decent livelihood and access to transport. As parliamentarians, we must put the views and voices of disabled people at the heart of what we do and work towards a future that is truly inclusive for everyone.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark, and to contribute to this important debate, which I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing. She made many important points, some of which I will also mention.
As has already been said, the theme of this year’s UK Disability History Month is disability, livelihood and employment. My interest in this issue has its foundations in losing 70% of my hearing from bacterial meningitis when I was aged 19. Ironically, being the Member of Parliament for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is the first job in which I feel my disability has been a positive advantage, giving me a platform from which to advocate for others. My niece was born with spinal muscular atrophy, giving me a window into the experience of more acute disability in the workplace and the challenges she faces on a daily basis.
In 1995 it was a Conservative Government, under John Major, who delivered the first UK legislation to protect disabled people from various forms of discrimination. In the last 30 years, new protections have improved the work situation of disabled people. A good example is the Access to Work programme, which, if implemented and understood properly by business, can remove some of the barriers that employers may perceive in taking on a disabled employee.
Many disabled people are eager to work and contribute, but face significant barriers in understanding which opportunities are truly accessible to them. While there is a lot of emphasis on getting disabled people into further education, that same support is not prevalent beyond university. Many disabled people want to work, contribute to society, pay taxes and have a work routine that makes them feel valued. Time should be taken to understand not only what is possible but what an individual aspires to achieve.
Managing a disability can feel like a full-time job in itself. To enable disabled people to contribute to our society through work, we need systems that offer flexibility, and that safeguard benefits and allow individuals to take on work without jeopardising their health or their financial stability. A manager saying, “Tell me what you need and I will do it” is a great start, but the reality is that in a new job there are so many unknowns. For those with additional access needs, what is needed can be hard to define at the outset, without prior knowledge of exactly what the job entails. People’s needs can vary widely, depending on the disability.
There is an opportunity to create transformational change quickly. If we increase the prevalence of access co-ordinators, they can provide an interface between businesses, line managers and disabled employees and jobseekers. Their role is to implement best practice from other organisations and identify the help that is available. By supporting a disabled employee’s career progression—which can be even more challenging with geographic and access constraints—they can help to deliver the autonomy and flexibility that works for both employer and employee, ultimately ensuring that disabled employees have access to a career, not just a job.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing this debate. Derby has the largest number of deaf people outside of London, which I am sure is in no small part because we are privileged to have the Royal School for the Deaf Derby. This specialist school was founded in 1894 by Dr William Roe, after he witnessed a young deaf man being bullied and called “Dumb Jack”. Dr Roe was struck by the social and educational exclusion of deaf people, and this Disability History Month I pay tribute to him and the school that he created.
There is no doubt that attitudes across society towards people who are deaf or have hearing loss have come a long way. The country was mesmerised when Rose Ayling-Ellis waltzed her way to lifting the glitterball trophy on “Strictly Come Dancing”, providing an overdue weekly prime-time lesson on deaf awareness and deaf culture for the nation. Films such as “The Silent Child” and “CODA” have not just showcased the rich talent that exists within the deaf community, but used stories and humour to give wider society an insight into the deaf existence and the barriers that people face on a daily basis.
The media representation of the deaf community has certainly, and rightfully, grown in recent years, whether through deaf participation in “Love Island”, “Bake Off”, or “Married at First Sight”, or simple acts of inclusion in everyday interactions, but people who are deaf or have hearing loss are still marginalised in society, and there is still so much to do to provide the community with the life chances they deserve.
Children and young people from across our country attend the Royal School for the Deaf Derby, which offers both day and residential specialist education. Last week, the Ofsted inspection on its residential provision was published, grading it as outstanding in all areas; I invite the Minister, if I may, to join me in congratulating the school. The school is also the largest employer in the midlands for deaf BSL users, who are incredible role models for their pupils, and provides training and development to partner agencies in Derbyshire and Derby. One example mentioned in the Ofsted report was a firefighter that the school had trained, who was able to use sign language in an emergency, providing support and reassurance to an individual involved in a road traffic collision.
I have seen art by the school’s pupils that was shown an exhibition alongside work by renowned deaf photographer Stephen Iliffe at the Artcore gallery in Derby, celebrating the achievements of the deaf community, highlighting the diverse experiences in careers of deaf people, and demonstrating that, with the right support, there are no limits to what they can accomplish.
However, we know that our wider education system across the country far too frequently fails our children and young people. The attainment gap facing deaf pupils is equivalent to 12 months of learning by the end of primary school, and, at GCSE, deaf students perform more than a whole grade worse than their non-deaf peers in both English and maths. People who are deaf or have hearing loss are also penalised in the labour market. Less than four in 10 working-age people who use BSL as their first language are in employment. A third of that group are classified as long-term economically inactive—a total waste of their talents and ability. That point was made powerfully by my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock and for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes).
Sadly, there are also far too many examples where the NHS is not doing enough to provide appropriate access. Two in three people who use BSL as their first language have no accessible method of contacting their GP, and four in five patients who are deaf or have hearing loss reported having an appointment at which their communication needs were unmet. Deaf people also suffer worse outcomes for physical and mental health than their peers. These are public policy failures, and as MPs and decision makers in Westminster, we need to take action to fix them.
There are many brilliant charities providing evidence and expertise to feed into that work. We recently had four of them—the British Deaf Association, the National Deaf Children’s Society, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and SignHealth—in Parliament, at an event that I hosted and at which we were honoured to have the Minister attend and speak. Charities can act as a bridge to their communities, helping to facilitate policy- makers to learn directly from the lived experience of the communities themselves.
The work that we need to do in Westminster to support the deaf community cuts across Government, and we need action from all Government Departments—Health, Education, Transport, the Home Office, Business and Trade, Work and Pensions and others. I thank the Minister for and congratulate him on the positive step forward that we have seen with the appointment of lead Ministers in each Department to champion disability inclusion and accessibility. In his cross-Government role, I am sure that he will passionately drive the policies that we need to see in the lives of deaf and disabled people, so that they can thrive and we can all benefit from the full use of their talents and skills.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing the debate and leading it with such a wealth of knowledge and experience? I think we all benefited greatly from her presentation. This is a slightly unusual debate, because it is the first one that I can recall in recent times when the splendid hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was the first Back Bencher to be called; that is a little bit of an in-joke, but most people familiar with his wonderful but very frequent contributions will understand what I mean.
I was encouraged to take part in this debate by the fine example of the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who chairs the APPG on eye health and visual impairment. I know she is very disappointed that she cannot be here today, but I understand that there is a visitation in her constituency of the sort that no MP can refuse to attend. I should like to record my gratitude to her pleasant and dedicated team for supplying me with some very helpful information, which I now intend to deploy. According to the charity Scope, there are well over 16,000 people living with a disability in my constituency of New Forest East, and I should like to say a few words to honour their efforts to work and live well despite the challenges that they face.
Disability History Month is now an annual event celebrating the history, contributions and struggles of disabled people. A motion that marked the first Disability History Month was tabled in the Commons in November 2010, signed by 79 hon. and right hon. Members, including the former Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley, and my late, great friend, Sir David Amess. Among other things, the motion called upon schools, colleges, universities, local authorities, employers, the public and the media to recognise and celebrate UK Disability History Month, and encouraged them to campaign to improve the then—and still, sadly—unequal position of disabled people in society by working towards greater equality and inclusion.
That cause has certainly been taken up by a good number of people and organisations. I am particularly lucky to have in my constituency the Minstead Trust, which works to support people with learning disabilities. It is no exaggeration to say that it is a jewel in the crown of the New Forest. I was very interested in some earlier comments by hon. Members about the importance of the work ethic for disabled people, because the Minstead Trust has acquired the wonderful Hanger Farm Arts Centre, which is a terrific facility with a tremendous programme of visiting artists and performers. It also gives work experience opportunities to the people who benefit directly from the trust, and is an outlet for some of the goods that they manufacture under the auspices of the trust. It is a terrific facility for the community as well, so there are big wins all around from that wonderful project—long may it continue.
The Minstead Trust also encourages workplaces to be inclusive in their recruitment practices, so that they can enjoy the benefits that people with learning disabilities can bring to the businesses that take them on. That is important because, as we have heard, this year’s UK Disability History Month theme is indeed livelihood and employment. We know that there are all types of benefits to working, including social benefits. Doing something that one enjoys can quell loneliness, create important social bonds and give one a sense of purpose. The benefits of including disabled people in our workplaces really are enormous.
There are many other realms, however, where inclusion could be better. The former Minister of State for the Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), understood this. She led the disability champions work across Government, where each Department of State had one Minister who was a disability champion, with a personal commitment to championing accessibility and opportunity for disabled people within their Department’s policies. The ministerial disability champions met regularly to discuss plans, such as the disability action plan, as well as the impact of the high cost of living on disabled people. I am certainly pleased that the new Government are continuing in the same vein with their disability leads in each Department.
The same former Minister also recognised that some disabled people have significant extra costs relating to expensive equipment, home adaptations and so forth that they need in order to get by. The previous Conservative Government provided a substantial cost of living support package. Nevertheless, according to the charity Scope, the disability price tag—the extra money needed by a disabled household to have the same standard of living as a non-disabled household—in my constituency is well over £900.
We all know that it is not just extra financial costs that disabled people face. Almost three quarters of disabled people in my constituency are estimated to have experienced negative attitudes. Although a great many people in local schools, health providers, businesses and community centres are knowledgeable and respectful of the challenges facing the disabled community, it is also true that when we look at the national picture, outdated attitudes towards disabled people sometimes spill over into harassment and abuse. Disabled people are more likely to be the victims of crime and are twice as likely to experience harassment than non-disabled people. Disabled women are more than three times as likely to experience domestic abuse. I am sure that all hon. and right hon. Members are united on the need to end that, and I look forward to seeing what the Minister will do to work with his colleagues to ensure that the police and other services take a comprehensive and informed view when tackling abuse against disabled people.
It is not a simple subject. Victims of disability hate crime, discrimination, or sexual violence can have their experiences compounded by the double or triple discrimination that they face as women, as people of colour or for some other identifying factor, but there are charities led by disabled people who can provide expert advice and information about how better to support disabled people who are at risk of harm. I hope the Minister will say something about how his Government will work with such specialist charities.
I would like to pay personal tribute to those Members of Parliament who are living with disabilities. It was significant to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) explain the extra burden, in addition to the normal burdens of being an assiduous Member of Parliament, her hearing loss has caused. I said at the beginning that I was encouraged to take part in this debate by the hon. Member for Battersea, who I regard as a personal friend. I find the way that she copes with her eye disability absolutely inspiring.
I speak from a little personal knowledge, because when I was an undergraduate I lost 18 months after a severe allergic reaction to some eyedrops, which prevented my being able to read. When one is a student at university that is a bit of a problem—
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. We are running over and need to get other speakers in.
Sir Julian Lewis
Sorry. I remember once, before I knew it would come right—as it finally did—walking past the Palace of Westminster and thinking ruefully, “To think I thought I would ever get to be a Member of Parliament!” I got over that problem, and I did get to be a Member of Parliament. I take off my hat to those MPs with far worse disabilities—permanent disabilities—who nevertheless have joined this place and contribute so much to its proceedings.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. As many people know, I am an ear, nose, and throat surgeon, with a special interest in hearing loss and ear diseases. That has been my life’s work, so I declare a big interest in this subject.
Deafness and hearing loss are invisible disabilities, but they are common—very common. They affect 70% of people over the age of 70, and 40% of people over the age of 40. Hearing aids are free on the NHS, but millions of people who could benefit from them do not have one, and many people who do have one simply do not use it—perhaps up to 5 million people. Perhaps a million of our fellow citizens cannot hear conversational speech, with many unable to contact their GP or use health services. Many deaf people do not work because the adjustments that could and should be made for them are not made. Deaf awareness among employers is insufficient.
I will talk a little about earwax. Occluding earwax, which causes hearing loss and is also caused by hearing aid moulds, is a huge issue for deaf people. The services in this country to remove it are very patchy. Before I became an MP, I was the chair of a deaf association in East Anglia, a charity that helped thousands of deaf people and had contracts from the NHS to provide ear care and hearing aids. I believe that charity is a model of community-based, not-for-profit NHS ear care to the population that could be widely copied. The charity has mobile services for rural locations and can provide ear care in residential settings with one-stop provision of wax removal, audiology and hearing aids, keeping people communicating, connected and able to work.
I also commend the work of many excellent larger charities set up to help people with hearing loss, some of which were here in Parliament this week. The RNID estimates that the cost of hearing loss to the economy is £30 billion a year due to loss of earnings, reduced quality of life and increased social care costs. The solution to much of the problem is obvious: hearing aids must be just about the most useful disability aid ever invented. Let us do what we can in this Parliament to support our NHS audiology and hearing aid services. After all, most of us will need them one day.
Let us not ignore deafness when we talk about disability. I read about a young person with hearing loss who said:
“One of the worst things is when people say something I miss…they say ‘oh it doesn’t matter’. It probably didn’t matter to them at the time, but it makes me feel I don’t matter.”
I think that matters to all of us.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing the debate. Her speech covered a lot of ground, and she paid warm tribute to campaigners in her constituency and beyond. She told the story, with great eloquence, of the journey that is still in progress on disability rights. I remember her speaking with passion about the subject in her maiden speech, too.
The hon. Lady also spoke of the need to promote equality of access, and cited examples of how positive change in the workplace can be achieved through the right supportive schemes. She and other Members also mentioned the importance of the links with education and transport, reminding us that this issue cuts across all aspects of government and society. She was right to call on the Government to focus on support and positive action rather than sanctions and punishment.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the importance of supporting and encouraging people into work and gave the Northern Ireland context. He rightly reminded us that not all disabilities are visible. The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) spoke of the importance of support for carers and of high-quality transport to enable people to access society equally.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) was right to cite the then Conservative Government’s contribution in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Hopefully we can all work together across the House to continue to reduce, and ultimately end, discrimination against disabled people, including in the workplace.
We must do far more to tackle barriers to work, including by providing more support for employers to change the way they view disability. In the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto, we committed to make the benefits system work better for disabled people by giving them, and organisations that represent them, a stronger voice in the design of benefit policies and processes. We would like work capability assessments to be brought in-house and personal independence payment assessments to be reformed to make the process more transparent and stop unnecessary reassessments and the use of informal assessments. We would also like to empower more people to enter the job market, including parents, carers and disabled people themselves, by making more use of technology and new ways of working.
We welcome the Government’s long-term ambition to achieve an 80% employment rate, and a number of measures in their “Get Britain Working” White Paper published last month. Under the Conservative Government, the UK was the only economy to see its employment rate fall over the past five years, and they undermined apprenticeships, left mental health services not fit for purpose and ran our NHS into the ground.
We welcome the Government’s proposed steps to improve access to skills, training and education and to reduce shockingly high mental health care waiting lists. However, we call on them to go further. We would like to see regular mental health check-ups made available and new mental health hubs in all communities. We would like to see more done on providing better flexible working, given that 52% of carers who apply for it have their application refused. The Government should guarantee that apprentices are paid at least the national minimum wage by scrapping the lower apprentice rate. I also note that disability charities such as Disability Rights UK have some concern about the balance between positive, supportive measures, and potential sanctions and punishment, in forthcoming legislation.
We have heard from many hon. Members about the importance of local charities and about particular constituency circumstances. More than 12,000 households in my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage include at least one disabled person, which represents nearly 28% of all households in the constituency. Thankfully, local authorities and charities work together to help provide assistance. Oxfordshire county council runs a community support service—hosted in the towns of Wantage and Wallingford—with activities and services to help people stay healthy, independent and engaged. As the years have moved on, the service in Wantage has adapted to meet the changing social care needs of the area. Wantage market garden was created in the green space behind the service and is now looked after by the community action group Sustainable Wantage, in partnership with care provider Style Acre and the county council. Services like these are vital for the inclusion and support of disabled people.
We know that on average, disabled people take far fewer trips per year than non-disabled people, which is why, in addition to improving bus and rail services, community transport services such as Vale Community Impact, Cholsey Volunteers, Didcot Volunteer Drivers and Wallingford Volunteer Drivers, are such an important lifeline. I am proud that Oxfordshire county council has awarded over £100,000 of grants to those organisations. Most railway stations in my constituency have seen accessibility improvements in recent times, but Cholsey is the busiest that currently lacks them. I call on Network Rail, Great Western Railway and the Government to support an accessibility scheme at that station.
We have heard from the hon. Members for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) and for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) about the importance of helping and supporting people with hearing loss. At the risk of oversharing, I am also afflicted by occasional earwax problems, so can certainly recognise that point. Perhaps I shall turn to the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket for advice on how to deal with that vexing problem.
In conclusion, we must do more to support those with additional needs. I hear regularly from my constituents that accessing the support they need through personal independence applications is challenging to say the least. We must support employers to make reasonable adjustments for employees through schemes like Access to Work and, as the hon. Member for Strangford said, support children with special educational needs so that they can thrive in their education. We must also provide more funding for CAMHS, the child and adolescent mental health services. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing this debate during Disability History Month. As someone with a disability herself, she will likely know that everyday life can be so much harder for those with a disability than for those of us fortunate to be able to take our health more or less for granted.
Before I was elected to Parliament, I had an inspirational colleague who had suffered a spinal injury that left her unable to walk. Our jobs were demanding—a 70-hour week was not uncommon—and somehow my colleague managed to do the work, and do it brilliantly, despite all the extra challenges of life in a wheelchair, including the difficulty of getting to and from work and navigating inaccessible buildings, and all the extra effort it takes to do the everyday things that so many of us do without thinking, like getting dressed or taking a shower. Working alongside her made me realise the importance of the things that we have done to help disabled people over the years, like making buildings and transport more accessible.
I also saw the consequences of people failing to give any thought to those needs: for example, by using disabled toilets as storage cupboards, or leaving them locked so that people have to go on a mission to find the key—a mission that is doubly hard for someone in a wheelchair. My colleague’s disability was obvious, but we should be sure to remember people whose disabilities are hidden and not to underestimate the difficulty that such disabilities can add to life. For instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) said with great insight that in this job it is the first time her hearing loss has felt like an advantage as she uses her platform as an MP to advocate for others. She argued powerfully for disabled people to be able to access not just a job but a career.
Alongside talking about the challenges, this Disability History Month is a chance to reflect on pivotal moments of progress for disabled people and to celebrate the individual heroes who picked up the cause and made the running—metaphorically and sometimes in practice. If we cast our minds back, for instance, to summer 2012, right here in London the international bar was raised and a new standard was set for what disabled people could imagine achieving.
More than 4,000 para-athletes from 164 countries competed with everything they had in front of a physical audience of 2.7 million people. It was watched on 3.8 billion television screens around the world, with record- breaking audiences, including a record number of young people growing up with a disability who were waking up each day and thinking, “If I put my mind to it, that could be me.” We in this country made a leap forward at that moment, and as we did so, we led the world. The message is repeated at every Paralympic games: never underestimate what someone with a disability can do.
That brings me to disability employment. The Government should recognise the challenges that disabled people face, but must not dissuade anyone of their ability to overcome them. On the contrary, the Government must lean into the barriers to employment and help to knock them aside. On that my party has a strong track record. As a new Back Bencher, I remember being encouraged by a passionate disabilities Minister at the time, Justin Tomlinson, to get involved in our Disability Confident programme to get employers across the country to think differently about disabilities.
In 2017 we set a target to get a million more disabled people into work by 2027, and we met that target five years early; there are now 5.5 million disabled people in work. We took practical steps to achieve that, including working with employers, as I mentioned; funding Access to Work, which helped more than 67,000 people in 2023-24; launching universal support to give personalised support to long-term sick and disabled people to find and stay in work; and providing supported internships for people with special educational needs. Those are just a few examples.
I am a firm believer that work is the best way to improve our standard of living, as well as giving us the satisfaction of a job well done—a view that I am sure is shared by many, if not all, hon. Members present, and also argued for compellingly by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) in his extremely well-informed speech. The question is not whether someone can work, but what work they can do and how. If a person with disabilities needs help to work, where does that help come from? Often it comes from family, community, charities—as hon. Members have referred to today, which often have deep expertise—volunteers who give their time and compassion, and, as I have set out, the Government.
The Government’s resources must be targeted. Since the pandemic, we all know that the number of people who are economically inactive due to ill health has surged, reaching 2.8 million people. Apart from the cost, that is a waste of talent and potential. That is why, when the Conservatives were in government, we embarked on reforms to help people to stay in work or get back to work—reforms to fit notes, the launch of WorkWell, the launch of universal support, and our work with employers. We reformed welfare to make sure that financial incentives did not get in the way of work.
I welcome the Government taking forward many of those reforms, but I believe they have made a grave error in kicking the can down the road on the accompanying benefit reforms. Every day that someone who could work is getting money from benefits instead is money that could help a disabled person to live their life to the full.
As I conclude I will return to history, given the topic of the debate. The Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, which was introduced in response to the second world war, as the hon. Member for Thurrock said, laid the path for disability legislation and protections for the next 80 years. We live in a different era, but our welfare system is built on the vision of our predecessors who were determined to make sure that soldiers who were wounded defending our freedom would be supported on their return home. When the Conservatives were in government, we put our shoulder to the wheel to make our welfare system fit for the 21st century. We made progress, but there is much more to do. Every hon. Member who has spoken today has made important suggestions.
This Disability History Month is a chance to send an emphatic message of encouragement to people with disabilities across the whole United Kingdom. We know how hard every day can be, but let there be no limits to what they can achieve.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on initiating this debate and on her speech. We have been reminded that Disability History Month was inaugurated by an early-day motion in this House in 2010, of which our former colleague, Dame Anne Begg, herself a wheelchair user, was the lead signatory. This is an opportunity for us to reflect on the progress made and the challenges we still face, and listen to the voices rightly calling for a more inclusive society. We want to celebrate the achievements of disabled people throughout history. We recognise the barriers that they have overcome, including those that persist.
I agree with the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) that the examples of those with a disability who have served in this House, past and present, are inspiring. I did not know that he had a period at university without sight. I am familiar with some of his university activities, but not with that one, so it was very interesting to hear that.
Understanding history helps us to learn and grow as a society. In this month, in honouring the pioneers of disability rights and listening to the experiences of disabled people, we commit to working together for a more inclusive future. I will set out the Government’s actions for delivering access and inclusion to all disabled people through our missions and our plans for a decade of national renewal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock highlighted the stubborn disability employment gap, which, as she said, has been stuck at 30 percentage points across the country for the past 30 years. I was pleased to hear that in West Bromwich it is slightly less, but it is still much too high, so we need to make progress on it. We want to provide better support to enable disabled people who are able and want to work to move into and progress in employment.
I am grateful for what hon. Members have said about our “Get Britain Working” White Paper, published a couple of weeks ago, which announced some important reforms. We are changing the outcomes against which we measure success. We are focusing not just on getting somebody into a job, but on achieving higher engagement with everyone, on the employment being sustained and on whether it leads to pay progression.
We will overhaul jobcentres and deliver a new youth guarantee to ensure that nobody is left on the scrapheap when they are young. We want local Get Britain Working plans to be drawn up in every area in England, bringing together jobcentres, colleges, skills providers, the NHS, employers and local charities to tackle economic inactivity. Importantly, the White Paper announced a disability employment panel, with which we will work to ensure the voices of disabled people are at the heart of the reforms we introduce.
I was very interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock about WorkFit, which she has mentioned to me previously. I am keen to find out more about it. It was also good to hear from the right hon. Member for New Forest East about the Minstead Trust and Hanger Farm. We need such models to address the chronically low rate of employment among people with learning disabilities.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) rightly spoke about public transport and access to work. I have spoken to a number of disabled people about the barriers to employment, and public transport accessibility is right at the top of many of their lists. I am pleased that the Bus Services Bill will include measures to improve the accessibility of bus and coach stops and introduce powers to create statutory guidance on inclusive design. I am also pleased that the Department for Transport is working closely with disability advocacy groups, including the Department’s own Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, but we certainly need to make a lot of progress in that area.
We fully recognise that some people, through ill health or disability, are not working. We are determined to ensure that they also have the support that they need. We know that many of those who are out of work through ill health or disability would love to be in a job, but at the moment, they face insuperable barriers that prevent them from working. Those barriers include features of the benefits system.
At the moment, the standard rate in the benefits system is at its lowest level, in real terms, in 40 years, which makes it hard for people who receive it to support their families. If they can convince my Department that they are too sick to work, they receive additional cash but no help at all to return to work. That means that the benefits system is driving people with health problems into inactivity.
We are committed to reforming the system so that health and disability benefits support disabled people into work and to live independently. Alongside “Get Britain Working”, we will be setting out reform proposals in the spring in a Green Paper, to be followed by a full 12-week consultation. That is because we want to think about it properly and take account of everybody’s views so we can get it right.
In introducing the debate, as well as mentioning the disability employment gap, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock also rightly mentioned the disability pay gap, and we are working on that as well. We are developing the equality (race and disability) Bill to deliver our manifesto commitment on disability pay gap reporting for larger employers, and to place on the statute book the full right to equal pay for disabled people. That work needs to be informed by the views of disabled people and of the employers that will implement the new requirements. We will launch a public consultation early in the new year, when we will want to hear from disabled people, their representative organisations and employers to help to shape the legislation.
Since July, I have been meeting regularly with a range of disability groups and organisations, and I have thoroughly enjoyed doing so. In the past week, I have met the Disabled People’s Organisations Forum England, which is made up of more than 40 organisations led by disabled people. I have also met the Disability Charities Consortium, comprising nine of the largest disability charities. The first of those meetings was online; the second one was face to face. Also online, I have met our regional stakeholder network, which is made up of representatives from nine networks across the UK of members of the public who are committed to using their own experience to improve the lives of other disabled people locally. I also work with the Government’s disability and access ambassadors, who are senior business leaders from 12 sectors, from advertising to universities. They provide personal leadership to help deliver good-quality services for disabled people, and to encourage improvements to accessibility.
Hearing impairment has been a significant feature in the debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) on the event she hosted in the Attlee Suite. Was that yesterday?
Sir Stephen Timms
It was a very good event. I made some rather poor efforts to address the group in British Sign Language—my first attempt. I know that she will be pleased—I am sure the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) will be as well—to know that we are committed to supporting the British Sign Language advisory board, which was set up in the wake of Rosie Cooper’s British Sign Language Act 2022. It is the UK Government’s first dual-language board focusing on key issues that affect deaf people. We are committed to promoting and supporting British Sign Language and we will shortly be publishing the 2023-24 British Sign Language annual report.
I am pleased to join my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North in congratulating the Royal School for the Deaf Derby on the accolades that it has received from Ofsted, and I very much agree with the important points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) about the importance of what is being provided to ensure that people’s hearing is well looked after and supported.
I need to work closely with ministerial colleagues and with other Departments right across Government to ensure that disabled people get the support they need to overcome the daily barriers that they face. The commitment that I am setting out today on behalf of the Government needs to be a whole of Government endeavour, so I was very pleased about and grateful for what Members said in the debate about my announcement last week of a lead Minister for disability in every Department to represent the interests of disabled people and to champion disability inclusion and accessibility in their Department. I will chair regular meetings with the members of that group and encourage them to engage directly with disabled people and their representative organisations as they work on their departmental priorities. I am looking forward to the group’s first meeting next week, and I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock the assurance that she is looking for about our shared aims and what that group will be working towards.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
It is fantastic to hear about all that the Government are doing on disability. My right hon. Friend the Minister will know that many disabled people rely on family and friends to provide care and support to enable them to have a full life—to participate in work, school and other things that they enjoy—so will he reassure me and others that, in taking a cross-departmental approach to disability, he will be considering the important role of family carers?
Sir Stephen Timms
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her point and can certainly give her the assurance that she seeks. As she knows, in the Budget we made an important improvement to the arrangements for carer’s allowance through the commitment that the earnings threshold for carer’s allowance will be increased to 16 hours a week at the national living wage rate. That will be a permanent link with the national living wage and, we hope, will overcome the problem that a lot of carers have run into over the last few years, whereby they get a bit of a pay rise that tips them above the threshold and therefore inadvertently receive an overpayment of carer’s allowance. We hope that the change will help, and we know that the increase itself will bring about 60,000 more family carers into eligibility for carer’s allowance.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the Budget, we will also be looking at the possibility of a new taper arrangement for carer’s allowance, in order to move away from the current cliff edge, which has always been there. That will require quite substantial IT development; it will not be ready overnight, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) will agree that it is quite a promising idea to improve support for unpaid carers in the future.
My focus is primarily on domestic disability policy, but I also oversee UK implementation of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and represent domestic disability-related policy on international platforms, so in October I attended the first ever G7 disability inclusion summit, which was hosted by the Italian presidency and held just outside Assisi, where I and my G7 counterparts and Ministers from several other countries all signed up to the Solfagnano charter. That sets out a collective agreement to advance work in eight key areas, among which is:
“Inclusion as a priority issue in the political agenda of all countries”.
It is a useful document, focusing specifically on disability inclusion all the way through. We have also worked to extend the UN convention to a number of UK overseas territories. We recently extended the treaty to Bermuda—the first British overseas territory to which it has been extended. I can confirm that we are committed to protecting and promoting the rights of disabled people around the world as well as in the UK.
A great perk of my job was to attend the Paralympic games in Paris in August. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) was right to draw attention to the huge improvement that was the London 2012 Paralympic games, which took the Paralympics movement to a new level. I visited the athletes’ village in August, and it was most interesting to see how it had been laid out to be accessible to everybody. There were ramps everywhere and electrical devices at the bottom of every slope that people could clip on to their wheelchair to help them up it. It is worth making the point that in those games, we came second in the medals table, ahead of the United States and all the other European countries and behind only China. The games attracted unprecedented support and audiences, with the venues full of enthusiastic —and, I must say, highly partisan—French audiences. It was good to hear everybody highlighting the importance of UK leadership in not just starting the games at Stoke Mandeville, but hosting the groundbreaking 2012 games. The unique contribution of Channel 4 in 2012, and ever since, has clearly been deeply appreciated around the world in the Paralympics movement.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich was absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of disabled people being able to be physically active. There is a problem in the benefits system, because too often people fear that being physically active could lead to them losing their benefits. We need to address that challenge of reforming the system in our Green Paper, when it is published in the spring.
Disability History Month reminds us that progress is a shared endeavour. Working together across Government, across the House and with the wider community, we can build a society in which everyone can participate fully and equally. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rightly raised the question of the extent to which I am working with Ministers in Northern Ireland, in Scotland and in Wales. I met Minister Lyons from Northern Ireland when he came to London, and the Minister for Transformation, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), also met him on his recent visit to Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Strangford is right to underline the importance of us working together across the United Kingdom on these priorities.
Let us honour the courage and contributions of disabled people, past and present, by reaffirming our commitment to not just a month of reflection, but a permanent springboard for lasting change and a more inclusive future.
Jen Craft
I thank the hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) who was instrumental in securing the debate, and her and her team for their help in the preparation of my speech.
I will reflect on some of the issues that have been raised by Members across the House. I thank the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) for her words about this being the first job where she feels her disability is a bonus; they ring true for a lot of us in this place. That is certainly something that we should take away as disabled Members—what it means to people outside to see us in this place and the message that we can send.
The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said that when he lost his sight, he could not imagine being in this place. I would say to anyone watching, “You can. We are here. We are very proud to be here, and you are welcome in this House.” There is long way to go for it to be fully accessible, but there are disabled MPs—more of us than people know—and we are growing in number.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) and for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for raising the issues that deaf people have with access to employment. To first language British Sign Language speakers, I would say that one of the access needs of this House is that [In British Sign Language: There is no BSL on Floor of House.] That will mean something to people who see it at home. I will apologise for doing that afterwards, rather than ask permission, Sir Mark.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for raising wider issues around transport access, which often forms barriers to employment, and also for highlighting that disabled people do not need to be inspirational to deserve the rights and access that everyone enjoys.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his moving reflections on his grandchild with additional needs. Quite often, as the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), mentioned, it is when people come into close contact with a disabled person that they find their own attitudes adjusting and realise that there is something about the art of the possible. We can all reflect on whether we are doing enough to adjust our own attitudes towards disability and what is possible.
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for raising the issue of discrimination in the workplace and what that looks like. My own experience of employment has been mixed. To experience discrimination based on who you are in a workplace situation is quite a shocking thing. It takes a while to come back from it and to realise that the whole multifaceted thing that makes up “you” has an awful lot to offer. That is something to reflect on.
Finally, I thank the Minister for his thoughts. As I said at the start of the debate, it is incredibly encouraging to see a commitment to put disabled voices at the heart of decision making. I hope he will take that away as the Government develop their approach towards disabled people, not just on the issue of employment but across Government, and make sure that the disabled voice is right at the heart of every policy area that may have an impact on the lives of disabled people—and I would say that that is every policy area. I thank him for his reflection on his experience at the Paris Paralympics. A lot of people who have been in a space that is specifically made for disabled people find themselves thinking, “Why can’t everything be like this? How much better would the world be if access was built right into the system?” The only way to get that is by including disabled people in the design process and in decision making right from the start.
To conclude, I very much would like to be stood here next year in Disability History Month, reflecting on a year of progress. Instead of discussing some of the things we have today, I would like to be looking at how far we have come over the previous 12 months. For a long while, disabled people have been very good at adapting the way we act and at bending to society’s norms. I would throw a challenge out there: maybe it is about time that society bent to us a little bit as well.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
This this House has considered Disability History Month.
Floating Offshore Wind: Celtic Sea
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered floating offshore wind in the Celtic Sea.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. We are here today to talk about floating offshore wind, particularly in the Celtic sea. It is the next frontier in the UK’s clean energy transition, and is positioned to unlock up to 4 GW of power by 2035—enough to power 4 million homes. There are huge opportunities for Cornwall, the south-west of England and Wales, because the Celtic sea is all around us.
The ambition is to put floating offshore wind in the south-west, where it would complement other offshore arrays. The opportunities that arise from it for Cornwall and the region—for our supply chain, which is poised to expand, for our economy and for our people, who will benefit from skilled, good jobs—are vast. However, to be quite brutal, an ambition is pretty much all that it is so far.
The first question is, why floating offshore wind? Eighty per cent of the world’s potential offshore wind resources are in deeper waters. The Climate Change Committee estimates that the UK needs 100 GW of offshore wind by 2050, which is feasible only through the development of FLOW. FLOW is new technology, and the UK could be at the forefront of developing it for a global market, rather than relying on overseas supply chains and losing out on new investment in UK industries. The potential for jobs is vast.
Why the Celtic sea? Offshore wind has a successful history off the east coast of the UK. However, the wind blows both ways. By developing FLOW in the Celtic sea, we can maximise the energy generated and mitigate the intermittency. Previously, that was not possible due to the depth of the seabed, but new floating technology has opened up the region to development, and this could be a huge opportunity if it is done well. The current Government target is for 5 GW to be produced by FLOW by 2030. It is estimated that a 4.5 GW programme in the Celtic sea, as modelled by the Crown Estate, would lead to £1.4 billion in gross value added and 5,300 jobs in the development of port infrastructure and critical component supply across the region.
However, there are barriers. As I have said, FLOW has not got to the stage that we hoped it would be at by now. One of the barriers is the contracts for difference programme. After the failure of allocation round 5 to secure any FLOW projects at all under the last Government, the most recent funding round, under the new Government, resulted in the Green Volt project in the North sea securing CfD funding in AR 6. However, the budget for that pot was still too low for more than one of the three bidding projects to be successful. To reach the Government’s decarbonisation goals, contracts for difference will need to support multiple FLOW projects in each allocation round and the vital test and demonstration models—the stepping stone models—in the Celtic sea.
Projects in the North sea have received significantly more investment to date, and have more developed supply chains and port capabilities, enabling them to deploy FLOW at lower costs. There is no offshore oil or gas legacy in the Celtic sea; it is a greenfield site and lacks the infrastructure that it will need to scale up. It needs targeted support to reach equity with the North sea. Having had only one successful floating offshore project in previous CfD rounds across the Celtic sea has knocked investors’ confidence, so although this is a fantastic opportunity, there is a risk that investors’ interest in the region could be lost if we do not progress quickly.
To support the development of floating offshore wind, we need upgraded ports, which requires significant capital investment. However, uncertainty about the development of FLOW has led to investors holding off from developing those ports until contracts for difference have been awarded. That has led to a mismatch of timelines, as ports need investment about five years before the project is built out. The floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme has provided financial support for Port Talbot, although I understand that it has not yet been deployed. However, other ports in the region are needed to deploy floating offshore wind.
A multi-port strategy needs to be pursued in the Celtic sea to make the most of all the existing ports and specialisms. We have a port in Falmouth, which is mainly why I am here, but there are others in Appledore, Plymouth and Milford Haven, so many ports and port clusters could be got up to speed to help develop floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea. Unfortunately, France is ahead of us; it has committed €900 million to the port of Brest, so we need to catch up. The Government’s £1.8 billion for ports in the national wealth fund could really help to provide the leading investment and certainty required to kick-start the port investment, if it is done quickly and in a strategic way.
The focus of developers in the Celtic sea is currently on the stepping stone, or test and demonstration, projects, which have an important role in giving confidence to the industry and reducing the costs and risk of future commercial-scale projects. There are currently two stepping stone projects in the Celtic sea that could be eligible to bid into the next contracts for difference auction round: Erebus and White Cross. However, both projects face challenges with planning issues, bottlenecks onshore in Devon, and investment.
Hexicon’s TwinHub project is the first and only FLOW project in the Celtic sea to win a contract for difference so far in allocation round 4. It consists of two turbines in Cornwall council’s Wave Hub. However, it now faces the same rising costs as the rest of the renewable energy sector, as well as the challenge of developing a supply chain in a region that has not yet had the opportunity to do so. The contract for difference price has become less viable over time. As a more expensive, smaller test model, it was never going to be commercially viable in that way, but as a stepping stone project, it is crucial to the development of FLOW and associated supply chains in the Celtic sea.
There are options available, such as making a deal with the end user for the energy or allowing TwinHub to rebid for a lower CfD price. A proactive and creative solution needs to be found to make those test and demonstration projects viable, and to scale them up in the long run. A consistent pipeline of leasing rounds in CfDs is key to scaling up skills and supply chains ahead of commercial projects coming forward for development. They would encourage developers to commit to the region, lay down roots, and plan ahead and invest.
Annual option fees also have an impact on developers’ ability to use local supply chains that need more time to establish. That increases costs and pushes projects towards using overseas supply chains, removing the benefits for local communities and investments into the region. More could be done by the Crown Estate to support local supply chains, and once the Crown Estate Bill has become law and investment funds are set up between developers and the Crown Estate, that could change. Falmouth port is prepared to match Government funding to get up to speed to support the TwinHub project. There is a risk that the economic benefits of the project may go overseas without additional funding to help develop the supporting onshore industry.
The development of FLOW in the Celtic sea will need huge amounts of mooring line, electric cables and anchors, which the region is currently not ready to supply. A unifying strategy is needed to encourage the necessary investment to develop those capabilities, along with others across the region. The floating offshore wind taskforce has identified realisable UK value in key components for floating wind, such as installation, mooring and anchors, concrete platforms, steel platforms, operation, maintenance and development services, ports and logistics, and array cables.
At present, the national grid is a large barrier for projects. The TwinHub project has been struggling to get the full grid capacity that it needs until 2037. We need a far-sighted and co-ordinated approach from the National Energy System Operator, which has been newly nationalised. NESO is beginning a holistic network design with the Crown Estate, but that needs to happen quickly and to be scaled up. The Celtic sea is a nationally, and potentially globally, important infrastructure project, and as such, it requires a specific strategic focus from central Government.
Having a GB Energy strategy on Celtic sea FLOW, with hopefully a presence in the region—maybe in Cornwall—would support co-ordination of infrastructure, industry and workforce. However, a complex set of stakeholders is involved, including government at all levels: national, devolved, Welsh nation, and different levels of south-west councils, as well as The Great South West, which is a pan-regional economic partnership. There is also Celtic Sea Power, and the newly set up Cornwall FLOW Commission, which has already done some of the work required to co-ordinate the supply chain and work out how to produce a skilled workforce—this needs a concentrated focus. There is currently no joined-up spatial strategy for the Celtic sea. Consultation on that strategy for the ocean, with fishers, conservationists and scientists, needs to be done very soon.
Having a unified strategy would enable phased development and, crucially, would support the prioritisation of investment in infrastructure and the local supply chain. It would also help streamline planning. Current planning and consent is too slow. A project currently takes an average of 15 years to move from leasing to operation. To reach the Government’s net zero goals, we need to speed up the process. For example, the White Cross test and demonstration project in north Devon has been struggling to get planning consent for more than 18 months.
What do we need? What are the key asks to get this going? A one-size-fits-all approach for the UK has not produced the necessary investment to get floating offshore wind off the ground in the Celtic sea. By putting it in direct competition with the North sea, the Celtic sea is likely to continue to lose out and the UK will lose the opportunity to harness all the benefits FLOW can bring. AR7 could, and should, ringfence funding for floating offshore wind, along either geographical or technological lines. Geographical ringfencing would remove direct competition with the North sea. Technological ringfencing would improve the competitive position of the test and demo stepping stone projects, which are so crucial to getting commercial sites up and running and which play a critical role in maintaining investor confidence in the region.
To overcome the challenges of developing onshore supply chain capabilities to deploy FLOW in the Celtic sea, the Government could support collaborative and strategic investment in ports, rather than putting them in competition with one another as FLOWMIS did. A specific targeted wealth fund could be created to invest in infrastructure, supply chain and to lever in private investment, with particular focus on ports. In the short term, we can have logistics hubs and technologies to include temporary portside space like Tugdock in the south-west. But long term, we need to invest not only in our ports and infrastructure, but in our rail, road and digital.
A co-ordinated approach to how the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the Crown Estate, GB Energy and the national wealth fund exercise their procurement and auction processes, and the use of World Trade Organisation and trade and co-operation agreement exceptions for reasons of national energy security and net zero targets, could give freedom to add clauses into contracts and leases to encourage local supply chain building and workforce training investment by developers. Some developers have expressed interest in doing that and are even setting up headquarters to co-ordinate it. The Crown Estate’s option fees and the rules around how they are used could be reconsidered, so that they could be deployed as a catalyst for greater investment in that regional supply chain. DESNZ and the Crown Estate could put supply chain social value and biodiversity net gain incentives directly into those local delivery mechanisms.
We have world-class further education colleges in Cornwall that are ready to step up and provide the specialisms and scale of the workforce we need, but we need direction, funding and a long-term career pathway. We have discussed previously a FLOWmark programme to build up those skills specifically for this industry in our region.
In summary, we need a unified national strategy for floating offshore wind and a regional masterplan for FLOW in the Celtic sea. Without the strategy, we risk losing out on the benefits of this nationally important infrastructure project, including its export potential. We risk the goal of reaching clean energy by 2030. There is a huge future in the Celtic sea, and we need to reach out and grasp it.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
We have plenty of time for this debate. I remind Members to bob in their places if they intend to speak, so I have some idea of who will contribute.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) for expressing so eloquently the challenges we face in the Celtic sea. I would point to the work that we have been doing in our all-party group for the Celtic sea to look at this issue from a regional perspective. The opportunities are so vast that this is not a situation where competing interests are trying to divvy things up, so to speak. There is sufficient food at the table for all.
We have exceptional natural resources: high average wind speeds of eight metres per second and water depths of 50 metres. These unique conditions provide the framework for us to achieve the election manifesto commitments that we, as a party, have put at the front and centre of our agenda: clean energy and economic growth.
In my constituency, in Pembrokeshire, one in four children is living in poverty, and these serious systemic issues stretch back over multiple generations. The oil and gas industry radically transformed my constituency, but over time we have gone from having four oil refineries to having just one. We have transferred into natural gas—we have liquefied natural gas—but the challenge, as a result of that decline, is to work out what the alternative is for people in my constituency. How can we ensure that the brightest and the best can remain in the county, succeed in the jobs of the future and see that just transition happen?
The opportunity is there; floating offshore wind is our opportunity—if it is not, then what is? It is our opportunity to bring back prosperity and opportunity and to give people in my constituency hope. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth set out the challenges we face, and it is incumbent on us—not only as individual Members of Parliament but as a party of social justice and change—to rise to meet those challenges.
We have been partnering with the Crown Estate and looking at supply chains. We have to tackle the issue of ports. We have to look at CfD and, fundamentally, at the picture on skills. At the end of 2023, there was a total of about 230 MW net of installed floating offshore wind. There was 101 MW in Norway, 78 MW in the UK, 25 MW in Portugal, 23 MW in China, 5 MW in Japan, and 2 MW in both France and Spain. It is unusual, and incredibly exciting, that the UK can play its part in leading on a technology. Not only are we at the forefront of this transition and of combating the global challenge of climate change, but we are looking to play our part in the reindustrialisation process.
Let me turn to the Crown Estate. There have been issues, which my hon. Friend has alluded to, including annual option fees. The annual option fees placed on the leasing round will have a devastating effect on the commercial viability of developers in facilitating the conditions to take forward that reindustrialisation package, provide the new jobs and do that domestic manufacturing, such as the fabrication—anchors and cabling.
The Crown Estate produced a report saying that the first 5.5 GW would involve 5,000 jobs and require 260 turbines, 1,000 anchors and 900 km of cables. But where are those things going to be produced? Will it be in Spain or South Korea? No. I want them done in Pembrokeshire—I want to produce anchors and cabling in Pembrokeshire. I want a future for Port Talbot in providing steel for that fabrication and those substructures. The prize is there—we just have to seize it.
It simply is not good enough for the Crown Estate to sit and think about maximising its own revenue generation from the seabed. It is the Crown Estate’s time to step up. We as a Government have united with it—in terms of the legislation currently going through the House, and in allowing it to have greater borrowing power—but the time for action is now. The Crown Estate cannot sit behind WTO rules and use them as an excuse for inaction; it must seize the day and take control, and in doing so create the right conditions within the leasing round and create the pipeline that we need. Without that pipeline, there can be no security for the developers or the local supply chain. We need to have a clear route as to how we can realise the 25 GW that has been set out. This whole project cannot be about maximising the 12% for the Crown Estate—that is greed. This must go beyond basic greed—one of the seven deadly sins. The Crown Estate cannot be obsessed with maximising its revenue for the sake of greed. This is a project for the benefit of the Celtic sea and the country, and we undertake it because it is so vital.
With the supply chain, there are plenty of opportunities in terms of the numbers, as I have set out. There is exponential growth, from 4.5% to 12% to 25%, which must be set out clearly. As those numbers increase, so will the demand in the supply chain. However, the challenge for local developers, particularly those I have spoken to in my Pembrokeshire constituency, is that there is no certainty of revenue. They cannot plan those contracts, because they are not in place, and they are not in place because there is a lack of strategic planning and the conditions have not been set up. If a developer came in, bid for a seabed lease and got it, they would be hit with annual option fees, and they have had to pay through the nose to get the lease. Why would they pay a 20% uplift on an anchor in Milford Haven when they could go and get it from overseas in whichever country they chose that has the lowest common denominator on price? There is an up-front capital cost here, but the prize is in the long-term realisation of the benefit: cheaper bills, reindustrialisation and the UK once again leading as an industrial, manufacturing force. That is no small prize.
I repeat the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth about the challenges facing Port Talbot in getting the money out the door from FLOWMIS, but we have equal challenges in the port of Milford Haven. We need to have confidence, and that confidence comes from Government and from setting those conditions. I have been incredibly encouraged by the words of my hon. Friend the Minister, which is absolutely fantastic, and by the national wealth fund. We now have these mechanisms from our Labour Government in place to create the foundation and confidence for the private sector to invest in ports, and that is where it will all stem from.
This is about the ports and the supply chain, but it is also about the skills. In my constituency, we have the great Pembrokeshire college, which has been doing fantastic work with the private sector to improve the facilities available to students. We recently unveiled a new facility with Shell, which has invested £1 million in Pembrokeshire college. These partnerships between the public and private sectors to upskill people and address the skills gap are so fundamental, but we must have that co-ordinated strategy. Without that, things fall apart because of how complex and difficult this issue is.
We are coming from a situation where we did not have an industrial strategy and where, under the previous Government, the market would decide. We would create the conditions, then we would go to the lowest common denominator on price, and it could be anyone’s business. That is not the way that we approach things. We have a strong lead from this Government. We create the conditions in respect of public investment, allowing and facilitating private investment. That is the way we try to have reindustrialisation and address regional inequality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth made a critical point about contracts for difference, which fall squarely in DESNZ. The issue we have had with these stepping-stone projects is that floating offshore wind is an inherently nascent industry, and it is not well suited to that competitive framework, which is driven by the lowest cost per MWh. Fixed wind did not have to contend with that when it began as an industry and a technology, so we are forcing floating offshore wind to play in an inherently competitive market to which it is totally ill suited.
On the topic of grid, capacity is a real difficulty and will be a real challenge. We have a grid connection in Pembroke coming out of RWE at the Pembroke Net Zero Centre. If we can get that pipeline, the power coming off these turbines will be phenomenal and could meet half the UK’s power needs. We have to meet that challenge, so I am glad the Labour Government are taking the bull by the horns, if that is the right expression, by attempting to change the national grid.
The key is merit: we have to prioritise these projects. It comes back to the fundamental question of delivery; the project is complex, and the crux of all of this—the crux of the Government, if I may be so bold—is delivery. It is an honour to be part of this debate, which is about pushing this agenda forward.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) on securing this debate on floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) for his passionate words.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth identified the opportunity and the challenge at hand, and I am pleased to complement the framework that she set out. I will emphasise the cross-cutting issue of skills, and the importance, right across Cornwall, of developing Falmouth port. The development of floating offshore wind technology in the Celtic sea represents not just a renewable energy opportunity, but a chance to transform Cornwall’s economy and establish the UK as a global leader in clean energy.
In terms of the share of renewables in our total energy mix, fixed offshore wind, supported by contracts for difference, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire mentioned, has been and will continue to be crucial, as the recent NESO report pointed out. The UK has been able to capture jobs in the development, operation and maintenance phases of the fixed offshore wind supply chain, but not in the capital phase, such as manufacturing and installation. Most of the parts the UK uses are deployed from mainland European ports, using imported components. Despite the successful roll-out of fixed offshore turbines, we can learn from these issues, as floating offshore wind represents the next generation of technology out in the Celtic sea.
In 2023, Tim Pick from the Clean Power 2030 Advisory Commission published an independent report on offshore wind, in which he highlighted the case of Kincardine floating offshore wind farm. I am taking the debate from the Celtic sea up to Scotland because the report describes how the foundations for new floating offshore wind structures were made in Spain, at great expense, taken to Rotterdam for assembly, using locally sourced components to keep down costs, and finally towed to Scotland and installed. That is indicative of the offshore supply chain, and it means that fixed offshore wind has not captured as many jobs in the UK as it could do.
The Celtic sea floating offshore wind sector has the potential to create about 5,300 jobs across Cornwall, the south-west of England and, yes, Pembrokeshire in south Wales. There remains a real risk that we will not grasp the potential by building up the local workforce. We need to demonstrate that young people and skilled workers do not need to migrate from Cornwall for well-paid employment opportunities in the green economy.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire said, floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea is a relatively nascent industry, which means that its skills and workforce need to be supported, planned and nurtured. If we do not do this, the industry will not be able to recruit the staff needed for these vocational and technical skills.
A reactive, short-term approach to upskilling will be inadequate. We need to look at a long-term strategic approach to workforce development, one that focuses on clear, sustainable career pathways, such as floating platforms assembly, welding and marine licence development. Those are just a few examples of the strong pipeline of talent needed for the floating offshore wind sector and the skills required to populate the vacancies in the supply chain. I am pleased it was announced this week that the Blue Abyss facility near Newquay has received match funding from the Crown Estate’s supply chain accelerator fund.
To make this vision a reality, collaboration is key. We need a collective effort to build workforce capacity in preparation for the opportunity presented by this new sector. Every stakeholder has a role to play, from individual learners engaged in skills training to schools, further education colleges, higher education institutions, independent training providers and the private sector and future employers.
There are several examples in Cornwall, most notably the University of Exeter’s Penryn campus, which hosts the largest number of top 10 climate change scientists in the world and produces world-leading courses. There are apprenticeships at Truro and Penwith college and vocational opportunities at Falmouth marine school and Cornwall college in Camborne and Redruth, which is barely one mile away from South Crofty tin mine, which would be a major beneficiary of a development of Falmouth port.
We know there are structural imbalances when it comes to qualifications. According to Skills England, 38% of people in Cornwall have level 4 qualifications or above, compared with 61% in London. The new growth and skills levy, which will enable employers to access a broader range of high-quality training offers, will be fundamental if applied to this sector. Skills England will act as a vital bridge between industrial strategy, training providers and businesses.
I turn briefly to Falmouth port and the infrastructure in relation to the Celtic sea. As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth said, we must regenerate Falmouth port to enable the roll-out of floating offshore wind. We must ensure that it becomes a key hub for operations and maintenance. To have the best opportunity to achieve economic growth and increase productivity, we need to build up our supply chain. As turbines increase in size with the proliferation of floating offshore wind, there is a need for larger-scale and better-equipped port facilities in general. That should be partnered with local manufacturing.
Floating offshore wind sub-structures alone can measure up to 80 metres across and weigh thousands of tonnes, with the turbines themselves expected to reach as high as 300 metres. Ports need adequate quays, crane capacity and lay-down space to accommodate these vast engineering structures, so where better to develop than the third-deepest natural harbour in the world at Falmouth?
To echo comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth, we need the Crown Estate to lease more projects in the Celtic sea and we need to ringfence the funding for the Celtic sea at the next auction round. We must work towards building up the capacity at Falmouth port. If we are to realise a just transition, we must ensure that it delivers as much opportunity for UK businesses and communities as possible. Successive Governments have failed to deliver the benefits to communities. The Cornish Celtic tiger can drive the world-leading deployment of floating offshore wind at commercial scale and sow the seed for a cluster of expertise and experience right across the sector.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), who spoke so lucidly about the challenges we face in building a home-grown supply chain and heeding the lessons of history. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) on securing it.
Floating offshore wind represents a truly transformative opportunity for Cornwall and the broader UK—an opportunity to bring jobs to our region while turbocharging the UK’s energy transition. Cornwall’s deep maritime heritage and strategic location uniquely positions us to be at the forefront of the floating offshore wind industry. The Celtic sea’s vast potential for renewable energy production can meet the challenges of deeper water, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) rightly suggested, and those challenges cannot easily be met by our traditional fixed offshore wind industry.
With 4.5 GW of flow capacity envisaged for the region, we can power millions of homes with clean energy while creating around 5,300 jobs and delivering £1.5 billion of gross value added to the local economy, with around a third of that expected to arise in Cornwall, which can play its role in championing the southern side of the Celtic sea.
In Cornwall the opportunity is not abstract: it is very much tangible. With the natural advantages of Falmouth harbour, which we have heard so much about, with its deep-water access and existing maritime infrastructure, Falmouth is truly a flagship location for our floating offshore wind Celtic sea cluster. Its impact will extend far beyond the Truro and Falmouth constituency because, for constituencies like mine—St Austell and Newquay—the ripple effects of job creation, skills development and supply chain growth can be significant.
From the industrial engineering of components to logistical support, floating offshore wind can energise industries that in many cases already exist across the spine of Cornwall. To make the vision a reality we need political leadership and co-ordination. Central Government must work hand in hand, ideally with a devolved Government in Cornwall, with floating offshore wind at the heart of their industrial strategy. They must work with the Crown Estate and developers and educational institutions to address the barriers that hold back the industry. Only through a unified strategic focus can floating offshore wind reach its potential.
Floating offshore wind requires a new generation of skilled workers in maritime engineering, fabrication and supply chain logistics. That is why I will soon meet the Skills Minister to urge Skills England to adopt a long-term perspective on the industry and its development locally. Institutions like Falmouth marine school, as we have heard, and certainly Cornwall college, which is also based in my constituency, are already laying the groundwork, but they need substantial and sustained investment to scale up the training programmes. We must ensure that young people in Cornwall have access to the skills and qualifications necessary to thrive in the sector and share in the great prosperity it can bring to our part of the world.
The scale of investment required is truly substantial. As we have heard, ports like Falmouth need to upgrade to become hubs for assembly operations and maintenance. I am working closely with the national wealth fund to ensure that Cornwall features prominently in its pipeline of prospective investments. We also need the tailored mechanisms we have heard about, such as contracts for difference that account for the higher costs and early-stage challenges of projects in this part of Britain. Without those, developers may turn elsewhere, and Cornwall in particular risks missing out on this once-in-a-generation opportunity.
For Cornwall to realise the full benefits of floating offshore wind, our public infrastructure must be developed alongside it and be up to the task. Improved road, rail and grid connections are essential. We need a freight line down to the Falmouth docks, we need the spine of Cornwall’s infrastructure network to be strong, and we need to ensure that Tamar crossings do not financially disadvantage local residents or businesses or the logistics supply chain associated with the industry. We must ensure the seamless movement of goods and people.
The Crown Estate has a pivotal role in championing the floating offshore wind industry and showcasing Cornwall’s strengths and potential. I welcome its recent decision to award match funding to Blue Abyss, which is in my constituency and is a world-class facility poised to become the centre of innovation for offshore wind energy and maritime technology. It is a really strong signal from the Crown Estate, but there is much more to be done. We need to continue to prioritise local supply chain development and work actively with local stakeholders to ensure that Cornwall’s potential is fully recognised and utilised.
The development of floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea is more than just an energy initiative. It is an economic and social catalyst with the power to revitalise our communities, tackle regional inequalities and cement Britain’s position as a global leader in renewable energy. For Cornwall, it is an opportunity for us to build our maritime heritage and to shape a sustainable future. To achieve this, we need a clear strategy that brings together Government, industry and educational institutions. We need a spatial strategy that works hand in glove with the fishing industry to make sure this is a success for every part of our community, and we need the investment in skills, infrastructure and local supply chains to get this off the ground and to ensure that local people feel the prosperity.
We need to act urgently to secure contracts, funding, investment and confidence to unlock the full potential of FLOW and Cornwall’s role in it. I urge the Government to seize this moment and commit to the co-ordinated action we need to deliver on the promise of floating offshore wind. Together, we can harness the power of the Celtic sea to light our homes, power our industries and create a legacy of sustainable prosperity for Cornwall and beyond.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) for securing this important debate and for championing our fantastic Duchy of Cornwall as a green investment hub.
Offshore wind in the Celtic sea represents a huge opportunity to support the UK’s energy transition. The Liberal Democrats welcome with open arms any Government plans to invest in the sector. Not only will the turbines in the Celtic sea bring renewable energy to more than 4 million homes, but they will help to limit our dependence on fossil fuels, create jobs right across the south-west and stimulate much-needed economic growth in our coastal areas. These areas, and the offshore wind sector as a whole, were completely abandoned by the previous Conservative Government, and I am glad to see such an important industry finally getting the recognition it deserves.
The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth rightly talked about the need for the Government to reach carbon reduction goals; obviously, the project in the Celtic sea is vital to that objective. She also emphasised the five-year minimum lead time for investment, which highlights the urgency of this issue.
The hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) talked about keeping young people in his constituency in highly skilled jobs. That has been highlighted by other Cornish Members and, as a Member representing a Cornish constituency, I think that is so crucial. This project is such an enormous opportunity to do just that. The hon. Gentleman also alluded the Crown Estate’s stifling competition, which I will come to later.
The hon. Member for Camborne, Redruth and Hayle (Perran Moon) rightly pointed out that in projects of this nature the majority of turbine parts are imported from Europe. We clearly need to see a much greater volume of manufacturing here in the UK.
The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) talked about Cornwall’s deep maritime heritage. Like other Cornish Members, he championed the deep-water port of Falmouth. He also alluded to the need for a devolved Government in Cornwall to fully unleash the duchy’s green energy revolution. He also talked about transport infrastructure investment, citing it as an essential precursor to this revolution.
It would be remiss of me not to point out that when the Liberal Democrats ran the Department for Energy and Climate Change, we quadrupled the amount of energy generated from renewables. We recognise that the offshore wind industry can, and will, play a vital role in reducing our carbon emissions and hitting net zero targets, not to mention the benefits of increasing our energy security in this country, thus reducing our dependence on fossil fuels from Putin and other foreign despots.
Offshore wind in the Celtic sea in particular has the vast potential of becoming a powerhouse in renewable energy generation and will help to propel this country to the place of a world leader in the industry. However, we believe that much greater investment is needed in skills and training to prepare local supply chains and enable these communities to play a key role in the global build-out of floating offshore wind.
Some concerns have also been raised with me about the role of the Crown Estate, which have also been referred to by other hon. Members. The Crown Estate appears to have determined cheaper and lower-risk deep fixed foundation designs, and has been excluded from the licence bids. That, of course, narrows the pool of bidders quite significantly, whereas the key objective should be delivery. The priority should be to issue licences that can be brought into production as soon as possible to drive down the UK’s carbon emissions. Therefore, issuing licences that require projects 30 times the size of the UK’s largest operational project feels like a risky leap, and could struggle to attract investment, as well as competition between bidders. It is also important to consult and work alongside groups such as the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation when considering a project at that scale, being careful not to impinge on the livelihoods of Cornish fishermen. Those groups are not inherently anti-offshore wind, but they urge, in their words, “sense and balance” when planning offshore developments.
As Liberal Democrats, we always emphasise the need for public engagement to ensure that communities are involved and engaged throughout the process.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham). This is an important subject, successfully championed by the last Conservative Government, and I am glad of the chance to discuss it today. The hon. Lady’s passion and ambition for her seat, and for all of Cornwall, are clear and do her great credit. These are complex issues involving major projects, long supply chains, and many public and private sector groups, which she has clearly taken a lot of time to understand. I am sure the Minister will be grateful for her suggestions. Her points, especially on the need for co-ordination between public and private investment, and bringing in planning and skills, are well made.
The hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) outlined the size of the opportunity. Floating offshore wind is a substantial potential prize, not just for the climate but for Britain’s reindustrialisation. I am sure his all-party parliamentary group for the Celtic sea much appreciates his contribution—as is the case, I am sure, for the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth. I look forward to seeing those anchors from Pembrokeshire and they are lucky to have him to champion them.
The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) is another committed advocate for the great county of Cornwall and the fantastic economic potential of south-west England and, of course, south Wales. He is right that workforce development must be strategic, coherent and long term, and I was fascinated to hear of the outstanding university and college courses available, including in his own constituency—a “Cornish Celtic tiger” indeed.
The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) also discussed skills, and I hope his upcoming meeting with the Skills Minister is as fruitful as he hopes it will be. His constituents, I am sure, will be very pleased to hear of all he is doing to stand up for the infrastructure his area needs, as well as for the exciting supply chain and marine technology leadership that he describes.
I was a little surprised to hear the view of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) that the area was neglected by the last Government. Successive Conservative Governments took renewable electricity generation from just 7% in 2010 to over half by the second quarter of this year. We made the UK the global leader in offshore wind, with more capacity installed than any other country, powering more than 7.5 million homes.
The last Conservative Government committed a £1 billion investment to green industries through the green industries growth accelerator, aimed at advancing technologies such as offshore wind. The investment aimed to leverage up to £90 billion over a decade. Will the Minister please update us on how much of that has been spent since the Labour Government took office, and how much is being directed to floating offshore wind?
This debate is, of course, about the Celtic sea, but I am conscious that in the North sea, the Chinese company Ming Yang Wind Power Group is poised to construct hundreds of floating wind turbines, if that is approved by the SNP. Ming Yang benefits from massive state subsidies in China. Will the Minister please assure us that, be it in the North sea, the Celtic sea or anywhere else, he will not allow any wind turbines to be built and controlled by hostile states, undermining both market fairness and our national security, in any of Britain’s waters?
The previous Government set up the floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme, investing £160 million in two ports. One of these was Port Talbot, which is well placed to serve Celtic sea floating offshore wind. The investment was welcomed for supporting job creation in south Wales and the wider UK supply chain. The Crown Estate later set out its plans for a new generation of floating wind farms in the Celtic sea, with the potential to power a further 4 million homes. Will the Minister please assure us that this exciting project, and the investment secured under the last Government, will not get lost in the cost and bureaucracy of setting up GB Energy? Will he outline the impact on energy bills of the higher strike price put into auction round 5 by this Government and recommit to the Government’s manifesto promise to lower energy bills by £300? This Government inherited global leadership in offshore wind, which is something I am sure we can all be proud of. The Celtic sea presents a fantastic opportunity to build on that record.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) on securing this debate and for all the work she does in championing her area, and the Celtic sea more broadly. We have had a number of conversations and debates on energy-related policy and she is a real champion for her constituency.
I thank all hon. Members this afternoon for their passionate contributions to the debate. I do not know what the collective noun is for a group of Cornish Celtic tigers and one Welsh one, but they made fantastic contributions and I think that gives us a sense of how seriously new MPs are taking the future of their constituencies. We should be proud of that.
The key issues that have been raised today, of the grid, supply chains, skills, planning, and getting the balance right so that we bring communities along with us in much of this—the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) put that well—are important. It was nice to hear the hon. Gentleman speak about the coalition Government, as we do not hear enough about them these days. I encourage him to say much more about them in future debates, but I suspect that he will not.
Let me first speak about the context of the debate and I will then answer some of the specific questions. I think the “why” of our being in this race and transition is important. Why are we pushing to deliver clean power by 2030? The truth is that it is an imperative if we are going to meet our long-term goal of a net zero economy and deliver economic growth and energy security. They are intrinsically linked.
A number of hon. Members have raised the point about the potential of jobs in industry in communities that have, in many cases, been forgotten for a long time. The rates of poverty and underemployment in those communities underlines how important it is that we bring about new opportunities. I think the point about legacy raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell). This is not just a transition for the sake of a transition; the aim is to deliver good, well-paid jobs for future generations and to make it a prosperous transition for many communities.
We are in no way missing the scale of the challenge. Delivering clean power by 2030 will require us to rip up the rule book on how Governments deliver big projects and to take a radically different approach to how we deliver change at pace. It means working in lockstep with communities and with the private sector to rapidly address the barriers that hold us back, which have all been raised today, so that we can deliver unprecedented levels of new clean energy infrastructure.
The Government received the National Energy System Operator’s advice on achieving a clean power system by 2030. It shows that this is not only achievable, but can create a cheaper, more secure system. The advice will inform the Government’s clean power 2030 action plan, which will be published imminently and will set out our route to decarbonising the electricity grid with the aims of protecting billpayers from volatile gas prices, strengthening Britain’s energy security and accelerating us towards net zero.
I hope all hon. Members will agree that we are on the cusp of a once-in-a-generation transformation of our energy system, led by a Government that is determined not to be a passenger on the big questions of the day, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) put it, to drive forward radical change. The infrastructure that we deploy now and in the years ahead will set in train decades of energy security, stability, and prosperity for every part of the UK. Key to that will be the role played by offshore wind and, in particular, floating offshore wind. I will focus on that in the rest of my remarks.
Offshore wind will play a crucial role in our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower and deliver clean power by 2030. At 14.8 GW of generation, we have the highest deployment in Europe and the second highest in the world. As my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth said so eloquently, the UK is a global leader. These days there are not many things in which we can still have a claim to be that, but this is one that we must ensure we maintain.
The new technology unlocks deeper areas of the seabed that can benefit from stronger and more consistent winds, helping us to secure our energy supply and to deliver on our statutory decarbonisation obligations. Our floating offshore capacity is second only to Norway. At around 25 GW, we have the largest pipeline of floating offshore projects anywhere in the world. Of course, in the Celtic sea, there is enormous potential for floating offshore wind, and we are determined to take advantage of the opportunities that that represents. Earlier this year, the floating offshore wind taskforce estimated that floating offshore wind could contribute £47 billion in GVA to the UK economy by 2050 and support up to 97,000 jobs across the country, so we are hard at work, right across Government and in the private sector, to make sure that we realise the vast potential of this opportunity.
The test and demonstration projects, which a number of hon. Members have rightly raised, total 432 MW of capacity in development in the Celtic sea. They are crucial not just for the capacity that they generate, but for helping us to understand the supply chains and the development and for building the skills in the future. We want to see many of these projects succeed, and Government are doing everything we can to support the projects.
Under the offshore wind leasing round that the Crown Estate recently launched, a further 4.5 GW of floating wind capacity in the region will have an impact of up to 5,300 new jobs and a £1.4 billion boost to the economy. We are determined that by working together with the Crown Estate on an innovative approach to this leasing round, we can ensure that there is new industry that provides social and economic opportunities for communities right across the country. It is important for us to say that this is this Government’s absolutely key priority, that we are not agnostic on the industrial future of this country and that we want to see the good, well-paid jobs here as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth rightly highlighted the example of Kincardine, and there are other projects where all the parts were manufactured abroad and towed into our waters simply to start generating. That is the part of this that we do not want to see again. We want to see the good, well-paid jobs here.
That is why the Crown Estate has launched a £50 million supply chain accelerator to fund and accelerate supply chain projects. The 13 successful organisations are set to receive funding in the initial round. Just yesterday we were able to announce more details on these. It is the case that £5 million of funding was awarded to kick-start a range of projects across Great Britain, contributing to a combined development investment of more than £9 million, with £400 million of capital investment. As has been mentioned, the partnership that Great British Energy, the first publicly owned energy company in 70 years, has with the Crown Estate is about trying to drive forward even more of those opportunities right across the country.
The issue of ports has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members. They clearly will play a vital role in the deployment and maintenance of offshore wind infrastructure. Up to £4 billion of investment is required by 2040 to support the roll-out of floating offshore wind. That is why the FLOWMIS scheme, which is providing grant funding to support the development of port infrastructure, is so important.
The shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), rightly referenced the importance of Port Talbot and the port of Cromarty Firth in the FLOWMIS scheme. We are moving forward due diligence on that as quickly as possible. It is one of a number of in-progress decisions that we inherited from the previous Government, on which we are moving as quickly as possible to actually deliver, so that the funding can be put to good use as quickly as possible. It goes hand in hand with the creation of the national wealth fund, which will invest at least £5.8 billion of capital in the five sectors announced in our manifesto, including port infrastructure. That comes alongside some of the work already being done by the NWF in Ardersier port, the port of Tyne and Teesworks. To understand the barriers to port infrastructure, we are working closely with the ports task and finish group, led by RenewableUK, to ensure that we are building on the work that has already been done.
On the wider point of working together, which my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth raised earlier, DESNZ has a standing invitation to the Cornwall FLOW Commission, which Cornwall council is involved in. Officials regularly engage with all councils, including Cornwall council, on this and many other issues, and we are very happy to do more.
Let me turn, finally, to the point about industry. In the spring, we will publish the Government’s industrial strategy, which is our commitment to ensuring that good, well-paid and trade-unionised jobs come to these shores to deliver the energy transition as well as to a number of other sectors. Most recently, we announced the clean industry bonus as part of the CfD scheme, which rewards fixed and floating offshore wind developers that choose to invest in the UK’s poorest communities or in cleaner manufacturing facilities. A portion of that budget is ringfenced for floating offshore wind components.
On the broader points that hon. Members raised about the next contracts for difference rounds, we will say more about auction round 7 in due course. Clearly, it is important to recognise how much the industry has moved since the abject failure under the previous Government in auction round 5, in which much of the sector was flat on its back. We have moved as quickly as possible on AR6 to get projects over the line. We want to see more of these projects succeed, and we will have more to say imminently on AR7. There will also be a consultation on that process.
I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth for bringing forward this debate, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions and their real commitment to this issue. This is a Government who are determined to ensure that we realise our potential in communities right across this country and drive towards clean power by 2030. That is not as an end in itself, but because it will make energy in Britain cleaner, cheaper and more secure for our entire nation, reinvigorate long-neglected supply chains in clean energy and engineering, and return a sense of pride and prosperity to all parts of this country.
The road ahead will be challenging—no one comes into government just to tackle the easy stuff—but we are determined that together we will ensure that we achieve the most difficult task of all: by 2030, we will have a secure, cleaner energy system. The prize at the end is worth all that effort, and there is no point being in government if we are not going to tackle some of the long-term, difficult challenges. I once again thank hon. Members for participating in this debate and encourage them to keep up the challenge to Government as we ensure that we realise every single opportunity available to us in this most important sector.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
We have 27 minutes remaining, but this is not an invitation to make a 27-minute speech. The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) should take a few minutes to emphasise the key points that she wants to take away from the debate.
Jayne Kirkham
Thank you, Mr Efford; I certainly will not take 27 minutes. I thank the Minister and everybody who has come to this debate. I can tell by the passion how much we want this for the region, as has been set out by so many Members. We have some really deprived, post-industrial areas where we are, and, particularly in Cornwall, they have been post-industrial for a lot longer than other places. We could be a renewable gold mine. If we look at critical minerals, there is so much potential in Cornwall. It has become so desperately important that we start to realise some of those benefits, and there is enough for the whole of the region, for the south-west and for Wales. It is really important to note that this is a huge project.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) and I have taken over the APPG for the Celtic sea from the previous Member for North Devon and my predecessor in Truro and Falmouth, who did a lot of good work on it. It is brilliant to be able to take that work forward as fast as we can. The social value of this will be huge. I will emphasise again and again how important it is that we get there with the jobs and the supply chain and in bringing in some of that fabrication, if we can, such as the manufacturing, the operations and the maintenance, so that we do not have to tow things across the sea.
The clean industry bonus that the Minister spoke about is brilliant, but I want to emphasise how important the contracts for difference will be. They can be used and ringfenced to try to push forward some of the test and demo models; we will have the capacity to do that, if they are used properly to take forward the stepping stone projects. I was really pleased to hear what he said about ports. Our ports are ready to build, for so many reasons; floating offshore wind is one of them, but there are many others. The port task and finish group will be so important, as will having national and regional strategies for how our ports will work together.
On the supply chain and the workforce, I want to emphasise again the possibility of using contract clauses in the auction rounds. We are able to do that, despite World Trade Organisation rules, and perhaps we should think again about the option fees and how they could be ploughed back into areas to build the supply chain and stimulate local operations, assembly and fabrication.
I am very pleased to hear about the discussions with NESO and GB Energy, because the grid has been holding back so many projects across the country. It seems that those projects have been put in chronological order, rather than order of merit or importance. It is good that NESO is looking again at that. A completion date of 2037 for one of the projects was just crazy—we cannot be doing that. It has to change.
To finish—I certainly have not gone on for 27 minutes—I will say that we really need a unified strategy. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) was right about bringing people with us, including our fishers and environmentalists. There is huge space in the ocean for all of this to be done successfully, but it really needs championing and leading.
I accept the point about how politically dispersed we are in the south-west compared with regions such as Scotland, which has a national Government who can work with the UK Government. We do not have that in the south-west; we have councils and we have Wales, which is a devolved nation. It is harder to put everything together in one place, and various organisations, such as Celtic Sea Power and the new Cornwall FLOW Commission, are starting to do that, but leadership will be so crucial as we move forward. Finding out where that will come from—whether it is national leadership or regional leadership—will be a very important function of what we do going forward.
I thank you for your time, Mr Efford, and I thank all hon. Members for participating in today’s debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered floating offshore wind in the Celtic Sea.
Written Statements
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020: Review
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
The smooth functioning of the United Kingdom’s internal market is vital to achieving economic growth. People and businesses depend on being able to buy and sell goods, provide services, and work across the four nations of the United Kingdom.
The Government are committed to working closely with the devolved Governments to deliver effective outcomes for people across the UK. To ensure the efficiency of the UK’s internal market, the Government consider common frameworks to be the key fora for supporting collaborative policymaking processes in the areas they cover, managing policy divergence between the UK’s nations where it occurs, and maximising the benefits of taking different, innovative approaches in different parts of the UK. We are therefore committed to finishing the common frameworks programme as soon as possible.
The UK Internal Market Act’s market access principles for goods and services, and system for the recognition of professional qualifications across the UK, can also play an important role in protecting jobs and livelihoods and promoting growth across the whole UK. Where they apply, they allow businesses, consumers and professionals to comply with the regulations in the part of the UK they are based in, to sell goods and provide services across the whole UK.
However, we recognise that the operation of the UK Internal Market Act can be improved, including more certainty and clarity when considering proposals which remove areas of regulation from the scope of the market access principles. We believe that the UK Internal Market Act should complement common frameworks and support collaborative policymaking.
To improve the management of the UK internal market, the Government will deliver an initial package of measures to demonstrate a more pragmatic approach. This includes a recommitment to the principles for common frameworks agreed at the Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations) in October 2017 between the previous Government and devolved Governments. This recommitment includes:
Developing closer working relationships and increased transparency between the Government and the devolved Governments on UK internal market matters that impact significantly on devolved responsibilities within common frameworks;
Acknowledging the benefits of policy innovation and shared learning on policy development and implementation, while enabling the smooth functioning of the UK internal market;
Aiming to finalise the common frameworks programme by Easter 2025 ensuring the necessary structures exist for joined up intergovernmental discussions around regulatory divergence and implications for the performance of the UK internal market; and
Agreeing an exclusion from the UK Internal Market Act’s market access principles regarding the sale of rodent glue traps, in response to the Scottish Government’s previous proposal, as this Government recognise this proposal has a minimal economic impact on trade within the UK.
The Government then intend to launch the statutory review of the UK Internal Market Act in January 2025, seeking the views of a wide range of public stakeholders, with the aim of completing the review by summer 2025. This is earlier than the statutory deadline of December 2025, as we recognise the importance of formally considering the role of the UK Internal Market Act in the effective operation of the UK internal market.
As a statutory minimum, this review must cover use of the powers in part 1 (goods) and part 2 (services), including the powers to add, delete or amend exclusions from the scope of the Act, and the arrangements relating to the use of the Office of the Internal Market to perform the functions in part 4 of the Act, covering independent advice and monitoring of the UKIM.
However, the Government recognise the importance of fully considering the operation of the Act beyond the narrow statutory requirements. Therefore, the Government will broaden the scope of the review to include the practical operation of parts 1, 2 and 3 of the Act, including inviting views on the process for considering exclusions from the Act, and the role and functions carried out by the Office for the Internal Market as set out in part 4. We will directly engage the devolved Governments in conducting the review.
[HCWS299]
LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme Payments: Income Tax Exemption
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
Today, the Government have confirmed ex gratia payments made under the LGBT financial recognition scheme will be exempt from income tax. The scheme is designed to offer financial recognition to those who served under, and suffered from, the ban on LGBT personnel serving in HM armed forces between 1967 and 2000.
This decision to grant an income tax exemption ensures that applicants receive the full payment amount, marking an important step toward addressing the historic wrongs faced by LGBT personnel and veterans in the past.
The Government will legislate via secondary legislation to formalise this tax exemption in due course.
[HCWS305]
Covid-19 Day of Reflection 2025
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
I am today announcing that a UK-wide day of reflection will take place on Sunday 9 March 2025. I am pleased that one of the key recommendations of the independent UK Commission on Covid Commemoration, chaired by right hon. Baroness Morgan of Cotes, will be honoured next year, as it was in March 2024. By continuing to hold a day of reflection, in line with previous years, we hope to offer communities across the country the opportunity to join together in commemoration of those who lost their lives.
The UK Commission for Covid Commemoration was established to find appropriate ways to remember those who have lost their lives, and to consider how this period of our history could be marked. It held an extensive consultation with those most impacted by the covid-19 pandemic, including representatives from bereaved family organisations and published a final report with 10 recommendations. Its first recommendation is that
“a UK-wide day of reflection should be established and held annually”.
While the Government, since taking up office earlier this year, give careful consideration to the Commission’s full report, I am pleased that we are supporting communities in marking the impacts, losses and suffering of the pandemic in ways that are meaningful to them.
Sunday 9 March 2025 is an opportunity for communities across the UK to come together in a day of reflection for the covid-19 pandemic. People and communities will have the opportunity to join together in reflection and commemoration for those who lost their lives and for everyone impacted by the pandemic. On the day itself and in the week before, the public will be able to mark the day in ways that feel most appropriate and fitting to them, both in person and online.
2025 will mark the fifth year anniversary since the outbreak of the covid-19 pandemic and represents a significant milestone as we continue to remember all those affected.
The day of reflection is an opportunity for people to:
Remember and commemorate those who lost their lives since the pandemic began;
Reflect on the sacrifices made by many and the impact the pandemic had on the nation and our daily lives;
Pay tribute and honour the work of health and social care staff, frontline workers, researchers and all those who volunteered and showed acts of kindness during this unprecedented time.
I hope that Members of the House find ways to support their communities in marking this occasion, and are able themselves to join in, and reflect on this part of our shared national history.
[HCWS301]
LGBT Veterans: Etherton Review
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
This Government acknowledge the historic policy prohibiting homosexuality in the armed forces was regrettable, wrong and completely unacceptable. Following the publication of Lord Etherton’s review into the experience of LGBT veterans between 1967 and 2000, the intent behind all 49 recommendations were accepted by the previous Government and now backed by this Government. In the coming days, 42 of these 49 recommendations will have been delivered and the commitment remains to implement the remaining recommendations.
Recommendations 28 and 29 of Lord Etherton’s review referred to a financial award, an important tangible recognition to those affected under the ban between 1967 and 2000 and a way to show this Government’s commitment to accountability and rectification of systemic inequalities. That is why I am pleased today to announce that the LGBT financial recognition scheme will launch on 13 December, one year after the recommendation was formally accepted by the previous Government, with a budget of £75 million, 50% higher than the cap recommended in the Etherton report. The scheme intends to provide recognition to those impacted by the ban, and to express Defence’s regret of the policy it upheld between 1967 and 2000, not to compensate for loss of earnings.
The financial recognition scheme will include two types of payments, the first for those who were dismissed or discharged and the second for those who were impacted in other ways. This will acknowledge the suffering caused by the historic policy with payment levels being proportionate to the experiences of individuals.
The “LGBT dismissed or discharged payment” will be available to veterans who were dismissed or administratively discharged, including officers who were instructed to resign, based solely on their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity under the ban. Eligible applicants for this payment will receive a flat rate of £50,000 and may be eligible to apply for a further LGBT impact payment.
The “LGBT impact payment” will be available to those who experienced pain and suffering which was directly related to the ban, including harassment, invasive investigations and imprisonment. There will be 3 tariff levels with payments varying from £1,000 to £20,000 and this payment will be decided by an independent panel, separate from and independent of the Ministry of Defence.
The scheme will remain open for two years and all payments will be exempt from income tax and will not affect any means-tested benefits that an applicant receives. The Government recognise that some veterans impacted by the ban are seriously unwell, and the applications of terminally ill veterans will be prioritised.
Whilst the financial recognition scheme cannot undo the damage of the historic policy, it represents a meaningful effort to honour those impacted and provide a sense of closure.
In addition to the financial recognition scheme, I would like to also announce today, the implementation of two further restorative measures. Firstly, veterans who were administratively discharged during the ban, based solely on their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity, will now be able to apply to have this discharge qualified to set right their records, removing any blame or dishonour from those who served. Secondly, veterans who were reduced in rank as part of their dismissal or discharge can apply to have their rank restored, intending to recognise the achievements made during their service.
Finally, whilst not within the scope of Lord Etherton’s review which looked into experiences under the ban between 1967-2000, when HM armed forces policy differed from criminal law, this Government acknowledge that LGBT veterans serving before 1967 may have had similar experiences. That is why today, I would like to extend four non-financial restorative measures to this cohort. These veterans can now apply to have administrative discharges qualified, reduced rank restored and certificates of service re-issued, and former officers may apply to have their service details published in the Gazette, as part of the official record.
[HCWS306]
Operation Stifftail
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
Operation Stifftail, the UK’s deployment of the Sky Sabre ground-based air defence capability in Rzeszów, south-east Poland, has now concluded. Originally deployed in April 2022 and extended on four occasions at the request of the Polish Government, this has been a hugely successful operation that has significantly benefited the UK-Poland relationship, contributed to supporting Ukraine, bolstered NATO’s eastern flank, and furthered interoperability between our two armed forces.
Working as part of the Polish-led, multinational, integrated and multi-layered air defence network, the UK troops on Op Stifftail have demonstrated exceptional hard work, determination, and professionalism. The capability supported Poland’s wider air defence, contributing to Ukraine’s continued fight against Russia’s unprovoked and illegal invasion by protecting the logistics enabling node at Rzeszów, which facilitated the movement of most western military equipment donations to Ukraine and ensured the safe onward travel of Ukrainian recruits to undertake basic training in the UK. The equipment will now be reconstituted to the UK so that it can be made available for further use in 2025.
Op Stifftail has provided a consistent backdrop in a long line of UK-Polish military co-operation over the last three years. Alongside this operation, we have deployed a squadron of Royal Engineers to respond to the migrant crisis on the Belarusian border, a squadron of Challenger 2 tanks to support Poland’s donation of T72 tanks to Ukraine, and several RAF Typhoons to bolster the protection of Poland's airspace.
The UK will continue to stand with Poland and our other allies on NATO's eastern flank. The UK leads NATO's Forward Land Forces in Estonia and contributes a persistent presence to the US-led FLF effort in northern Poland. In the spring, we will deploy UK Typhoon fighter aircraft to Poland for the protection of Poland's airspace through NATO's enhanced air policing. We will also be sending a military engineering liaison officer to work closely with the Polish army to continue bolstering the security of Poland's eastern border with Belarus and Russia.
As well as delivering against their primary operational tasks, each of these deployments provide unique conditions for our armed forces to develop relationships, better understand our respective operating procedures, and ultimately form a bond of trust that ensures that when the time comes, we can deliver a gold standard of integration and interoperability and prove that we are stronger together and more than the sum of our parts.
[HCWS304]
Clinical Trials Regulations
(6 days, 8 hours 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 Health and Social Care, Baroness Merron, has made the following written statement:
I am pleased to announce that the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 have been laid before Parliament today. When approved by Parliament, this legislation will represent the most significant reform of UK clinical trials regulation in over 20 years, addressing the sector's need for a more efficient and adaptable regulatory framework, while safeguarding the wellbeing of trial participants. It will establish a proportionate, streamlined, flexible and effective clinical research environment, placing patients at the heart of the process and strengthening the UK’s position as a global leader for innovative clinical trials.
Clinical trials are essential for the safe development of medicinal products, allowing innovators to rigorously evaluate their products in healthy volunteers and patients. Through this, clinical trials provide a route for bringing pioneering new treatments directly to patients, serving as a crucial step in healthcare innovation. This legislation will play a vital role in transforming the environment for running clinical trials in the UK.
Modernising the regulatory framework will strengthen the UK’s standing as a prime destination for conducting groundbreaking, safe clinical trials. This supports the recommendations of the Lord O’Shaughnessy review, making the UK more attractive for commercial clinical trials and increasing opportunities for UK patients to have early access to innovative treatments that could improve or even save lives. These reforms will also help the NHS conduct trials more efficiently, fostering research that improves methods for preventing, diagnosing, and treating a wide range of conditions. Ultimately, this will expand patient access to new therapies and reinforce the NHS’s reputation as a world-leading platform for health and life sciences research.
The revised legislation aims to reduce unnecessary administrative burdens on trial sponsors while keeping participant safety at the forefront. By removing overly prescriptive elements, the legislation will introduce greater flexibility and risk-proportionality, reflecting the evolving nature of clinical trial design and the innovative treatments they investigate.
These reforms will:
Create a proportionate and flexible regulatory environment—the new legislation will empower researchers to take more risk appropriate approaches to trials, meaning the regulatory requirements will be more flexible to match the risk that a trial presents.
Cement the UK as a leading destination for international trials—the new legislation will introduce more streamlined and efficient application processes, making it easier to apply for trials in the UK but without compromising on safety standards. A combined regulatory and research ethics review will be brought into legislation and approval timelines will be internationally competitive.
Move away from a one-size-fits-all approach, to be responsive to innovation—the new legislation has been drafted to ensure it is as future-proof as possible and is responsive to different types of trials and innovative ways of carrying out trials. Guidance will be used for specific details, rather than granular and duplicative requirements in legislation.
Ensure patients and their safety are at the focus of all clinical trials and supported by greater transparency bring the benefits of clinical trials to everyone—the new legislation will ensure increased public transparency about trials, including a requirement for registration on a public database and sharing of trials results with participants.
The reforms were developed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Health Research Authority through a series of stakeholder workshops, seeking the views of a wide range of organisations and individuals from across the clinical research sector, including patient representatives. A public consultation took place in January to March 2022, to which over 2,000 responses were received, and the Government response was published in March 2023.
The regulations, along with the associated explanatory memorandum and de minimis assessment, an analysis of the impact of the reforms on business, will be published on gov.uk today.
[HCWS310]
Commercial Research Delivery Centres
(6 days, 8 hours 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 Health and Social Care, Baroness Merron, has made the following written statement:
Today, I am pleased to announce an ambitious expansion of commercial clinical research capabilities across the four nations of the UK through the establishment of 20 new commercial research delivery centres.
The CRDC programme will be funded across the UK by the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth investment programme and, in part, by the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health and Care Research in England. The VPAG Investment programme, a unique joint public-private partnership between the UK Government and the pharmaceutical industry agreed as part of the 2024 VPAG Scheme, aims to boost economic growth and the global competitiveness of the UK’s life sciences sector. This network of CRDCs is the first clinical trial infrastructure to receive funding from the VPAG investment programme to accelerate access to new medicines and vaccines to patients, through research.
Funding is being allocated to NHS organisations across all four UK nations, reinforcing the pan-UK commitment to research. The CRDCs cover the length and breadth of the UK from the Sussex coast to Aberdeen, including coverage across Wales and Northern Ireland, ensuring a truly UK presence. They will act as hubs for pioneering approaches in commercial clinical research delivery with a dedicated workforce and facilities and streamlined and efficient trial set-up to support industry trials. The CRDCs will enhance the UK’s competitiveness on the global health research stage and make it a destination of choice for life sciences innovation, supporting both the health and growth missions set by Government.
In a significant step forward, the CRDCs will bring clinical trials beyond large hospital trusts and into smaller hospital community settings and primary care. This will make research participation easier for people across our communities, including those currently underserved by research, ensuring that everyone can have access to new treatment through cutting-edge medical research.
Aligned with the UK Government’s missions to build a healthcare system fit for the future and kickstart economic growth, the CRDCs bring enhanced resource and infrastructure across the NHS, by growing research capacity and creating opportunities for collaboration with industry partners to trial new treatments. They will contribute to the strength and vitality of our life sciences sector, creating opportunities for growth and collaboration across the UK. This significant investment in commercial research delivery is a powerful signal of the UK’s commitment to the life sciences and it contributes to advancements in patient care to improve health outcomes for people across the UK.
[HCWS309]
Building the Homes we Need
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
This Government have inherited an acute and entrenched housing crisis. The average new home is out of reach for the average worker, housing costs consume a third of private renters’ income, and the number of children in temporary accommodation now stands at a historic high of nearly 160,000. Yet just 220,000 new homes were built last year and the number of homes granted planning permission has fallen to its lowest in a decade.
That is why the plan for change committed to rebuild Britain, with the hugely ambitious goal of delivering 1.5 million new homes this Parliament, and the vital infrastructure needed to grow our economy and support public services.
The Government have responded with the urgency this demands. We published a consultation on a revised national planning policy framework within a month of gaining office, proposing measures to reverse anti-supply changes introduced in December 2023 and in their place setting out pro-growth reforms. Since then, we have published proposals to prioritise and fast-track building on previously developed urban land through a brownfield passport and for speeding up decision making through modernisation of planning committees. Next year, we will introduce a planning and infrastructure Bill to speed up and streamline the planning process, to build more homes of all tenures and accelerate the delivery of major infrastructure projects. At the Budget on 30 October, we committed an additional £50 million to boost capacity to deliver this ambitious planning reform agenda, alongside providing an additional £500 million in grant for affordable housing, and further £3 billion of additional support to the private housing market, to translate permissions into build out.
Today’s publication marks the next step in delivering on our promise to radically reform the planning system. The measures set out below build on more than 10,000 consultation responses and extensive engagement with private house builders, affordable housing providers, local authorities and other organisations from the sector. Taken together, they reflect our commitment not to duck the hard choices that must be confronted in order to tackle the housing crisis—the alternative is a future in which a decent, safe, secure and affordable home is a privilege enjoyed only by some rather than being the right of all working people.
Restoring and raising housing targets
The plan-led approach is, and must remain, the cornerstone of our planning system. It is through local plans that communities shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development their area needs. But we are clear that these decisions must be about how to meet those needs, not whether to do so at all. We are therefore restoring mandatory housing targets. This means that local authorities must use the standard method as the basis for determining housing requirements in their local plans.
As we set out in July, a mandatory method is insufficient if the method itself is not adequate to meet housing need. We consulted on an ambitious revision of the existing standard method, increasing the total annual national target from 300,000 to 370,000, ending the reliance on decade-old population projections, and removing the arbitrary 35% urban uplift that resulted in a skewed national distribution, disproportionately focused on London to the detriment of the rest of the country. Instead, the new method relies on a baseline set at a percentage of existing housing stock levels, to better reflect housing pressures right across the country, and uses a stronger affordability multiplier to focus additional growth on those places facing the biggest affordability challenge.
We heard through the consultation that our method could go even further in targeting growth at those places where house prices are most removed from local incomes, and so we have made an adjustment to the method to make it more responsive to demand pressures. The final method now incorporates an even stronger affordability adjustment—nearly four times as strong as the inherited formula. This will have the effect of altering the distribution, increasing numbers in those places facing the most acute affordability pressures while maintaining ambitious targets across the whole of the country.
Building in the right places
Meeting ambitious new targets relies on allocating sufficient land to do so. We have been clear that developers should first look to brownfield, or previously developed, land. That is essential to protect our most valuable countryside and agricultural land. And we have made changes to support that, making the default answer to proposals to build on brownfield “yes” and expanding the current definition of brownfield land to include hard standing, ahead of further reforms planned for next year on the back of our brownfield passport working paper. Together, these changes will ensure that we make full and efficient use of previously developed land.
But we know that there are simply not enough sites on brownfield land registers to deliver the volume of homes that the country needs each year, let alone enough that are viable and in the right location. And that is why we have grasped the nettle and proposed a modernised, strategic approach to green belt land designation and release, fit for the 21st century.
In the first instance, it requires local authorities to use the local plan process to adopt a “sequential approach”, considering brownfield, then grey belt, and only then higher performing land—all while ensuring that sustainability is a central consideration throughout. We expect authorities to conduct green-belt reviews, to identify the right land to bring forward in their areas. Where authorities fail to meet development needs, developers may bring forward proposals on low-performing grey-belt land outside of the plan process, but with higher-performing land protected from this form of release.
Through our consultation we found broad support for this strategic approach to green-belt release, and for the concept of grey belt, which recognises that there are significant parts of the green belt that contribute little by way of aesthetic, public access, or ecological value. However, we did see evidence that our proposed definition of grey belt was likely to leave too much room for subjectivity and debate. In response, we have set out a clearer description of how to assess whether land meets the definition, and we will be providing further guidance in the new year. We remain clear that existing protections for land covered by environmental and national landscape designations—for example national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest—will remain.
At the centre of our reformed green-belt policy lie our golden rules, which mean that housing can only be built on green-belt land if developers deliver high levels of affordable housing, appropriate local infrastructure, and accessible public green space. Our consultation proposed rules requiring that residential schemes across the country would deliver 50% affordable housing, while recognising that because land values vary, the limited use of viability assessments should be permitted within certain constraints. The objective of these rules was to make sure that the public would receive the fair share of the planning uplift driven by the new rules, and that returns to landowners would be fair but not excessive.
We received significant feedback from a wide range of stakeholders who welcomed the ambition of these rules and the commitment to maximising affordable housing delivery, but who shared strong evidence that fixing the affordable housing requirement at 50% nationally would not reflect regional variations in viability and would hinder delivery. This risked leaving authorities with a choice: allow flexibility and turn the amount of affordable housing into a negotiation; or hold firm and make sites unviable, delivering no homes, affordable or otherwise. Responding to this, our final policy introduces a 15 percentage point premium on top of existing affordable housing requirements, up to a maximum of 50%, and rules out any negotiation until we have strengthened national planning practice guidance on viability—in which we will consider the case for permitting viability negotiations on previously developed land and larger strategic sites, likely to carry greater infrastructure costs.
In a majority of authorities, this will result in an affordable housing requirement of 50%. Local authorities will be required to adopt their own ambitious golden rules through the local plan process, which will supersede these national requirements as new plans come into force. This revised approach delivers on our commitment to sharing the proceeds of land value uplift fairly, securing clear public benefits, while delivering more homes and more affordable homes than a flat 50% rate. It will increase the speed of housing provision by giving all actors greater certainty about what is required and what will achieve planning permission.
Supporting local planning
We have made clear our commitment to universal local plan coverage—local plans are the best way of engaging communities in decisions about the future of their area, of optimising use of land to deliver for the economy and for the environment, and for giving the certainty businesses need to invest in development. A plan-led system in which fewer than a third of places have up-to-date plans does not work. That is why we are taking a tough but pragmatic approach to imposing new housing numbers on local plans—one which sees new numbers feed through into local plans as quickly as possible, while allowing well-developed plans to be adopted.
We are making three changes to the proposals we consulted on, reflecting these twin objectives. First, we will give local authorities an extra two months to progress their plans under the existing framework. Those that reach examination will be assessed in line with existing housing targets, but where there is a significant shortfall, they will be required to begin work on a new plan as soon as the new plan-making system commences next summer. Similarly, those that reach the final stage of plan preparation will be allowed to progress only where there is no significant shortfall. Secondly, responding to feedback that we should measure significant shortfall in proportionate rather than absolute terms, we are replacing the 200-home threshold with a requirement that plans provide for at least 80% of the new standard method figure. Thirdly, we are introducing a new requirement that authorities with plans adopted under the old standard method must provide an extra year’s worth of homes in their five-year housing pipeline. This requirement will kick in from 1 July 2026 and drive authorities to take steps to close the gap between existing housing requirements and the new targets by bringing more land into the system.
We recognise that going back and increasing housing numbers will create additional work, which is why we will provide financial support to those authorities asked to do this. To ensure that local authorities are well equipped and supported to implement our policy changes, we will provide grant funding to support authorities with local plan delivery and green belt reviews. A total of £14.8 million is available across both funds to support local planning authorities with these costs. In the light of the revised national planning policy framework, I will be writing to all local planning authorities with more details, and asking them to provide an updated plan-making timetable within 12 weeks, in order to drive delivery and give transparency over progress.
I expect authorities to rise to this challenge—over the last five months we have seen an acceleration on plan making, which demonstrates what is possible with clear policy direction from national Government and the right political will at a local level. But we will use the full range of ministerial intervention powers at our disposal if that does not happen, including taking over an authority’s plan making directly. The revised local plan intervention criteria, published today, will boost our ability to act quickly where plan making stalls.
The pressure on planning departments goes beyond plan making, as we drive towards the unprecedented numbers of planning permissions needed to meet our 1.5 million homes and wider development objectives. That is why, responding to consultation feedback, we will set householder application fees at what we estimate is cost-recovery level, in order that applicants cover the costs of processing their planning applications. This will bring a boost of more than £50 million per year into local planning authorities from next year, enabling authorities to provide a quicker, better service. We will, through the planning and infrastructure Bill, go further in enabling local planning authorities to vary or set fees to cost recovery levels as appropriate for their area. This funding comes on top of the additional £50 million of planning capacity and capability funding announced at Budget. In combination with the dedicated support for updating local plans, this amounts to a package of over £100 million in the coming year.
Securing high-quality development and more affordable housing
Rapidly driving up planning consents in the context of a system with woefully inadequate local plan coverage will increase the number of permissions secured outside of local plan allocations in the short-term. This is necessary if we are to see the scale of delivery we need to meet our commitment to 1.5 million homes. Therefore, where it applies, the presumption in favour of sustainable development must have real teeth. The changes we make today ensure that the presumption carries real weight, acting as a significant adjustment to the decision-making balance in favour of approving development. We are however absolutely clear that this is not a green light for low-quality development. That is why we have amended the presumption to call out the existing safeguards that exist in national policy around the provision of affordable housing, design quality, and sustainability of location, in line with the proposals we consulted on. We simply do not accept there is an inherent trade-off between supply and quality.
We have taken wider steps to drive the reformed house-building industry we are committed to delivering—one that is more responsive to consumer needs, which places affordability at the heart of what it does, and which builds out faster. We are therefore making changes to set an expectation of mixed-tenure on large sites, support more small sites to come forward to support SME delivery, and make clear our support for social rent schemes. Reflecting the absolute priority we attach to delivering social rent homes, we are amending the definition of affordable housing to carve it out as a separate category, distinct from the broader category of affordable housing for rent.
As part of the Government’s plans to deliver much needed affordable homes, Homes England is today launching a new clearing service to help unblock the delivery of section 106 affordable housing. This follows reports in recent months of developers experiencing greater difficulty in selling section 106 affordable homes for which they have planning permission. This new service will help improve the functioning of the market for affordable housing, by supporting buyers and sellers to find each other more effectively—with developers able to share details of unsold section 106 affordable homes for registered providers and local authorities to search. The service aims to facilitate dialogue and partnerships that allow homes to be delivered in line with the originally agreed tenure mix set out in section 106 agreements. It will also provide new data and insight into the section 106 market. The Government are calling on all developers with uncontracted section 106 affordable homes, including small and medium builders, to proactively and pragmatically engage with the new clearing service, and on registered providers and local planning authorities to engage positively as providers and enablers of affordable housing. This is an important step in unlocking these homes and driving delivery.
As new land enters the system, we expect to see new permissions rapidly translated into build-out. In order that we have transparency and accountability, I will introduce secondary legislation next year to implement powers brought forward under the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 to require developers to commit to a build-out trajectory up front and report on delivery against it. Where that does not happen, authorities will be empowered to hold them to account, including through declining to determine applications from developers with a poor record of delivery. We will publish technical consultations to guide delivery of the necessary regulations in the new year.
Building infrastructure to grow the economy
Finally, in July we proposed changes to the planning system to drive greater commercial development in those sectors which will be the engine of the UK’s economy in the future. We will confirm the changes as detailed in the consultation and make it easier to build laboratories, gigafactories, data centres and digital infrastructure, and the facilities needed to support the wider supply chain. We will also specifically recognise the need to support proposals for new or upgraded facilities and infrastructure, setting the expectation that suitable sites for these types of modern economy uses are identified in local plans. As proposed in the summer, we will bring onshore wind back into the nationally significant infrastructure projects consenting regime, and raise the threshold of projects for both onshore wind and solar to 100 MW. We will follow through with prescribing data centres, gigafactories and laboratories as types of business or commercial development capable of being directed into the nationally significant infra- structure projects consenting regime, depending on the scale of the project.
Part of a bigger plan
These changes are necessary to unlock the land needed to deliver 1.5 million homes and the scale of new infrastructure we will need to support growth. But we are clear that they must form part of a wider plan to address wider blockers in the planning system and to drive rapid build-out. We will use the planning and infrastructure Bill to improve certainty in decision making, create a win-win for development and nature, and streamline processes for critical infrastructure. Since we know that we cannot meet housing need without planning for growth on a larger than local scale, we will empower local leaders to work cross-boundary to deliver strategic plans.
Only by delivering these reforms will we unlock investment and delivery. It is also vital that, alongside the appropriate infrastructure, these reforms also deliver substantial affordable housing. It is vital that local communities can see the benefits of development in terms of enhancements to public services and more affordable housing for local people. We recognise that to deliver on these reforms we will need to work in partnership with local leaders, house builders and infrastructure developers to deliver investment into these sectors, and we are grateful for the support for these proposals from across the sector.
These reforms are essential to transform the housing crisis, deliver growth, protect the environment, and provide hope to the many thousands of people locked into substandard and unaffordable housing.
[HCWS308]
Local Government Best Value
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
All hon. Members will recognise the importance of having well-functioning local councils which provide essential statutory services local residents rely upon. The Government will continue to work directly with a small number of councils in difficulty, and this should be done in a way that is not punitive and is based on genuine partnership to secure improvements. Today, I would like to update the House on the statutory interventions in Croydon and Nottingham.
Croydon
In February 2021, the previous Government intervened in Croydon following serious financial and governance concerns raised in the non-statutory review of the council and two reports in the public interest from external auditors. A non-statutory improvement and assurance panel was appointed in February 2021. The intervention was then escalated in July 2023 through the issuing of directions which strengthened the remit of the panel by moving it to a statutory footing. The panel continues to be led by Tony McArdle OBE and consists of experts in finance, commercial, adult social care, housing and children’s services.
I will today publish the latest report from the panel, received in April this year, alongside its subsequent letter received on 15 November. Overall, there have been significant developments in the council’s progress towards reform and recovery, particularly improved governance, leadership and service delivery.
Despite this progress, the council remains one of the most financially distressed in the country. The council’s general fund debt sits at £1.3 billion and it relies on the allocation of exceptional financial support (EFS) through in-principle capitalisation directions to balance its budget. The council has produced a transformation plan and a medium-term financial strategy (MTFS) to attempt to reduce its large deficit and debt to a more manageable level. I recognise that there is further work to be done to restore the council to long-term financial sustainability and that this should be a priority area of action for the council moving forward.
I have asked the panel to provide a further update on the intervention’s progress in April 2025, with particular attention to the council’s budget-setting process and delivery of its transformation plan, in which it aims to become the most cost-efficient authority in London. I will continue to work closely with the council as it seeks to address its financial challenges and sustain the strong working relationship both the panel and council have built with the Ministry. I will continue to monitor progress over the coming months and keep the House informed of developments.
Nottingham
As the House will be aware, the Ministry’s involvement began with a non-statutory improvement and assurance board in January 2021 following serious governance and risk management issues associated with the council’s now closed private energy company, Robin Hood Energy. The council also identified unlawful practices associated with its housing revenue account in December 2021 and issued a section 114 notice shortly afterwards.
The board was escalated to a statutory footing in December 2022. Serious issues remained with finances, governance and culture—including the council’s second section 114 notice in November 2023—and progress was felt to be too slow.
On 22 February 2024, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Michael Gove, announced that directions had been issued to implement a commissioner-led intervention package. These required the commissioners to report to the Secretary of State at six-monthly intervals, and the first report was received on 22 August 2024, which I will publish today.
This report makes clear that progress has been made: council officers and members have been working constructively with commissioners to map out a path to recovery, and have a strategy in place to reach a more sustainable position and better deliver services to their residents. It is clear that significant challenges remain— including the ongoing budget gap, need for service modernisation and culture change across the organisation —and I look forward to hearing more about the council’s progress in the next report, which I have requested in March 2025.
Conclusion
The Government will play their part by repairing the foundations of the sector overall, with the settlement this month being the start of that programme. This will include an immediate funding injection worth over £4 billion, including a £600 million recovery grant, which will be distributed to places with greater need and demand for services (we have used deprivation as a proxy for this), and which are least able to fund their own services locally. It also includes a £680 million uplift to the social care grant for adult and children’s services, a new children’s social care prevention grant, worth £250 million, which will lay the groundwork for children’s social care reform and an additional £44 million of new funding to pilot a kinship allowance and create hundreds of new foster placements. To fix the broken care market, the Government are also bringing forward legislation to crack down on the profiteering from our most vulnerable children and plans include a financial oversight regime, enhanced Ofsted powers and powers to cap profits if excessive profit making continues.
Moving forward we will hardwire stability and security into the system with multi-year settlements and fewer restrictive grants. This will allow councils to focus spending on local priorities, and we will set out and measure progress on the key services and outcomes we expect local government to deliver.
These measures as a whole go hand in hand with the work to make every council fit, legal and decent with a rebuilt system of accountability and oversight. We will repair the early warning system, deal with the audit backlog, and focus on raising standards in local government will help support the overall resilience of the sector in the long term.
The road to financial recovery in Croydon and Nottingham must be met with the seriousness it deserves, and I am pleased to see a clear commitment to move to new operating models. Because of the scale of the challenges, it is self-evident that there will still be difficult decisions to come. It is essential that in making these decisions there is a clear strategy for the form respective councils will take as their new operating model, and that prevention and reform of local public services is central to it.
The Government are committed to work in genuine partnership with councils under intervention to support their reset, reform and recovery, making sure residents have what they need from their local council, including confidence in its governance, financial management and service delivery. I will continue to monitor progress over the coming months and ensure these councils get the support they need to secure sustainable continuous improvement.
I will deposit in the Library of the House copies of the documents I have referred to, which are also being published on gov.uk today.
[HCWS307]
Criminal Courts: Independent Review
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
This Government inherited a justice system in crisis with huge delays to hearings and victims left in limbo waiting to see justice done. We are committed to reducing the outstanding caseload in the Crown court and ensuring justice is delivered.
The first thing we had to do was understand the scale of the problem facing us. When this Government took up office in July, errors in His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service data meant there was no published data for the Crown court caseload. I asked the Department to commission an external auditor to look into the data so we could be certain of the scale of the challenge ahead of us in tackling the Crown court backlog.
Following this independent assurance review, we can now confirm that the open caseload in the Crown court has risen to around 73,000, up from 38,000 cases in December 2019. This means victims are waiting far too long to see justice, with some trials now being listed for 2028.
The data published today has been through an intensive series of reviews and validation to ensure it reflects the reality seen at the courts. However, these statistics show the scale of the challenge and now we must continue to bear down on the backlog to deliver swifter justice for victims. Since July, we have begun that work.
We first increased the number of Crown court sitting days this financial year to 106,500, a higher allocation than in six of the last seven years. We then expanded magistrates court sentencing powers so they can hand down custodial sentences of up to 12 months for a single triable either way offence. This frees up the equivalent of 2,000 sitting days per year in the Crown court so judges can focus on the most serious cases.
Meanwhile, we are continuing to use 16 Nightingale courtrooms across seven venues to hear more cases up and down the country and are recruiting approximately 1,000 judges and tribunal members annually across all jurisdictions.
But we must also be honest. The scale of this challenge is greater than these measures alone can achieve. Even if our courts sat at their maximum possible capacity, we could not stop the backlog from increasing, let alone bring it down.
If victims are going to see justice done more swiftly in this country, we cannot simply do more of the same. We need to do things differently.
That is why today, with the agreement of the Lady Chief Justice, I have asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake a review of our criminal courts to consider how we can speed up the hearing of cases, and I am grateful for his support with this.
The review will have two goals:
First, to consider how the criminal courts could be reformed to ensure cases are dealt with proportionately, in light of the current pressures on the Crown court. The review will look at when we use our Crown courts and when we should make more use of other courts. Specifically, whether more cases should move from the Crown court to the magistrates court and whether offenders should be given the right to appeal a magistrate’s sentence, where today they are able to appeal their case in the Crown court. Sir Brian will also consider the case for a new “intermediate court” for cases too serious to be heard by a magistrate alone but which could be heard by a judge alongside magistrates.
Second, to look at how the criminal courts could operate more efficiently. This includes consideration of how new technologies, including artificial intelligence, could be used to improve the criminal courts.
The pressure facing our criminal courts is considerable and I am grateful for everyone who works tirelessly across the system to ensure justice is heard. The backlog is at a record high. In the short term, it will continue to rise. But this review will ensure that, in the years to come, we bear down on the backlog. Criminals will face the consequences of their actions more swiftly and victims will receive the justice they deserve.
[HCWS300]
Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
The United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe is as follows:
Full representatives
Sharon Hodgson MP (Leader of the UK delegation)
The Baroness Blower
Colum Eastwood MP
The Lord Hannett of Everton
Sir Mark Hendrick MP
The Lord Smith of Hindhead
Dr Rupa Huq MP
Mike Martin MP
Anneliese Midgley MP
Jon Pearce MP
The right hon. Mark Pritchard MP
The right hon. Sir John Whittingdale MP
The right hon. the Baroness Winterton of Doncaster
Substitute members
Alex Ballinger MP
Lee Barron MP
The right hon. the Lord Bruce of Bennachie
Neil Coyle MP
Dame Caroline Dinenage MP
Helena Dollimore MP
Anna Gelderd MP
Stephen Gethins MP
Tracy Gilbert MP
James MacCleary MP
The Lord McInnes of Kilwinning
The Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath
The Lord Shamash.
[HCWS302]
UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly: UK Delegation
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
The United Kingdom delegation to the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly is as follows:
Full representatives
Marsha de Cordova MP (Leader and Co-Chair)
Catherine Atkinson MP
The Lord Bach
Alex Ballinger MP
Matt Bishop MP
Sarah Bool MP (Vice Chair)
The Baroness Bull
The Baroness Crawley
Stella Creasy MP
The Baroness Donaghy
Catherine Fookes MP
Sir Ashley Fox MP
The right hon. the Lord Frost
The Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Sir Mark Hendrick MP
Uma Kumaran MP
Katie Lam MP
The right hon. the Lord Lamont of Lerwick
Noah Law MP
The Lord Liddle
The Baroness Ludford
James MacCleary MP
Frank McNally MP
The Baroness Mobarik
Abtisam Mohamed MP
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne
Steve Race MP
Shivani Raja MP
Connor Rand MP
The Lord Ricketts (Vice Chair)
The Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
Peter Swallow MP
Robin Swann MP
The Lord Teverson
Caroline Voaden MP
Substitute Members
Lee Barron MP
The right hon. the Lord Bruce of Bennachie
Ben Coleman MP
Jacob Collier MP
Wera Hobhouse MP
The Lord Kempsell
The Lord Krebs
Laura Kyrke-Smith MP
Alice Macdonald MP
Jack Rankin MP
Laurence Turner MP
The right hon. the Lord Whitty.
[HCWS303]
Grand Committee
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, in the event of a Division, we will adjourn the Committee for 10 minutes. That is vanishingly unlikely.
NHS: Patients with Allergies
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to ensure that patients with allergies receive timely and comprehensive care from the NHS.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to consider this challenging issue with noble Lords who have kindly put their name down for this debate. I am grateful to the staff of the House of Lords Library for their helpful briefing as well to those charitable organisations that have contacted me with a wealth of useful background information.
At the start, I want to explain where my close interest in this issue arises. My 16 year-old daughter was diagnosed with multiple allergies as a baby. Thankfully, she has grown out of most of them, and I will never forget the astonished smile on her face when, having grown out of her egg allergy, she had her first bite of chocolate cake. Unfortunately, her severe allergy to peanuts has continued, and her father and I have twice seen for ourselves the reality of anaphylaxis, watching helplessly as our daughter suffered. We are fortunate that in all other ways she is a fit and healthy teenager, but every time I read, as we all will have, about the death of a child or a young person from an allergic reaction, I weep for the parents.
We will all have been moved by the tragic story of Natasha Ednan-Laperouse, who died at 15 after an allergic reaction to the sesame seeds hidden inside a baguette. It has been inspiring to see how Natasha’s parents set up a charity to improve the outlook for allergy sufferers in future. In fact, the findings of a pioneering Natasha clinic trial led by researchers at the University of Southampton, University Hospital Southampton and Imperial College London are already transforming the lives of some children with severe milk and peanut allergies.
Allergy UK kindly briefed me about the scale of the problem across the country. More than 100,000 people were admitted to hospital for anaphylaxis over the 20 years to 2018, which tells us that an otherwise completely healthy person is more likely than not to be admitted to hospital following an extremely frightening allergic reaction during the course of today’s short debate, and, most distressingly of all, the data shows that the next death from anaphylaxis is likely to happen in less than seven weeks from now. As noble Lords will understand, every such death strikes what I can only describe as terror in a parent’s heart. Noble Lords can imagine what I am feeling when I ask, “Have you got your EpiPens?” every single time my daughter leaves the house.
When my daughter was only a baby, her GP, who was concerned about her eczema, referred her to an allergy research study at Evelina London Children’s Hospital just across the river from here, part of the wonderful Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust. Both there, and at the trust’s paediatric allergy clinic, she received wonderful care over the next 15 years. I subsequently learned that the trust is a World Allergy Organization centre of excellence, as is Southampton, which demonstrates that England has some of the world’s pre-eminent specialist clinical and research allergy centres.
These specialist centres are few in number and are clustered in the south-east. A child like my daughter, living near to a renowned specialist centre, will have access to cutting-edge research, along with the clinical benefit, while others elsewhere will not have access to even basic specialist services. Even where, as at Guy’s and St Thomas’, children and young people have the chance to get the services that should be available to all, once they start to transition to adulthood, support largely disappears.
Services for adults are very limited indeed. I was amazed to learn that medical training includes only four hours on allergies—contrast that with 46 weeks on gynaecology for all doctors. I certainly do not want that reduced, of course, but I do want allergy training to match it. The amount of research into allergies is pitiful when compared to other health conditions. Wonderful though the work of the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation is, does it not rather shame us that Natasha’s parents had to persuade food retailers to pay for life-changing research?
I am delighted to learn that the new Government are working on a 10-year national allergy strategy, and I ask my noble friend the Minister to make sure that this is used to increase training and research significantly in future. However, my experience, both as a mother and as a non-executive director in the NHS for 20 years, has brought me to the realisation that there is a yawning gap in the way in which the NHS responds to the needs of those patients who are no longer children but not yet fully adults. The transition from one to the other is challenging in many ways. Teenagers develop independence by taking risks and learning to deal with the consequences. It is important for them to do so; indeed, their brains continue to mature until they are 25.
What does that mean for teenagers with severe allergies? In the absence of effective treatments—I go back to the shortage in both capacity and research—the only way to avoid anaphylactic shock is to minimise the risk: never leaving home without two EpiPens; never eating food that might, for example, have been cooked in peanut oil; and always checking the ingredients of everything that you eat, even—perhaps especially—at a party in someone’s house, where the alcohol may be flowing freely and the lights may be down low.
When my daughter was a young child, she had an anaphylactic shock in hospital as a result of the testing of her condition by the allergy specialist medical team. As her father and I watched on in horror, the consultant who led the team treating her with adrenaline and steroids asked, after she was over the emergency, whether he could borrow my phone for a moment. He calmly took photos of her, pale and silent and not moving on the hospital bed. When we later asked him what on earth he had been doing, he invited us to look ahead to her later, teenage years. When you transition from childhood to adulthood, you do take risks, but having a constant reminder on your phone of the reality of anaphylaxis might just save your life.
In preparing for today’s debate, I have been able to explore this issue with the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation and, through it, with Dr Claudia Gore at Imperial College Healthcare. As a tertiary allergy service, Imperial continues to treat many young people until they turn 18, but, elsewhere, young people are discharged or referred on to adult services at 16. In the words of the foundation, the result after that is a real “postcode lottery”. Many of the young people with whom Dr Gore works have other comorbidities, including, in many cases, mental health issues such as depression and anxiety and, in some cases, special educational needs and disabilities. These can make it much harder for them to navigate the world safely and manage their allergies appropriately.
This is on top of the fact that adolescence brings all manner of challenges, even without additional medical concerns. Having transition services that understand young people and the changes they are going through in that phase of their life, as well as the move towards independence, would be hugely beneficial in helping them navigate the world as someone with severe allergies. Dr Gore is clear: there is a real lack of age-specific life or support resources for adolescents. So, we need more people with expertise in allergy, but we also need more people experienced in transition as a specialism in and of itself, because helping young people navigate adulthood with a medical condition can play a big role in improving their outcomes.
The phrase that Dr Gore used, which stuck with me, was: “Transfer is an action; transition is a process”. In other words, young people need support to begin preparing for that transition in advance of the move up to adult services, and they continue to need to be supported. She made three other key points. First, there is a real pressure point here for the NHS because lots of young people are approaching the cut-off point at which they will transition into adult services, where specialist allergy care is sorely lacking. Where there is no specialist adult allergy service to discharge to, it typically ends up with GPs, many of whom lack training in allergies. Secondly, there is not enough expertise on healthcare transition and there is a lack of resource on helping young people with allergies with the key life skills that they will need. Thirdly, in view of how common allergy conditions are in the UK, integrated care boards need to have more allergy care in place, possibly operating in a similar way to how asthma care works currently.
So, just as important as more training and research for the new national allergy strategy is the development of an NHS service for patients transitioning from childhood to adulthood. The benefits of specialist health services for those between the ages of 16 and 24, say, could go well beyond sufferers of severe allergies, but where better to start than a condition whose treatment relies completely on persuading those afflicted by it to manage their healthcare and personal risks? I hope that my noble friend the Minister will commit to meeting me, along with the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation and expert medical advisers, to discuss the way forward.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate—with my horrible squeaky voice—the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, on securing this debate today. My concern is not so much adolescents as children.
In my hotel room this week, I was interested to find a card explaining what to do in the case of anaphylactic shock. This suggests to me that the concern about, and the volume of cases of, serious reactions to allergies is on the up, as well as the seriousness with which the hotel group took its responsibility towards its guests. Indeed, that is borne out by the facts: an estimated 21 million people—just under one in three of us in the UK—live with one or more allergies. For most of us, this can be managed and is not severe, but for some it can be life-threatening, as the noble Baroness has said. In the UK, between 1998 and 2018, more than 100,000 people were admitted to hospital for anaphylaxis, a life-threatening allergic reaction. While the number of hospital admissions has increased in recent years, the number of deaths, I am glad to say, has decreased.
Allergy UK advocates three policies to improve NHS services for people who suffer from allergic reactions. The first is to have an allergy nurse and dietician at primary level for each UK health region. That does not seem a huge ask to me but, apparently, there is a postcode lottery for specialist allergy services. Secondly there should be a national register to consolidate patient data across the country and track allergy diagnoses. Clearly, this would enable the identifying of areas where additional services were needed. Thirdly, prescription costs should be removed for those living with allergies to address the additional costs people face when managing their allergies. The estimated total cost is £3,000 per year; I tried to quantify that but had to give up. Suffice it to say that removing at least the prescriptions costs would be a very reasonable thing, because people live with these conditions.
Earlier this week, there was a reception for people interested in allergies by the Benedict Blythe Foundation. Benedict, a little four year-old, collapsed at school and died from anaphylaxis. Helen, Benedict’s mum, whom I met this week, has been campaigning for all schools to have the recommended allergy safeguards in place. Teachers need to be able to manage the average one to two pupils with an allergy in each class, but many feel underprepared to be able to deal with a child experiencing an anaphylactic reaction. Every teacher should feel prepared. Every parent delivers their child to the care of the school every schoolday. Surely it is the duty of the school to take care of the health and well-being of that child above all else and to hand them back to the parent at the end of the day as fit and healthy as when they went in. After all, if an individual hotel room can have a notice explaining what to do in the case of an anaphylactic reaction, should not all teachers who care for the children of others have that basic knowledge too?
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and I thank my noble friend Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath for securing this important debate. I declare an interest as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Allergy.
Allergy can be a life sentence. There is an epidemic which is going unnoticed. An estimated one-third of the UK population live with allergies, but the number of people living with serious food allergies more than doubled between 2008 and 2018, with the largest increase seen in young children. Symptoms vary, but in the most serious cases reactions can be life-threatening and, in heartbreaking incidents, lead to death.
I commend the work of allergy charities which campaign to raise awareness and offer advice to those caring for and those living with this life-threatening condition. I support Anaphylaxis UK and champion Allergy UK in its call for an allergy nurse and dietician at the primary care level within every integrated care system, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, has already mentioned.
The Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, which was set up by her parents following her tragic death, has campaigned for better food labelling and now plans to launch a new education programme which will provide free resources to nurseries and primary schools so that children with allergies are safe and can participate fully in the classroom. I congratulate the Times on choosing the foundation as part of its Christmas charity appeal.
There is growing concern about the safety of children with allergies in school, and the recent report sponsored by the Benedict Blythe Foundation, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, reveals that many schools still do not have an allergy policy in place, despite a legal requirement to do so. Almost half of schools do not hold their own life-saving medication, and too many staff remain untrained to administer them.
It cannot be left to charities alone to deal with the allergy crisis; the Government have a key role to play, and I want to turn to the recommendations in the report Meeting the Challenges of the National Allergy Crisis produced by our APPG and the National Allergy Strategy Group. These include an allergy tsar, or lead, who can ensure that the national allergy strategy is implemented across government. It has followed several other key reports in the last 20 years, and all have consistently highlighted how allergy remains poorly managed across the NHS due to a lack of training and expertise.
There is a need for significant improvement in specialist services, as well as improved knowledge and awareness in primary care. With 5 million people living with severe conditions requiring specialist care, hospital admissions due to allergies are rising, and prevalence rates for allergy in the UK are among the highest in the world, especially among the young, yet specialist services delivered by paediatric allergists are available to only a minority of those with serious disease. There is a postcode lottery of care. The complexity and severity of allergy is placing a huge strain on the NHS, made worse by the small number of consultants in adult and paediatric allergy and the lack of training for GPs, who remain the front-line service for children and adults suffering reactions. Can the Minister give an update on whether this is being addressed in the NHS workforce plan?
Our report proposed a minimum of 40 additional training posts for allergy, as well as a minimum of four consultant adult allergists and two paediatric allergists in every major teaching hospital and large conurbation. It also called for all GPs and healthcare professionals in primary care to have knowledge of allergic disease, both in initial training and ongoing professional appraisal. Each GP practice should have a health visitor and/or a practice nurse trained in allergy support. As most patients are still managed in primary care, this is where resources should be placed. Local health commissioners should understand the allergy needs of their population and ensure access to adult and paediatric consultants.
I was shocked to read in the Lancet this September that people from lower-income areas were least likely to be prescribed adrenaline autoinjectors. As a mother of an anaphylactic son, I know how vital it is to carry these life-saving devices. I welcome the Government’s commitment to allow the Expert Advisory Group for Allergy, established in 2023, to continue to identify priority areas for improving the quality of life of people with allergies. I look forward to the outcome of the National Allergy Strategy Group’s consultation to produce a much-needed 10-year strategy to address the issue of allergy in the UK.
In conclusion, I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister can give a positive reply to the many calls for the Government to appoint a national allergy lead this year.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath for this debate and for such an excellent introduction. I associate myself with every point made by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and my noble friend Lady Healy. There is a strong view, from those who have some understanding of this matter, on the need to take significant action to upgrade where we are.
I state my interest, which is pretty similar to many others in that I am the father of two children who have allergies—one to a much more severe extent. I feel acutely that we were incredibly fortunate, when first finding out that one had a severe allergy, that we were in the unusual circumstance of having adequate medical care to support him. I always worry what would have happened if we were not in such a position at that stage, and I am sure that is the terror many parents experience when they first find out.
In this country, there has been a massive increase in allergies, for a variety of reasons, as research has shown. The extent to which this condition has increased—including hospital stays for severe incidents, which has gone up to 25,000 according to recent data—is a matter of not inconsiderable concern. Many points have been made, but I will say that, in relation to NHS provision, for anyone who has gone through this process, the system, in moving from children to adolescents to adults, is really not clear. More importantly, it is distorted around different parts of the country, as is the provision of specialist care, and it is extremely difficult for GPs to manage this. We have to rethink how we do that.
We also have to consider more carefully the situation with autoinjectors. It was only a short while ago that the UK was out of provision of the most significant autoinjector. We had to buy one which was not allowed in many other countries because it was ineffective. Even today it remains a very significant issue, in many circumstances, that the injectors either fail or are inadequate for the situation. That comes down on many occasions to needle size and the size of body that it has to go into. The Government really have not taken enough into consideration on what we should do on autoinjectors, and I urge them to do so.
It is important that the Government increase their work with industry. We saw in the tragic case of Natasha how Pret a Manger responded extremely well. There are willing partners out there and the Government could play a crucial role with them. There are many location-specific issues, such as the provision of autoinjectors on airlines and trains, and as illustrated by the Benedict Blythe Foundation, which has done tremendous work on this, the most significant location outside a home is school, so we need to make sure we have all the right provisions there.
On some of the treatments, desensitisation therapy can be effective, but we have woefully inadequate provision for it on the NHS, and, even then, it is geographically specific. There is still an awful lot yet to do. The work of some of the organisations, such as the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, in advocating for some of these courses has been groundbreaking, as has its research. I too am very pleased that it has been selected again for the Times this year.
Underlying that, the idea of introducing a tsar is essential and one the Government must give serious consideration to, simply because of the range of things that are needed through the entire journey that someone—and their parents—facing an allergy will go through. Having something that connects it is essential, and if there was one thing that I wish the Minister would take away from this discussion, it is understanding that piecemeal measures will be insufficient. We need something which will shepherd this as we face an ever-increasing demand on dealing with allergies across the NHS and, if something was to be done, then appointing a tsar would be an extremely welcome addition.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this short debate on this important subject. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath on obtaining the debate and on her excellent opening speech, and I am very pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn.
It is a surprising fact that one in three people in the UK live with allergies—perhaps it will not surprise any of us in the Room now, having heard the opening speeches. I am one of those 21 million people, as I have a number of food allergies or intolerances, which have increased over the last 30 years. My allergies are not as serious as the ones that cause an anaphylactic reaction, but they do affect day-to-day living, as I have to avoid wheat gluten, rich dairy products and—at this time of year perhaps the most difficult exclusion—chocolate.
Avoiding allergens in products at home has become a little easier. Thirty years ago. it was very hard to avoid wheat, which is often in many products with ingredients labelled as starch but which is often wheat starch. I learned to cook with different flours, as I am sure every parent with a child with allergy learns to do, but they often had to be bought at health food shops. Now, large supermarkets have a section for “free from” or “made without” products and stock a range of gluten-free flours. At this point, it is worth explaining to those who are not in this world that these products are very expensive indeed. Small loaves cost more than £3, and many of the flour products are very expensive, so the point made about low-income families is very pertinent.
However, the most difficult aspect of day-to-day living with allergies is avoiding allergens in food when eating out, including at work and at school, buying food when travelling or on holiday and buying food from takeaways, because in that situation you have to rely on a shop selling food knowing which ingredients are in the products. It relies on chefs, kitchen staff, waiters and baristas playing their part in faithfully recording requests to avoid allergens and passing that information on to the staff preparing food or drinks, but that does not always happen.
An article in the Times highlighted that more than 50 young people, including a child of nine, have died in less than a decade as a result of severe allergic reactions to food or drinks bought in restaurants, cafés, shops or schools. We have heard in a number of colleagues’ speeches about Natasha Ednan-Laperouse, who died aged 15 after eating a Pret a Manger sandwich which contained sesame. As we have heard, her parents have campaigned on the issues in her case and been told of many deaths of other young people—almost all of which, it seems, were avoidable. They were shocked to hear of so many avoidable deaths. Her father Nadim said:
“When Natasha was growing up we didn’t know any other parents whose children were food-allergic and she was the only one in her primary and secondary school … Then we received thousands of letters when it became public from people who said, ‘We fear every day what happened to your child will happen to ours’”.
He also said that the common themes in the stories they were told by parents included a lack of understanding among catering staff about allergies and how serious they can be, or a human error meaning that they were given the wrong food product.
As we have heard, Natasha’s parents’ campaigns have been focused on two areas: Natasha’s law, an important measure that came into force in 2021, tightening legislation to force outlets that package their own food products on-site to provide a full list of ingredients on the labels, with any of the top 14 allergens, including milk, nuts, eggs and sesame, highlighted; and, as we have heard, the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation is funding a £2.7 million immunotherapy trial across six hospitals that aims to gradually desensitise patients to their allergens through everyday foods. On the number of cases, it is worth saying that, as an MP, I had two local cases within one year of young people who tragically died after eating food containing allergens, despite in both cases the young person or their parents describing their allergies and being assured by waiters and serving staff that the food they were eating was safe for them.
Allergy UK tells us in its excellent briefing that 62% of people with allergies say it affects all aspects of their lives, and I am sure all of us who are contributing here can appreciate that, but among adults with anaphylaxis 40% experience post-traumatic stress disorder because, as my noble friend Lady Ramsey said earlier, it strikes terror in parents’ hearts. Allergy UK also tells us that, despite hospital admissions for people with allergies being 615% up in the last 20 years and rising sharply among children, we have only 40 specialist allergists in this country. As we have heard, specialist services are not well spread across the country; the pattern is distorted. The NHS underutilises preventive strategies such as early allergen introduction; and treatments like immunotherapy have been rejected due to perceptions of the high short-term cost, despite the fact that immunotherapy drastically reduces the high cost of future emergency admissions and hospitalisations.
I join Allergy UK in hoping that the Labour Government may be more receptive to preventive strategies, and I would be grateful if the Minister could give us an update on any possible new preventive strategies for allergies. I also ask my noble friend to look at the call from Allergy UK for the Government to introduce a specialist allergy nurse and dietician at primary care level within every integrated system. With 21 million people living with allergies and so many avoidable deaths of young people and hospitalisations due to allergens, I hope the Government can agree to look at the gaps in allergy management within primary care.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, for introducing this debate. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, whom it is a pleasure to follow, for bringing this issue to life with personal stories that go beyond the statistics and bring home exactly what we are talking about today.
Allergy services in the UK are at a critical juncture. As my noble friend Lady Burt said, with more than 21 million people affected, allergies are no longer a niche issue. They represent a public health issue, from life-threatening anaphylaxis to chronic conditions such as allergic eczema. These conditions profoundly impact individuals, families and the NHS yet, despite this growing prevalence, the UK’s allergy care system remains inadequate. The Government must act to bridge these gaps and create a robust, equitable allergy care framework, with the Government and the NHS at the helm of these reforms.
Let us acknowledge the scale of the problem. Hospital admissions for allergic reactions have increased by 615% in the past 20 years. As other noble Lords have said, shockingly, there are only 40 specialist allergists; that is one for every 525,000 patients. For patients, this translates into a postcode lottery of care, with many waiting more than 18 months for appointments. Primary care also faces significant challenges, with most GPs lacking adequate allergy training. This leads to unnecessary referrals, misdiagnosis and poorly managed conditions. The strain is particularly acute for children and young adults. Food allergies, which can be fatal, are rising sharply in children, yet there is a severe lack of specialist support during the critical transition from paediatric to adult services, as other noble Lords have said. What priority will the Government put on these transition services?
The gaps in care are not just a human tragedy; they are an economic burden as well. Allergy care costs the NHS more than £1 billion annually in emergency admissions, prescription costs and referrals. Addressing this crisis requires systematic change, not piecemeal change, with the Government and NHS having to play pivotal roles. I ask the Minister: what will the NHS do urgently to expand the workforce? This includes increasing the number of specialist allergists and immunologists, as well as training GPs and nurses in allergy management.
A promising model was demonstrated in a pilot project by Allergy UK, where nurse-led clinics reduced waiting times from 18 months to just four to eight weeks. Some 95% of cases were managed successfully in primary care, saving not just lives but costs. What is the Government’s view on this pilot being rolled out nationally? Additionally, the Government should allocate targeted funding to recruit and train more allergy specialists.
Investing in allergen immunotherapy services is also critical. Although they are costly up front, these treatments prevent severe reactions and reduce long-term healthcare expenses. As many other noble Lords have said, we need to appoint a national allergies tsar or clinical director to lead a co-ordinated strategy. This role would oversee data collection, resource allocation and policy implementation—and, to put it bluntly, it would knock heads together to make sure that action happens. What is the Government’s view on appointing such a clinical director, and is there a timeframe for doing that?
Empowering primary care is vital to reduce pressure on specialist services. This can be achieved by embedding allergy-trained nurses and dieticians in every integrated care system, as other noble Lords have said. These professionals would manage routine cases, leaving specialists to handle the more complex ones. Where will the move from hospital care to community care fit in within the 10-year plan?
The absence of robust reporting systems for allergic reactions is another glaring gap. A mandatory near-miss reporting system for anaphylaxis, akin to the system in place in Australia, would allow us to identify emerging risks and act upstream. Will the Government look at such a mandatory near-miss reporting system?
Lastly, we must focus on prevention. Early allergen introduction and proactive eczema management in children have been proven to reduce lifelong allergy risks, yet these strategies remain underutilised. Will the Government prioritise funding for education campaigns and preventive measures? Improving allergy services is not just about saving lives; it is about improving the quality of life for millions of people. By investing in specialist care, empowering primary care and adopting preventive strategies, we can take important steps to transform allergy care.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, for securing this important debate, as well as for having some discussions before the debate so that I could better understand the issue. I am also grateful to the House of Lords Library for its briefing and to others who have sent briefings.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, spoke passionately about their personal experiences as parents, and especially about the care that patients with allergies receive during the transition from childhood to being considered adults. I myself know family members whose children decided to go to a local university rather than go elsewhere because they knew that their local hospital had the best treatment and were not sure what the treatment would be like if they moved to another university town. Other noble Lords have alluded to a postcode lottery.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said that such stories bring the statistics to life, but it is really important for us to talk about numbers. I read one report, I think by ITN, which said that 44% of adults in the UK have at least one allergy, but that includes asthma; other noble Lords have said it is one in three. Whatever the figure, it is far too high. We have seen, as the medical journal the Lancet has found, that the rate of food allergies has increased over the past decade. The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, also mentioned that.
Plenty of those with allergies can continue to live normal lives, but there are an ever-increasing number of people whose allergies are debilitating. They cannot eat certain foods, and they are unable to use certain medications. They must constantly scan the list of ingredients of the food they wish to eat, either by reading the small print on labels or accessing companies’ or third-party websites, or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, said, they have to pay more for gluten-free or other foods according to their dietary requirements.
This may seem obvious, but food is one of humankind’s basic needs. It is an integral part of our daily lives, and so it is only right that we take the necessary steps to help those with allergies. It was reassuring to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, about the advice that was in her hotel room should you encounter someone suffering a severe allergic reaction. The question is how we spread that from hotel rooms to schools and more places.
The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, spoke about the sad story of Natasha Ednan-Laperouse, who tragically died in 2019 due to anaphylactic shock. Her case led to the so-called Natasha’s law, requiring all foods to carry a list of ingredients. I am proud, and I am sure that noble Lords are grateful, that swift action was taken by the previous Government. Indeed, it is a measure that has since helped countless sufferers of allergies to understand the food that they are consuming and the harms that they may cause.
We know, however, that more needs to be done. It is therefore welcome that the new Government are developing an allergy strategy. But what of the National Health Service’s role? As noble Lords will be aware, before the general election, Allergy UK published a list of steps that it wanted the new Government to take. As the noble Baroness, Lady Healy, has said, one proposal was that there should be an allergen specialist or dietician at the primary care level—the rationale behind this being that it would allow those with allergies to access specialised care, no matter where they may live. This seems a common-sense proposal, since it would enable those living with serious allergies to seek help with managing their allergies early in the process of diagnosis so that they can have a better quality of life and are not unnecessarily constrained by their allergies.
Noble Lords will also understand that there are resource constraints and that the Government of the day have to consider carefully where they allocate taxpayers’ money, given competing demands. I want to reassure the Minister that I understand from my time as a Minister the difficulties due to resource constraints and, sometimes, the practicalities of implementation, but that does not stop noble Lords asking the questions. Is this a policy idea that has been discussed within her department and with the NHS to work out its feasibility? I would be grateful for her assurances.
Like other noble Lords, I too wonder what more can be done within existing NHS structures. Some of the information is there, but how do we spread it nationally from ICB to ICB? How do we get it into schools? How do we get it beyond the hotel rooms? How do we make more people aware, so that when it is announced on a flight that nuts will not be served on a flight because someone has an allergy we avoid the collective groan and hear more understanding of those who suffer from these conditions?
Can the Minister explain what plans there are for all clinicians, including in primary care, secondary care and accident and emergency departments, as well as for other hospital employees, to be suitably trained and made aware of how to deal with patients who have serious allergies, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, alluded to? Has any thought been given to an allergy tsar, as the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, mentioned? What safeguards are in place to ensure that no one with allergies slips through the net and is administered medication that contains ingredients they should not take? The noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, spoke about preventative strategies. What explicit preventative strategies are the Government and the NHS considering?
I know that all noble Lords are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, for securing this important debate and we look forward to the Minister’s responses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friend Lady Ramsey not only on securing this highly relevant debate but on shining a light on this important matter. I thank all noble Lords for their considered contributions, which were given through experience and with empathy.
As noble Lords have observed, there has been a significant rise in hospital admissions for anaphylaxis over the last two decades and it is clear how increasingly significant this matter is. That means that it is incumbent on us to lift our commitment to improving outcomes.
Anyone with an allergy, and anyone close to somebody with an allergy, knows only too well the considerable challenges and risks in everyday life, as we have heard. Very sadly, there are tragic cases of those who die from severe allergic reactions that could have been prevented. On behalf of all noble Lords, I give my heartfelt condolences to those who have lost a loved one because of a severe and sudden allergic reaction.
I thank my noble friends Lady Ramsey and Lord Mendelsohn for speaking about their children’s allergies and their experiences as parents. I also thank my noble friend Lady Keeley for making reference to her own experience. Noble Lords understand just how serious allergies can be, and the worry and anxiety, rooted in reality, that parents and loved ones feel. I too want to pay tribute to then outstanding charities that support people living with allergies in the UK, including Allergy UK, Anaphylaxis UK and the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation. They all do vital work in raising awareness, providing information and support, and funding research.
Work is ongoing across government, the NHS, voluntary organisations and patient representative groups to consider how allergy care and support could be improved. Noble Lords made reference to the Expert Advisory Group for Allergy, which was established last year, met again just last week and continues to bring together all key stakeholders in order to inform where we go next. I am most grateful to that group.
In addition, last year the MHRA launched a safety campaign to raise awareness of anaphylaxis and provide advice on the use of adrenaline autoinjectors, which have also been mentioned in the debate. A toolkit of resources for professionals to support the safe and effective use of AAIs has also been produced, along with new guidance on their use. The guidance clearly states that prescribers should prescribe two AAIs to ensure that patients always have a second dose available.
I am very pleased that Palforzia, a new treatment for peanut allergy, was approved by NICE in 2022 for those up to 17 years old to help reduce the severity of allergic reactions. The NHS is now legally required to fund this medication for eligible patients, in line with the recommendations of NICE. That means it is opening up a way for thousands of children and young people to access the medication through the NHS.
This Government are committed to improving care for people with allergies and ensuring that they get the care and support they need at the right time and access to the latest treatments. I am aware of the inequalities that my noble friend Lady Ramsey referred to in accessing allergy services. I very much acknowledge the points raised by noble Lords, particularly in respect of the workforce, delays to treatment and care, and lack of information and support that some patients have unfortunately experienced. I consider that to be a situation that cannot continue.
Noble Lords have referred today to the 10-year health plan to reform the NHS, and I am glad that noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, spoke about the move from treatment to prevention. It is also about moving healthcare from hospital to the community, as well as analogue to digital. A core and central part of our 10-year plan will be the workforce, as referenced correctly by my noble friend Lady Keeley and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, among others. In our work to prepare for the workforce that we need now and in future, it is vital that we train and get the right staff, technology and infrastructure in place. In acknowledging the points made, I absolutely recognise the need for a multidisciplinary-team approach in this area. That will be part of our considerations.
I remind the Committee that this Government have made a commitment that 92% of patients should wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to treatment within the first term of this Government. That includes those waiting for allergy treatments. As a first step towards this, following the Budget, we will be delivering an additional 40,000 appointments this week to cover operations and scans and appointments themselves.
With regard to the point about the national lead on allergy services, I understand that there is a need to do more, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, my noble friends Lord Mendelsohn and Lady Keeley, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. I am absolutely aware that there is no national lead with overall responsibility for allergy services, and of the reasons why noble Lords have raised it. My colleague Minister Gwynne is putting this under active consideration and I will certainly ensure that I raise not just this point, which has been made so regularly to him, but the other points raised in this debate. I will also raise with him the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, to rolling out a pilot.
On the point about a meeting, raised by my noble friend Lady Ramsey, I am glad to say that Minister Gwynne met the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation just last week to discuss how care and support can be improved. The department is obviously working closely with Professor Sir Stephen Powis, the national medical director at NHS England, and, as I said, there is active consideration of the point about a national lead. I will alert my honourable friend Minister Gwynne to the point about further meetings.
Once diagnosed, and with a management strategy in place—my noble friend Lady Healy spoke to this point —patients with allergies may be able to be cared for through routine access to primary and secondary care. The Royal College of GPs has added allergy training to the new curriculum and, to support existing GPs, it has developed an allergy e-learning resource. As noble Lords will know, this Government seek to bring back the family doctor, especially for those who would benefit from seeing the same clinician regularly; obviously, that includes those with allergies.
On the transition from paediatric to adult services, which was raised by a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn, I absolutely acknowledge the challenge there. NICE has published guidance on the transition that we are speaking about, including recommendations on transition planning, support both before and after the transfer, and the development of transition infrastructure.
I turn to some of the additional points made in the debate; I will be pleased to write to noble Lords on the ones that I do not answer. My noble friend Lady Ramsey mentioned research. Research into allergies is funded through NICE—no, it is not. It is funded through the NIHR; I am on it. It always welcomes funding applications. We have also invested in research infrastructure; for example, Southampton Hospital is participating in a three-year trial funded by the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation.
My noble friends Lady Ramsey and Lady Healy, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, referred to a strategy on allergies. Let me clarify the situation: the National Allergy Strategy Group is developing a strategy, which will come to the department. We will consider it, and its recommendations, carefully.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, mentioned appropriate provision in schools in order to protect children with allergies. The Department for Education recently reminded schools of their legal duties and highlighted the Schools Allergy Code. Regulations now allow schools to obtain and hold spare adrenaline autoinjectors, and there is guidance on that.
On the important matter of prevention, as noble Lords will know, we are committed to moving from treatment to prevention. Some research shows that feeding the most common allergy-causing foods to babies and infants before the age of 12 months may prevent or reduce the chance of them developing food allergies. We will continue to look at that.
I am most grateful for this debate, which has shone an important light on this issue. I can commit to us continuing to work on this matter to improve things for those who suffer from allergies and those who are near to them.
Prisons: Imprisonment for Public Protection
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Burt of Solihull
To ask His Majesty’s Government what further steps they are taking to reduce the size of the Imprisonment for Public Protection prison population following the publication on 15 November of the HMPPS Annual Report on the IPP Sentence.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, first, I apologise for my germy little self. I will try not to infect anybody else.
This is a bittersweet moment for me. It is great to see the measures that we fought for so hard for in the Bill come to fruition, but in my heart I know that it is all based on the faulty premise that all these prisoners could achieve release if they jumped through all the hoops and tried hard enough for long enough. Imagine an engine that was fundamentally flawed in its design, so much so that it was discontinued, and no more parts were made after 2012. For some reason, we are refusing to scrap that faulty engine, and many of the parts that might have worked initially are now falling apart or are irreparably damaged. If we were talking about a real engine, we would scrap it, but we are not talking about a real engine, are we? We are talking about human beings whom we have irreparably damaged by trying to fit them into the maw of a machine that has torn them apart in the process.
The $50,000 question is, if we are not going to do a resentencing exercise, what is the alternative? Further fiddling with a broken system is not going to do it. The prison system is, to extend the engine analogy, running dangerously hot at 97% capacity. Perhaps we should not expect too much until after the sentencing review and the introduction of a culture that is radically different from the “throw away the key” mentality.
I commend everyone who has worked so hard to produce this report, and the people who work tirelessly within the proverbial machine to keep it limping along. The report is seven months late. Even though it was completed in April this year, it was not released until November. Various reasons have been given, but with changes moving apace—we hope—it would be good to know what further progress has been made since April. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, was particularly keen to ask this question had he been able to be here today.
There is a lot of information to digest, but also questions that, with hindsight, I wish I had asked before. On access to and the quality of the courses, I am still getting reports not just that prisoners cannot find the courses they need but that the courses are often not fit for purpose. I have been told that half of prisoners cannot access courses. With the system running at capacity, this is unsurprising, so my first question to the Minister is, what is the average waiting time for each course recommended for each prisoner? What work has been done to assess the effectiveness of these courses?
My next point concerns sex offenders. Four hundred and sixty-five IPP sex offenders have never been released, although some of the initial offences were fairly low level. I know that the Secretary of State before last had a policy of turning down every IPP prisoner sentenced for a sexual offence who had been deemed fit for parole by the Parole Board. Here, the Catch-22 of proving that you are not going to reoffend by doing something you have had no opportunity to do really kicks in. This will not do, but I do not know whether any special measures are being taken to fit sex offenders into whatever passes for acceptability for release. If the answer is obvious, and I did not read the report well enough, perhaps the Minister will write to me and not waste further time.
On reasons for recall, are there any figures available for this? From the report, it seems that the number of recalls has been pretty steady in the past six years or so. I would have hoped that the numbers would have decreased following discussions we have had with the Probation Service, which says that reasons such as turning up late for a probation meeting are now much more tolerantly treated, rather than simply returning IPP prisoners to prison. Is it fair to ask that question now when improvements are promised? Yet individuals and organisations have said that these reasons persist. The mean time on recall has more than doubled since 2015. One would hope that the new focus on IPPs will now cause that figure to drop dramatically.
On reconviction rates, this—of all figures—indicated to me what is wrong with the overly risk-averse approach to the IPP sentence and the treatment of IPP prisoners. Only 0.5% of IPP prisoners released were subsequently convicted of a serious further offence. I do not have access to this figure, so will the Minister say, from the current figures available to him, what percentage of “ordinary” prisoners convicted of a serious further offence were reoffenders? In other words, what percentage of normal prisoners—whatever a “normal” prisoner is—reoffended with a serious offence? I bet my bottom dollar it is more than 0.5%.
Is it not time to abandon this risk-averse approach and to change the culture that blames probation and parole services for failure and congratulate them on all the difficult work that they do? Nobody can get it right all the time, unless we keep every offender in prison—we are doing quite a good job of that at the moment. Do we not need a more realistic, balanced approach, a bit more like the one we give to ordinary prisoners today? The system works, to a degree, and, as far as can be managed without omnipotence, without locking up some people for life on the off chance that they might reoffend. There are prisoners dying of cancer, confined to wheelchairs, who are still serving an IPP sentence. Shall we build a bit of compassion into this wonky, dysfunctional machine of ours or, better still, design something else which is less likely to turn an IPP sentence into an actual life sentence? I welcome the PMB introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and I will strongly support it when it comes before the House. If not resentencing, we still need an alternative to the dysfunctional system that we have.
I look forward to the contributions of other noble and noble and learned Lords who know a lot more than I do and to the response of the Minister, who is very much put upon to deliver messages that we are not always minded always to hear.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a real honour and privilege to follow the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and to speak in such an important debate. I thank the noble Baroness for asking the Government this key question and for never giving up on the fight for justice for the thousands of people serving IPPs.
The annual report, which we are dealing with now, and the action plan are worthy and well-considered documents; there is no doubt about that. But what is missing is any recognition that the IPP sentence itself is a form of torture—at least according to the United Nations. Like many others in your Lordships’ House, I believe that resentencing is the only way to end this torture.
The chair of the Justice Committee in the other place, Andy Slaughter MP, recently wrote to Ministers warning that
“the Government may have misunderstood the Committee’s original recommendation on resentencing”.
Ministers keep saying that resentencing would mean mass release with no supervision, but Mr Slaughter is clear that
“resentencing would not mean the automatic release of all IPP prisoners”.
Legislating for suitable supervision to manage risk will of course be necessary and indeed wanted by many of those in the system.
Mr Slaughter’s letter ends by encouraging Ministers, as we do, to consider again establishing an expert panel to explore options for IPP resentencing, balancing
“the protection of the public with justice for the individual offender”.
Despite the Prisons Minister’s concerns in last month’s debate, I do not believe that this would give “false hope” to IPP prisoners—not if the Government made clear that there was no commitment to resentencing at this stage but, instead, a commitment to consider the matter further. The expert advisory panel would be there to do just that by giving its expert advice to the Government on what a resentencing exercise, with public protection at its heart, could look like.
Ministers also claim that they are opposed to resentencing because they do not want to overrule or usurp the role of the Parole Board. That sounds reasonable at first, but, last week, an Answer to a Written Question submitted by Kim Johnson MP revealed that, since July, the new Government have refused to follow the Parole Board’s recommendations on the transfer or release of IPP prisoners more than 45% of the time. That is scandalous. Without wishing to sound cynical, some might say that the Government seem happy to hide behind the Parole Board when it suits them but to ignore its advice when it does not.
In finishing, I urge the Government to cut through the politics, to let Parliament solve the problem that Parliament itself created over 20 years ago, and to allow a free vote on resentencing in both Houses. This must be the fairest way to reduce the size of the IPP prison population, carefully balancing public protection with the principles of justice and mercy.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, for bringing this Question to our attention. It is almost impossible to improve on the passion and commitment that she showed in her speech, despite her struggling with a cold.
There has been improvement in the last couple of years. These poor prisoners are receiving a great deal more attention than was the case a few years ago. There are no bad people involved in this problem: everybody involved in it is trying to make it better. That goes for Ministers, officials, the speakers in the Room, the Commons Justice Committee and so on. Everybody wants to make it better. I fully respect the commitment and seriousness of the officials, particularly at the MoJ, who are trying to make the action plan work. But, in the end, there is a failure to grasp politically that, for a plan to work, it needs an objective. What is lacking in this plan is a clear notion of what success would look like. What are we aiming to achieve?
As far as prisoners who are out on licence are concerned, the great advances made through the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024—it received Royal Assent just before the Prorogation of Parliament—are now being implemented by the new Government. I hope that that will help to deal with the issue of prisoners who are out on licence and that, in a sense, that issue will start to go away over time.
The problem is IPP prisoners who are actually in prison and, in particular, those who have never been released. I would say that an action plan should have as its objective the reduction of that number to zero—it has to be a reduction of that number to zero. At the moment, 11 have not served their full tariff, so perhaps we should say that, today, success would look like reducing that number to 11, but that is not a target in the action plan—that is not what it aims at. I am not sure what the action plan does aim at, except to make the system, which is very clunky and difficult—the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, referred to this—work somewhat more smoothly and to try to make it join up. It will always leave this dilemma that the Parole Board will act according to the same criteria that will apply in every case, as far as the protection of the public is concerned, but with no recognition of the injustice done to these prisoners.
There will be a number—possibly we would all agree that there will—who will probably never be safe to release. Do the Minister’s officials have an estimate of that number or of its scale? I have reason to think that they have made such an estimate, but it is for him to say. We are now coming to the point where we will have to grapple with that figure and those people, because as you move people out of prison, perhaps for the first time, it gets harder and harder to carry on doing so. You will come to the people who will not pass this test. Do we have an estimate of that number? I know that the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, is very committed on this issue, but I have not yet heard senior Ministers in the Commons start to express, and say things about, that mindset that shows that they now regard these people as victims rather than offenders.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, at the election we were promised change, and we constantly hear that that is the mantra of the Government, but what is fascinating is that this Government have carried on the same approach to IPP as the last one. It was a small and mealy-mouthed attempt at a little measured movement, but actually nothing dynamic. The same sense of risk that the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to persists with this so-called changed Government. What is the change that has taken place on IPP sentencing? It is a complicated and convoluted system of changed possible tariffs, but, as this report indicates, for those who can possibly understand what it means, it does not really work. As one who visits prisons at least three times a month, I can tell you, from talking to IPP prisoners, that they do not understand it. They do not get it and they feel a deep sense of despair.
We learned today, from reporting by both the BBC and Sky, that President Assad held 100,000 people in prison. Yesterday, this Government announced that they want to hold 109,000 people in prison. What does that say about us? Exactly as the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, said, it says that our inclination and the culture is to entrap people and, effectively, persecute them. At the moment, according to the House of Lords Library, two-thirds of those on IPP sentences have never been released for over 10 years. If any of us were put in the same position—held for a 10-year sentence and then another 10 years—would we be fit for training? Would we have the right approach? Would our minds be ready for release? We would be screwed up—and the Government want to pretend that this equals change. It does not; it equals sitting back and giving in to the panic of the public. In a way, the Minister needs to look to his army of civil servants around him, who I am sure are very wise but not very risky, because they are not inclined to meet real people and understand how they feel and deal with it.
Unlike the Secretary of State, who was pictured yesterday rushing around prisons with officers around her to protect her from meeting offenders, I really sit with them. What I hear from real offenders and real people is, “They don’t get it”. This report does not equal anything new; there is no hope in it and they feel great despair. Unfortunately, the culture is that if we can return people —the latest figure is 1,599 recalled to prison—it is basically saying their sentence does not exist any longer. We are no longer sending anybody down through the courts, but we are saying, “You did something terrible 15 years ago. Tap, tap—back you go”. What kind of mindset for change is that? It is not one.
I had a very interesting note from a prisoner—because I sit and talk with prisoners, and they write to me about their real lives—who went through in great detail what is wrong with the system. In his letter from an adult prison, he describes how, on the day of release, a young man was told to go and pick up his property, consisting of a phone, from a police station. Later, on the same day, his hostel room was searched by staff who found the phone in a sealed police bag. Not being allowed to have more than one phone, he was recalled. Six months then had to pass before he could be considered for an appeal. That is the culture of a probation service, a prison system, a ministerial system and civil servants who sit there pontificating about it, but do not meet and deal with human beings. For goodness’ sake, we need some sense of generosity of spirit—keep in the dangerous ones, but let out the majority.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I wish to concentrate on one aspect touched on by the noble Baroness, to whom I am grateful for this debate, and that is the way the recall system is working.
The problem is simple to state. The test for recall is, essentially, a low threshold and the test for release after recall is a high threshold. The result is that the mean time in custody after recall has risen to between 25 and 30 months, the equivalent of a five-year sentence of imprisonment.
The report refers to the result of a thematic inspection published in December 2023 and notes that the Government accepted each recommendation and published a revised IPP action plan. However, the base problem is not highlighted in the recommendations or the report, and the action plan does not grapple with it. I shall quickly make four points.
First, the test for recall requires the person making the decision to demonstrate a “causal link” in the current behaviour to that which was exhibited at the time of the index offence. Many of the recalls are because the person on licence has been late in returning to approved accommodation—I met one such recently at HMP Wormwood Scrubs. I simply do not understand how we can go on using this recall test for people who have been at least 12 years in prison under an IPP sentence. Surely, we need a properly focused test that takes into account the realities of IPP. Can we have that, please?
Secondly, while the test remains, the decision on recall should set out the evidence for the causal link. It should be written, like all good decisions, before the decision is promulgated, to ensure that the reasoning justifies the recall—that is called good decision-making. Given the extremely serious consequences of recall on the liberty of a subject, this practice of good decision-making should be required. I ask that that be done.
Thirdly, a review of such decisions is needed before this lengthy process before the Parole Board gets fully under way. If the IPP prisoner had been sentenced in a court, he would have had a right of appeal and the case heard by the Court of Appeal, if leave was given, in about five and a half to six months. Does a senior civil servant review the recall, both for the evidence and its proportionality? After all, the Secretary of State is responsible and accountable, and the knowledge of a review by someone directly accountable to her improves decision-making. Certainly, that is the experience of every tribunal—that if you have a review, it works to improve decision-making.
Fourthly, if recall is properly evidence-based and proportionate, what can be done to speed up the process of release, given what the thematic report says about the effect on mental health? Has the Parole Board got enough resources?
I have three quick points on unreleased IPPs. First, about 16% have tariffs of less than two years. That injustice is palpable, as they had the misfortune to be sentenced before the tariff was raised to at least two years. Secondly, as at March 2024, 32 IPPs who were sentenced when they were under 18 have never been released. Thirdly, as of June 2024, there were 37 who were 70 and had never been released. They will have served the equivalent of a 24-year sentence. There can be no doubt that we must look again at the way the release test works, and the extent to which the responsibility of the state for this stain on English justice is taken into account. The Howard League has established a panel to look at such issues, and we intend to report before April 2025.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, from whom I have learned a great deal since I have been in your Lordships’ House. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, on securing this debate and acknowledge and applaud her work in this area over years. I am grateful to the organisations that have sent in briefings to inform me generally and inform my contribution. Of course, I thank the Minister, my noble friend Lord Timpson, in his absence for giving of his time to discuss this most vexed of issues. Despite assurances that progress is being made and despite the number of prisoners serving IPPs declining, it is an exceptionally slow rate of decline. The numbers of recalls and their duration has increased, as we have just heard.
We have rehearsed in your Lordships’ House on a number of occasions the damage caused by this sentence to prisoners’ mental and emotional health and of the self-harm engendered, as well as ultimately prisoners taking their own lives, as nine did in 2023. It bears repeating the nature of the initial crimes that gave rise to these sentences. Thomas White was given a two-year minimum sentence for stealing a mobile phone but has served 12 years. John Wright, then 17, was given a two-year tariff for headbutting a younger child and stealing his bike—a very unpleasant crime, but he has served 17 years. Martin Myers received a 20-month tariff for the attempted robbery of a cigarette. I am not even sure that that can be accurate, but I am assured that it is, and Martin has served 18 years.
My own MP, Andy Slaughter, who is now, as we have heard, the chair of the Justice Select Committee, has apparently understood rather better than others what a resentencing exercise would mean. He is very clear that it does not mean automatic and immediate releases. I hope that we can pursue this further when time is found for my noble friend Lord Woodley’s Bill to be in Committee.
The action plan is of course welcome, but UNGRIPP asks: having given itself 12 months to see a change by using the action plan, what will happen if there has been insufficient progress in those 12 months? As there are no clear and measurable targets, what are the Government actually aiming for? In this, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. What are the strategic ways of monitoring progress?
I hope that the Minister is able to reassure us that the use of language such as “in a timely manner” is not being used to obfuscate, rather than clarify what the plan is intended to do. I accept, as others do, that some prisoners have been so damaged by what the state has done to them that release for them is trickier. But endless incarceration cannot be the answer: we must find more and better ways to move forward for these prisoners.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, what a powerful debate this is turning into.
I shall focus on the part of the HMPPS report dealing with self-inflicted deaths, another symptom of this cruel sentence. The report shows that nine IPP prisoners took their lives while in custody in 2023. Action 8 of the action plan sets out some of the commendable steps being taken to support IPPs at risk of self-harm and suicide in custody. There is reference to prisoners being managed and supported under procedures with the rather convoluted title “assessment, care in custody and teamwork’’ or ACCT, yet of the 19 self-inflicted deaths in custody reviewed by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman for his 2023 learning lessons bulletin, only five of the individuals were on ACCT monitoring at the time of their death. This indicates that much more needs to be done to recognise a prisoner’s IPP status as a potential risk factor and to identify the triggers for suicide and self-harm that are associated with this sentence.
This is particularly the case given the expert evidence, heard by the Justice Committee for its third report, that the psychological harm caused by this sentence leads to greatly increased risks of suicide and self-harm and can even prevent release because of the perceived risks of reoffending. Being refused release because of the harm caused by the sentence itself offends every sense of what is fair and therefore increases, in turn, the risk of suicide and self-harm. What a vicious circle that is.
It is not even just about the risks of suicide and self-harm arising for those who have never been released. Even in the case of prisoners who have been released, the effect of several recalls, or even the mere possibility of recall, creates its own risks. This is again clear from the ombudsman’s report where he recounts a case in which an IPP prisoner was recalled on numerous occasions, even though he had not committed an offence. He was traumatised and left without hope that he would ever see the end of his apparently endless sentence and was found hanged in his cell, even though he had again been directed for release by the Parole Board.
Earlier this year, during Committee on the Victims and Prisoners Bill, the truly tragic case of Matthew Price was mentioned. He took his own life last year while on licence from an IPP sentence because of the anxieties he felt about the ever-present potential for recall to prison. It is indeed shocking when one is told that he had been on licence for nearly 10 years. That is the invidious reach of this cruel sentence.
What this teaches us is that whatever an IPP prisoner’s circumstances, whether they have never been released, have been released and recalled, or have been released and are on licence, they are never free from the sentence’s psychological grip. I do not get the sense from the action plan that the psychological damage caused by the IPP sentence, whether it is being served in custody or in the community, is given sufficient weight. Indeed, the action plan deals with prisoners at risk of suicide and self-harm only while in custody. It does not expressly cover those in the community or therefore show an adequate appreciation of the need to view this sentence holistically. if one is ever to stand a chance of reducing these self-inflicted deaths. The action plan could be significantly improved by doing so.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Burt for this short debate and all who have spoken in it so far. We should remind ourselves, as she did, that the work we are doing here is subsequent to the abolition of IPP in 2012. We are dealing with the cases of people who were sentenced between 2005 and 2012. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has just outlined, tremendous hurt has been done to those people. There are now some 240 IPP prisoners in mental health institutions, and the hopelessness of this regime has led to 86 prisoners taking their own lives. We, the state, are responsible for this inhumane treatment. In many cases, it is psychological torture. Basically, this is an unjust system; that is now agreed across all parts of this House, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said, but the solutions to the problem are proving more difficult to grasp.
Action plans in the past were criticised because they did not have clear strategic priority, ownership, detail, timeframes and performance measures. The scheme as we see it now, refreshed, has led to reductions in the numbers serving sentences but the new plan will not mean an end to these sentences altogether, and the timeframe for the reduction in numbers is still slow. That is, in great part, as a result of resource implications and issues.
As my noble friend Lady Burt has said, there is limited scope for proper preparation for reintegration into society more generally. A member of the Parole Board who has served on it for 12 years said that he had
“seen the difficulties that hopelessness and the lack of opportunity to reform brings to people—some people have got worse in prison because of that”.
Lack of hope due to a limited light at the end of the tunnel is causing these problems.
It is very difficult for IPP offenders to engage in rehabilitation opportunities. This is made worse by the capacity issues in prisons, as my noble friend Lady Burt pointed out. On recall, both my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, pointed to the dramatic increase in the recall procedure to show that it is not getting better quickly.
Members have raised numerous questions on the current action plan, as has the Prison Reform Trust. I can sum up those questions in two that encompass what the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan said. What do the Government believe will be the measure of success with the current action plan? What will the numbers and expectations of successful outcomes look like? We need an answer to those questions. We need to find the resource for progression panels inside the institutions, so that we can work properly to give people a route out.
I know that I have only a few minutes to touch on resentencing. In that time, I will refer to the letter the Government received from the Justice Committee which points out that they never committed to introducing measures that would lead to people being released who were dangerous to the community. It lists in some detail what the proposals were. Will the Government commit in this Parliament to looking afresh at this matter, in light of the view of the Justice Committee and that letter? Will they, as a minimum, seek advice from an expert group as recommended in the committee’s letter?
We in this Parliament are useful in developing legislation. The Government may be concerned about bringing forward further legislation but, if there is a genuine concern, I assure the Minister that we on these Benches will support him to deal with this matter. Any resulting legislation would bring this miserable problem to a satisfactory end.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for bringing forward this Question for Short Debate. It follows a very good debate on the Private Member’s Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and we can focus on this important issue again. I spoke in that debate at some length but I have limited time today, so I hope the Committee will forgive me if I do not repeat the points I made then.
We know the essential points. It is a long-standing issue and a real injustice. As has been said by a number of people, it is a stain on our justice system. Improvements have been made, yes, but more needs to be done. As my noble friend Lord Moylan said, we all want to make things better, especially the officials, and a lot of work has been done. I have to say, though, I am not convinced. I recognise the passion and commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick, on this but I am not persuaded that comparisons with President Assad will necessarily advance the debate.
I hope the coughs we can hear are medical and not Whips’ coughs at this point. HMPPS’s report, which came out on 15 November, is very interesting. I would like to pick up a few points and I should make clear that because of pressure on my time I have not been able to give the Minister advance notice of these points. I am happy to have a letter in response and do not expect a detailed oral response.
On page three of the report, it says that HMPPS expects to see, as we all want, the number of IPP prisoners
“in prisons and the community”
—those on licence—reduced. Well, yes, but it is a little more complex than that. Do we want to reduce the numbers in prison, even if that also means increasing the numbers on licence in the community? Again, yes, so we may see the numbers on licence go up as a consequence of numbers in prison going down. Equally, we do not want to reduce the number of those in the community if they have been recalled to prison. We need to look at these figures carefully and not just in totality.
As my noble friend Lord Moylan asked, what is our aim here? What are we trying to do? I suggest that there must be an irreducible number of IPP prisoners, no doubt because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, said, the state’s actions have, I am afraid, probably made some of these people un-releasable. I will not get into the resentencing debate today but we have seen in the data a significant decrease in oral review hearings before the Parole Board: there were 1,317 of them in 2018-19 but only 792 in 2022-23. That is a drop of 40%. The rate of release at those hearings has remained constant, so one of the reasons why we are getting fewer prisoners out is that we are having fewer hearings. Why is that? Is it because prisoners with difficult cases are not being brought forward, or is there some other reason?
The second point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, was about the number of re-releases following a recall. Prisoners are now spending nearly two and a half years in prison after a recall; I am concerned that that makes them very hard to release thereafter, once they are back in the prison system. Is this because there are fewer review hearings taking place? Are those two points connected? I suspect that they might be.
In the 30 seconds I have before the coughing starts, I want to make one last point; it concerns the number of IPP prisoners later convicted of a serious further offence. The report says that this is rare—less than 0.5%—but those are the prisoners out on licence. I am interested in the number of prisoners reoffending after their licence is terminated. We know that the reoffending rate in our criminal justice system generally is significant. I would be interested to receive—I have asked for this before but I still have not had it—a comparison between the general reoffending rate and the reoffending rate among IPP prisoners on release after their licence period. For comparison, I would also like to know the reoffending rate among prisoners whom the Government were happy to release early in the August scheme. Comparing those three points of data would be interesting.
To stave off any further coughs, I shall conclude my remarks at this point.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, this has undoubtedly been a powerful debate, with views expressed passionately. I have in front of me a reasonably lengthy speech in which I will address most of the points made today; if I do not answer of the questions asked, I will of course write to noble Lords.
I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for her opening remarks and for securing this debate. The issue of the IPP sentence is one that continues to generate immense debate across the whole House; indeed, many of the noble Lords who have spoken in today’s debate have been pivotal in ensuring some of the significant steps forward that have been taken already. The Government recognise the obstacles still faced by those serving IPP sentences, especially the 2,694 prisoners who, as at the end of September, remain in prison.
It is pleasing—and, as I say, to the great credit of many in the House—that the first phase of the changes to the IPP licence period in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 have now been implemented. As noble Lords will know, the introduction of the automatic licence termination period has led to the end of the IPP sentence for 1,742 people who were on licence in the community up until commencement on 1 November this year; I well remember working with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on those amendments when the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, was in the opposite chair, if I can put it like that. The Government recognise, however, that this does not immediately change the circumstances for those still serving the IPP sentence in prison, and that there is more still to do in order to support these offenders to take the necessary steps towards being cleared as safe for release by the independent Parole Board.
Before I go any further, I am aware that many noble Lords will be familiar with the IPP sentence; however, some may not, including some listening from outside, so I will provide a brief overview before turning to the question at hand. The IPP sentence was first introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as a means of managing high-risk individuals who had been convicted of serious specified violent or sexual offences. The Act was amended in 2008 to give the courts discretion to impose an IPP sentence provided the tariff was at least two years, or the offender was convicted, at any time, of an offence under Schedule 15A of the Act—top-end violent and sexual offences were incorporated within that.
The Government are clear that it was absolutely right to abolish the IPP sentence, and we are determined to do all we can to support the remaining IPP offenders to finish their sentences. At the time of abolition, there were more than 6,000 offenders serving an IPP sentence in custody. Since then, a substantial number have been released on licence. As of September this year, 1,095 IPP prisoners are in prison having never been released, and a further 1,599 are in prison having been recalled to custody as their risk could not be safely managed in the community. It is right that the release of any IPP prisoner is subject to a thorough risk assessment and that the prisoner will be released only when the independent Parole Board determines that the prisoner’s risk is now capable of being effectively managed in the community on licence.
Legislating to give every IPP prisoner a definite release date and post-release licence, or legislating to provide for resentencing by a court, would result in them being released irrespective of their remaining risk. This would be the case even where the Parole Board had previously determined, in many cases repeatedly, that they continue to be too dangerous to be released, as they have failed to meet the statutory release test. Either legislative approach would put the public at an unacceptable risk of harm, which the Government are not prepared to countenance for any IPP prisoner through any partial resentencing.
The IPP annual report, published on 15 November, covers the period up to the end of March this year but also includes the latest version of the HMPPS IPP action plan for this current financial year. The plan puts a greater emphasis on effective front-line delivery in our prisons, challenging HMPPS operational leaders to ensure that each IPP prisoner has the right sentence plan and access to the right interventions, programmes or rehabilitative services to reduce their risk of reoffending. This is the best way to move them closer to being deemed safe to be released by the Parole Board.
Where these core fundamentals are in place, IPP prisoners can make progress towards release, provided they continue to engage fully with HMPPS staff working with them. The Government are determined to achieve this, including ensuring that HMPPS delivers effective sentence planning and timely prison transfers. As things stand, around 30% of IPP prisoners are not in a prison that can deliver the requirements of their sentence plans. The action plan, and particularly the effective delivery of the workstream that focuses on operational delivery on the ground, are the vehicle through which this situation must and will improve. Let me be very clear that we believe that these key actions will be the bedrock of significant improvements to the support and prospects of IPP prisoners. These are: the right plan, the right place, the right service and the right support for each offender.
The Government are determined to make the necessary progress on this issue. My noble friend Lord Timpson, the Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending, has met many key stakeholders and is building a deeper understanding of HMPPS governance for overseeing the delivery of the plan. Just last week, he attended the external stakeholder challenge group, and he knows that stakeholders will continue to hold HMPPS and the Government to account. My noble friend remains passionate about this work and will be attending the IPP Progression Board next week to engage with the senior leaders at HMPPS who are responsible for delivery of the action plan. He has already spent significant time with staff across HMPPS, and I know that he is extremely positive about the high quality of leaders and staff, both operationally and centrally, and their huge commitment to deliver effective work to better the prospects of offenders.
The refreshed plan is made up of nine workstreams covering required actions relating to operational delivery, policy and analysis. This includes important policies, such as a new one on progressive prison transfers for indeterminate sentence prisoners, published on 14 November, which provides, for the first time, a formal set of requirements designed to ensure the smooth progress of prisoners to access the required interventions they need. This is important, as it means that where an identified next step is agreed with the prisoner and those who manage their case, the necessary actions to transfer them to the new location can happen swiftly and with care about the inevitable disruption such moves can create for individual offenders.
The refreshed plan also includes the expansion of psychology services through the prison gate for some of the more complex cases. This means additional support for both the offender, for example, through bespoke one-to-one support sessions, and the probation officer in their management of the case. This level of continuity from the prison into the community is important in providing effective support during those often challenging early stages for offenders following release.
The refreshed plan includes a quarterly review of progress for all detention for public protection cases in prison who were convicted prior to their 18th birthday. This review ensures that the offender’s progress remains on track, which means that they have an up-to-date plan and are engaging with it in the right prison. Where there are any concerns identified, appropriate action is taken to try to address them. The refreshed plan includes continuous improvement of the internal IPP data dashboard, which gives HMPPS operational leaders important information about the progress of their specific cohorts. It includes prioritising IPP prisoners for important regular keywork sessions and sentence management activity in times of high resource demand pressure across our prisons.
Health plays a vital role and, sadly, we see some cases where health or mental health issues can impede a person’s ability to progress. These issues must be treated, and I am pleased that the Chief Medical Officer has agreed to the Lord Chancellor’s request to consider the IPP sentence as part of his independent review of offender health. This will help us better to understand the specific health challenges faced by those serving the sentence and enable us to work with the Department for Health and Social Care to improve the support available to them.
HMPPS is taking the IPP issue very seriously at every level of the service, notwithstanding that we are making progress against a backdrop of well-known prison capacity issues and the huge strain on staff resources to implement the necessary measures to tackle it. It is important that we allow the action plan, and particularly the front-line-facing operational delivery plans, a chance to bed in before we review their progress in March next year. I assure noble Lords that if at any point it is clear that more needs to be done, we will review all options to enhance the level and type of support delivered to IPP prisoners even further and take decisive action to deliver any which we believe will make a difference.
Finally, it is important that this review of progress also leads to the setting up of clear measures of success in the next version of the action plan. We will use the review of the current plan early next year to identify those measures and benchmarks against which we can all gauge future progress. These will be shared as part of the next annual report and updated action plan, which will be laid in Parliament before the Summer Recess.
The Government’s priority continues to be the protection of the public, but I hope that noble Lords can see that we also remain fully committed to doing all we can to support the safe progression of those serving IPP sentences. I look forward to updating the House on the progress that I am confident the action plan will achieve in the next IPP annual report next year.
Let me repeat my gratitude to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and address some of the points made. First, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked how many IPP prisoners will never be released. Obviously, I cannot give him a number for that, but I can say that we apply a red, amber, green rating to prisoners currently on an IPP sentence and, at present, around one-quarter have a red rating, which means they are not engaging with services within prison at all. I think that answers his question. I shall sit down now and will write to noble Lords on any questions I have failed to answer.
Homes: Existing Communities
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to increase the supply and improve the quality of the homes people want, in the places they want to live, whilst ensuring that development does not adversely affect existing communities.
Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise (Con)
My Lords, I start by saying how much I appreciate the opportunity of debating this subject in Grand Committee today. I pay tribute to the collective wisdom of the House; I know many Members have spoken before on this subject. I has taken me a year to get to this point, so I am very excited to be here at last.
One statistic tells us everything we need to know about the debilitating effect of our planning system: in the south-east of England, one acre of agricultural land without planning permission is worth around £15,000. That same land with planning permission is worth a minimum of £1.5 million. At a time of anaemic growth in our economy, the Government literally have the ability to create billions of pounds’ worth of value at the stroke of a pen. Of course, the effects of our planning system are not just economic. The UK’s housing market is socially divisive and deeply regressive and transfers wealth from young to old, poor to rich, north to south.
The sky-high cost of building land has one other perverse effect: it means that money that should be invested in quality, design, space and parkland is instead spent on acquiring land and getting planning permission. It should therefore be no surprise to us that new buildings are unattractive, always overpriced and, most importantly, unpopular. There is a vicious circle. We have created an anti-building system that makes building unpopular, so the Prime Minister’s ambitious and courageous efforts to build new homes should be applauded, as should the Deputy Prime Minister’s determination to release a fraction of London’s green belt, an area that is more than twice the size of London, for the homes that London desperately needs. I am encouraged by their enthusiasm, but I worry that these initiatives will have little or no impact. They certainly will not deliver high-quality homes in the places people want to live at a price they can afford.
It is instructive that in his recent article in the Times the PM exhorts,
“Whitehall, housebuilders, councils and everyone else to stretch ourselves to the max to meet the scale of the challenge we face”.
We have to ask ourselves why are all these disparate groups —bureaucrats, developers, Whitehall and communities —so obstructive? No other market in the UK requires the Prime Minister to urge all the actors involved to do better. The Prime Minister does not need to cajole the food, clothing, electronics or furniture markets into delivering better quality. I was encouraged by the Statement by the Housing Minister today. It was a positive step, but does it not strike noble Lords as strange that the Government are planning to spend £3 billion to help private housebuilders build houses at a time when the system is locking up so much value in unnecessarily expensive land? It is like the person who is wounding you offering you free plasters at the same time.
We seem to forget that the rules against which the Prime Minister believes we should all be stretching ourselves to the max are rules of our own making. We are being urged to fight a system of our own creation. There is a very simple and powerful reason why, since its introduction in 1947, planning has consistently produced fewer, smaller, denser, uglier, less desirable homes than we want. Every reform has begun with the implicit assumption that development needs to be planned by government. We have created a system that controls the supply of land and dictates where we live, what type of houses we live in and where we work and shop. However, government, at every level, national or local, simply does not have the requisite knowledge, incentives or resources to do that effectively. No guiding mind ever could.
That planned economies do not work seems to be a lesson the world never tires of learning. We plod through the standard list of excuses for failure: blame the plan, blame the planners, the developers and the blockers, blame everybody you can. The problem is not the people involved but the system that they have to operate within. Those excuses are symptoms of a deeper truth: planned economies do not deliver, and the UK’s housing market is no exception.
To use a building analogy, our system of building control is built on the wrong foundations, so changing the wallpaper and putting in a new kitchen will not suffice. The 1947 Act needs to be demolished and rebuilt on better principles, ones that achieve the aims which we all, ultimately, want planning to achieve: to have better quality, more spacious and functional homes in the places we want to live, surrounded by the land that we enjoy living in. I suggest that we need to start with an entirely different presumption: a system that starts by presuming that all land is developable but, crucially, subjects building to strict principle-based rules and regulations that protect the legitimate interests of existing communities and the natural environment. At one stroke, such a system would release millions of acres of land for development, dramatically reducing its cost while increasing the numbers of houses built and their quality, along with reducing costs to consumers.
Some people might assume that such a reform—the abolition of top-down planning—would be a free for all. Unsurprisingly, and perhaps fairly, such a suggestion conjures up images of a dystopian race to the bottom, with a nation covered in concrete. But there is a middle ground between top-down planning and a free for all: the same type of system that regulates virtually every other successful economic activity in the world, from food to cars, computing to clothing and chemicals to crops. It is having carefully regulated free markets, with systems that permit growth but prevent the sort of development that undermines the value of existing homes.
A new system of pro-economic, pro-quality building control will take time to formulate. Noble Lords will be delighted to know that I do not have the time to go into the detail of what that system would look like, but let me start with three principles that should be at the heart of any new regulatory system we might consider.
First, and most importantly, there is the “love thy neighbour” principle. This simply insists that development does nothing to materially devalue neighbouring homes and businesses—a principle that goes right to the heart of what people fear most about new development, and one that would incentivise the building of high-quality homes that look nice and therefore do not devalue the property around them. Not only do they not do so, but good developments actually enhance the value of incumbent properties.
Secondly, there is the “carry your weight” principle. This would require all new development quite simply to leave the infrastructure that it finds—roads, drainage, rail networks and more—in the state in which it was found or better.
Finally, there is the recognition that a great deal of land in the country is of communal value. It has special value to communities, so local councils should have the ability to designate that land as having outstanding community value, and that land would have the sorts of restrictions that we currently apply to all land. However, we would not need those restrictions because there would be so much other good land around that there would be no need to destroy areas of natural beauty. That is another great problem of the scarcity that we create in this country: it encourages the building of homes in places where people least want them.
One might justly think that these three principles are already embodied in our planning system, but that would miss the point. The system I am proposing is fundamentally different: it starts at the other end of the telescope. Rather than government seeking to force, cajole and plan the development of good building, it would instead focus on preventing bad building and leave the vast resource we have at our disposal as a nation—the creative energy, intelligence, initiative, capital and innovation of the nation—to deliver the great buildings that we desire.
Before 1947, such a free market system existed in broad terms; it delivered the architecture, streets, cities and towns that we love and cherish today. Let us have the courage to start afresh, release the vast store of wealth tied up in land that we currently squander, put more trust in each other, love the future as much as we love the past and return this nation to another age of great building of which we can be proud.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am a shareholder in Next plc. I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, because he has just shown himself, as ever, to be a very big thinker. He is certainly the most gifted and capable business leader of our generation, but his speech also showed that he has big thoughts and a real view about how these things can be delivered as well, which will be one of my themes. I hope the Minister will consider what the noble Lord said very carefully and will invite him in: I would have been more than happy had this turned into an “hour for short lecture” for the noble Lord to outline all his plans, but I am happy to hear the contributions of others as well, as well as to make some very elementary points that I feel are important.
The first is that I think the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, makes an important point about the impact of housing developments on others. In the communities that we are looking to build, we have to be absolutely clear that the infrastructure is there. It is not just about the economic incentives, which I think are absolutely clear and were outlined very well in the last speech, over the nature of the planning system and the level of costs that it brings, but many of the challenges we face in social cohesion and belief in fairness have all played to the problems caused by development not having the critical infrastructure that is necessary to accompany the extension of wider housing opportunities—GPs, schools and other critical services. Those things have to be planned as well, not just the construction of housing but creating the right incentives for other forms of structure to be there.
Certainly, the Government have done a good job in trying to set the direction on increasing housing supply. They have a significant housing target, a muscular approach to land usage and are putting pressure on local authorities, but it is not enough, because housing targets are huge: 1.5 million over three years is a very significant number, and my concern is that it would be more reasonable to suggest that we could do 3 million over 10 years. It is very hard to deliver 1.5 million over five years for a number of reasons, not least the employment situation in the construction industry and the skills that are necessary to reach that sort of level. Not only that, but we have a huge balance of public sector versus private sector-led development to be able to wash out, and we do not yet have the economics to do that. The private sector is key to this, as is making sure that the private sector has the right incentives to do it.
Here, the planning system is critical. The data says that there were 15,000 planning officers in 2010 and 12,000 in 2020. I, for one, do not feel that this adequately reflects the problems in planning departments. It may well be that there was a drop of only 3,000 but, from my experience of planning issues, it is very significant to see that the length of time in which people are planning officers, where they are brought in and where they are from has changed substantially. I suspect that that involves a huge amount of churn, because the number of full-time planning officers in planning departments that I have dealt with has dropped much more markedly, which makes planning much more complex.
Any plan we have to massively increase housing supply will have to have a real sense about the timings and synchronicity of the plan, the delivery adjacencies, the people challenges and whether we can get the agencies and the role of the state in the right place, and there will be a price to pay, which unfortunately the Government will have to make sure that they can meet. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, extends the point by saying that if we were to have some very strong advanced principles in this, that would certainly also set the right direction for the future.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for initiating this short and very timely debate. I will refer in a moment to a speech that he made on 29 February on a similar theme, but he will not mind my saying that he is not one of the usual suspects who turns up to our debates on housing. However, his insight is invaluable, because he comes from a successful commercial background, providing consumers with what they need, which we have manifestly failed to do in housing, and he brings a clarity of purpose—and also a sense of impatience and frustration about the current system, with which I very much sympathise. Who could argue that where we are today is the right place on housing and planning? There was a very perceptive article by Paul Johnson in the Times on Monday.
Having read my noble friend’s speech on 29 February, I have some reservations about part of his approach. He proposed two simple principles to the world of housing, and what he said then bears remarkable similarity to what he has just said:
“I have time to suggest just two … It simply insists that all new development does nothing to materially devalue neighbouring homes and businesses. The second, the ‘carry your weight’ principle, requires all new development to leave infrastructure in the state in which it found it or better. Before 1947, such a free market system existed in broad terms; it delivered the architecture, streets, cities and towns that we love and cherish today”.—[Official Report, 29/2/24; col. GC 158.]
It also delivered some pretty terrible stuff that no planning system would permit.
I have difficulty with those principles, and I am one of the guilty party; I was Housing Minister for about nine years and Planning Minister for four. The trouble with the first principle is that it risks denying the country the new homes that it needs. After 41 years in another place—with those four years as Minister for Planning—I know that there are many people out there who will argue that any new development, however well designed, will materially devalue their homes or businesses. We have need of development, however. We need new pylons —who is going to welcome those?—we need new prison capacity to deal with overcrowding, and we need 1.5 million new homes to meet the Government’s target.
What we in fact need is a system that weighs the material devaluation to a few people against the wider benefit to society as a whole. That is what a planning system does and what a free market simply cannot do. A free market, for example, will not deliver the new towns that were delivered after the war and which we will need again. It would not have tolerated the compulsory purchase of land, nor would it have delivered the regeneration of Docklands by the 1979 Conservative Government.
Even if a market-led approach delivered the houses, what about everything else—the schools, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, or the medical centres and so on that need to go with it? What about minimising the impact of climate change by promoting development near, for example, existing transport interchanges? How would we develop social housing—now delivered through Section 106 agreements—without a planning system imposing conditions? The planning system captures the difference between the £15,000 per acre and the £1.5 million by obliging the developer to provide the infrastructure and the social housing. I am not sure how the free market that my noble friend referred to would do that.
I also have a problem with the second principle of leaving the infrastructure in the state it was found or better. My concern is that the “or better” would not be provided were it not for the planning system—either through Section 106 or infrastructure levies—which insists that the person building the houses also provides the infrastructure. If that is not done by the developer, by capturing the land value, the burden would simply fall on the taxpayer, which is not a good option.
Where I agree with my noble friend is that we need to have a system that ensures that there is greater certainty about where development will take place and to have a construction industry that delivers. I am sorry if I have sounded very negative about my noble friend but, having tried over the past 30 or 40 years to do what he wants to do, there are some real issues that I am not sure the free market, or the commercial approach that has inspired his career, would address.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, for his very stimulating speech and for initiating this debate. I want to pursue the question of who is going to deliver the quality and quantity of the homes we need, whether that is exactly 1.5 million over five years or any other target. Is it likely that the current system, which involves the vast majority of new homes being built by a handful of so-called volume housebuilders, will produce what is really needed, at the right quality, in the right locations, with the engagement of the surrounding communities?
The current system depends upon private developers bringing forward their own propositions for the market they believe to be most profitable. They will build out at the speed that suits them without having to reduce their prices. Moreover, having paid eye-watering sums for the land, as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, noted, developers frequently argue that they cannot achieve their yardstick profit of 20% unless they reduce the contributions they previously promised in cash or kind.
In the Letwin review of 2018, an alternative model was proposed, that of development corporations created by local authorities, but at arm’s length, which could acquire the land at a price that reflects the reality that obligations to the wider community are not negotiable. Quality place-making—the green spaces, the schools, doctors’ surgeries, sustainable drainage and the rest—would all be spelled out in a masterplan. Individual sites can be parcelled out to, yes, the major housebuilders, but also to the SME builders, housing associations, providers of student accommodation, older people’s housing and more. Then, instead of the development dragging on for decades, the build-out rate would be hugely accelerated by the mix of uses all being constructed at the same time. The previous Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 paved the way for the creation of the development corporations that could act in this way, perhaps based on combined authorities and combined county authorities.
Use of compulsory purchase powers to buy sites where values cannot be agreed represents an integral part of the equation. Some have argued that this requires further legislation because, since the Land Compensation Act 1961, speculative “hope value”—the unfettered market price devoid of any obligations—can be used to justify a huge price tag. Others maintain that a valuation that fully reflects the public-good ingredients can now be used. Can the Minister shed any light on the current legal position in respect of CPO powers for land acquisition?
The opening up of grey-belt opportunities presents a special chance for private, but not for profit and publicly accountable, development corporations to step in and undertake high-quality development without the current dependency on the volume housebuilder. Will the Minister comment on the idea of support for the setting-up of new development corporations, perhaps through Homes England start-up grants? Let us take back control of housebuilding.
Lord Godson (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, for securing this debate, not least in light of the longevity of his interest in this matter, and his role in securing interest in this for the commonweal. I declare an interest in that he endowed the Wolfson Economics Prize with Policy Exchange, the thinktank for which I work. The last one he endowed was on the quality of our hospitals, not least their architectural and urban environment aspects, and I pay tribute to him for that.
I am also grateful for the range of experience of other noble Lords. It is always a concern, when one is further down the batting order in any debate, that people will already have said what one wants to say, so I am relieved to say that there is one dimension which has not been discussed so far and is an underrated aspect in public policy terms. At the forefront of the agenda of this Government, and what they have not done, is the issue of beauty and the shift in the policy on the very word “beauty”. Unless we build homes that create liveable places in rich neighbourhoods, reflect communities and aspire towards beauty, not only will we be making an error of historical proportions but we will be betraying the aspirations and values of future generations by saddling them with the recycled versions of the same housing crisis and the depressing quality of too much of our post-war housing that has afflicted so much of the post-war era.
As I say, I have been involved in this argument for some years. The late Sir Roger Scruton was involved with Policy Exchange as a leading advocate of the pioneering Building Beautiful programme. We played a part in recommending the previous Government’s Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, which Sir Roger chaired. We have spearheaded moves to reinstate beauty in Britain’s policy lexicon and to ensure that it becomes an intrinsic part of our urban fabric once again. This is not an exercise in aesthetic cultivation or political partisanship. Beauty should not be the preserve of any one side of the political divide; rather, it is an essential element in defusing local opposition to new housing, thereby ensuring that the additional housing supply Britain so desperately needs is finally delivered.
There is, as I say, an idea that beauty is for Conservatives only. Of course, we all know that, for William Morris and Ruskin, the great socialist and progressive thinkers of the past, beauty was absolutely integral to their interest. That is why it is a source of disappointment to me and to others that the new Government have dropped the beauty criteria in their ideas—not because it was the policy of the previous Government but also because, as I say, the present Secretary of State for MHCLG had made clear that it would be part of an incoming Labour Government’s proposals. So my question for the Minister is: why the change? Why has beauty been dropped?
On the wider international front, I was privileged, a few years ago, to be able to welcome Marwa al-Sabouni here to London. She is a noted Syrian architect and the author of a book called The Battle for Home. One of the things in Syria that she most eloquently described was the destruction of the urban space by the now-fallen Baathist regime. It destroyed the urban fabric but also, therefore, destroyed the relationship between communities in Syria with tragic effect; that was not the only reason for it but, as she describes so movingly in her memoir, that was part of it. In a wider sense, the importance of an agreed urban space in forging community cohesion is, of course, another further aspect of the present responsibilities of MHCLG. Why have the Government departed from this, and what will they do to ensure that the spiritual and aesthetic benefits of beauty are once again restored to our national discourse?
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, when I listened to the Government’s announcement this morning, I was hoping to hear much more courage than I did. As my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise points out, courage and change are what is needed here. We know that the current situation will not do. The longer it persists, the more damage it does. Reversing out of it is a big thing: it will have big consequences, and it will need some big thinking to do it right. I really hope that this Government discover their mojo on that.
As my noble friend said, artificial scarcity over a long period has created house prices that are out of people’s reach. It is not resulting in good patterns of community building. It is not resulting in beautiful buildings. All sorts of things are going wrong. We need a different way of facing. I am attracted by what the noble Lord, Lord Best, suggested as one of the ways out of this: development corporations could help take existing communities onwards and also build new towns.
We have different requirements of towns these days. We want them to support a really good public transport network; we do not want them to be car dependent. A lot of that comes into how we want communities to evolve. Where we have villages, we want them to have sufficient houses so that they can support the local services they need. However, when it comes to towns, they need to be big enough too: they need to support good medical facilities, good sixth forms and other services. There are lots of things that should go into deciding what we want our communities to look like; we then need to find a way of expressing that, through the planning system, in what gets done.
I think that the concept of the green belt has had its day. What we want is communities with embedded green space so that people find green space and nature on their doorstep, something that is easy to access and part of their everyday life. What we want outside towns is spaces that we dedicate to nature, places that are preserved but are accessible by a bus route so that people can get out there to see something and enjoy it, but which are frozen so that we can look after nature in them and are part of the funding system to do with where people live so that they are not cast out on their own, dependent for ever on handouts from Defra or whoever, and are part of the integral economy of the urban centres. We need to rethink the concept of green space completely.
We also need to look at the regulations that we have imposed on existing communities. We can afford to let these places get denser. By using permitted development rights allow people to extend the houses they have, use the spaces between houses and add another floor or two. A bit of variety never spoiled a streetscape unless it was designed like the Royal Crescent in Bath which you might want to preserve. Most places can take variety. I have a Private Member’s Bill on this subject coming in the new year, and I very much hope the Government will support it. Beyond anything else, I am with my noble friend Lord Godson: we want beauty because living among beauty is one of the most healthful, well-being inducing things that you can offer to people and communities.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this debate took a turn that I was not expecting which has made me entirely rethink what I am going say. I ought to declare from the outset my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a councillor in the north of England. I do not think anyone else in the Room is from the north. We look at things rather differently perhaps from what we have heard so far today.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, made a speech turning all our ideas upside down. I understand why people get frustrated with the planning system, and I am not one who says that the planning system is entirely right, does everything as it should and produces the housing and infrastructure that we as a country and as communities want and need. However, a more free market approach to housebuilding—all I have heard is of housebuilding—puts more power into the hands of those who are already powerful: those with land to sell, who are, in our current system, powerful operators; and those who are going to build those homes, who are already powerful operators in the system. It omits the one element in the planning system that gives influence, rather than power, to people in that community and that place to help them think about how they want their place to be.
A free market approach, without giving power and influence to the third element of the equation, is not one I want to be part of. That is because, having been in local government for a long time, I know that developers do not have the best interests of local places in their hearts when they start building. They are interested in acting exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, described: as a free market, building what they want, where they want to build it, without cognisance of the places around them.
There are many examples of developers who have taken liberties with the planning system and have not left the infrastructure as we would like it. In fact, they do not leave infrastructure at all; they do not build it. One of the main reasons you need a planning system is to put a rein around those whose objective is to see housing as a retail offer—or sale—and not as a place that shapes part of our communities.
I am mindful, having been made to think by the noble Lord, that I have not said any of the things that I had written down. One question that comes to mind, though, is: under that system who would build the million homes for social rent that this country and its people desperately need? It would not be as profitable, so who would do it? That is a key question for the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. How do you then balance housebuilding and all the other interests local people have, such as the environment, infrastructure, public transport and avoiding flooding? How does that fit in? I cannot see it, and that is why we have a planning system. A plan-based system, even though it is not working as well as it should, is one that I hope we stick with.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as detailed in the register. I thank my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise for tabling this important debate and coming up with a provocative presentation that makes us think. In planning, we always need to think. The temptation is always to carry on doing what you are doing, which tends to mean you get the same result.
I think we all agree that we have a housing crisis, and the current planning system is not working as it should. Two important points were raised. First, how do we build houses where people want to live? Secondly, how do we extract a planning gain that is in many, but not all, areas for the benefit of residents not landowners?
I will focus on building the right houses in the right places with the right soft and hard infrastructure. The greatest need for housing in many parts of the country is in urban areas. That is also where there is the best infrastructure. I note that, in London, we are shutting schools because there are not enough pupils; in Bedfordshire, we are building schools because there are not enough schools. Should we not be having more children in London—that is, houses?
That is one of the issues: it is incredibly hard to build on brownfield sites. This is why the previous Government came up with the proposal—I was involved in it—that there should be a strong presumption in building on brownfield land. I am quite disappointed that the current Government are moving away from that and suggesting that we should build on the grey belt. There may be a need to build on the grey belt but we should do everything in our power to build on brownfield first. We should also regenerate on brownfield and regenerate some of our older housing estates in many of our urban areas with gentle densification.
I add that, if we compare some of our major cities—for instance, London—to others, Madrid and Barcelona are four times as dense as London. Paris is nearly twice as dense. That gives a whole number of advantages: as well as being able to use not as much greenfield land, it means that your transport system is much better and that people have much better access to local services. This really is a very important issue.
I want to come on to some of the issues with the planning system and the one-size-fits-all approach. By way of example, in Central Bedfordshire, we were inundated with speculative applications because there was a big uplift in land value. They were all supported by highly paid barristers challenging our planning system. I talked to some of my colleagues in areas with lower land value; they were not facing that issue. Their problem was that they did not have viable land, particularly where they were seeking to regenerate brownfield land, so they had a different problem. I then talked to developers who told me how hard it is to develop in certain urban areas.
What we need is a planning system that gives local authorities clear guidance on what objectives are to be achieved then provides them with the tools to deliver those objectives. It needs to be a coherent and consistent planning system—something that I fear we do not have. I welcome the new NPPPF proposals and what is said on the outside of the tin, so to speak. My concern is that, with planning, the detail is always the problem. Although we all superficially want better houses, more brownfield and better infrastructure, it is the detail that really matters—what is inside the tin—and it genuinely worries me that we will continue to get this wrong.
Finally, several noble Lords mentioned the Building Beautiful programme. The previous Government had the Office for Place, a department responsible for creating beautiful, successful and enduring places. I am very disappointed that it is not being continued. I ask the Minister: do this Government intend to build as many houses as quickly as possible, regardless of their appearance and impact on the local community? We must focus on building as many new homes on brownfield sites as possible and, where they are not on such sites, on ensuring that they have the right infrastructure and that the community is taken into account. We need to increase urban density gently and do so in combination with regenerating communities, such that we end up building homes and communities that people want to live in.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to respond for the Government on this important topic. What an interesting debate it has been. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for leading on the debate and for the ideas he expressed. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, will take our best wishes back to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill; I hope that things are better for her over the weekend.
Our country is in the midst of a housing crisis after decades of not building enough homes. The impacts of this undersupply of homes can be seen in rising rents and housing costs, placing the dream of home ownership out of reach for too many and increasing homelessness, overcrowding and poverty. We have a crisis of affordability, making it harder for people to live and work where they want to and hampering economic growth across the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, referred to the thorny issue of hope value. I thank him for his positive response to our targets and share his frustration about the system. In fact, the CMA report on housebuilding set out clearly that the market has not worked for housing. Leaving it to the market just has not worked—but if Next built homes, perhaps, who knows? To address the housing crisis, we need historic levels of housebuilding, but it is vital that the homes we deliver are well designed and contribute to strong and healthy communities where people can work and thrive.
I will respond thematically first then cover the issues that were raised with me. On housebuilding, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn for his comments. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have been clear that delivering 1.5 million homes over the Parliament is stretching. We know that it is a challenge but we make no apology for the scale of our ambition. We need to pull every lever to deliver the homes that this country desperately needs. To do so, we will make more land with planning permission available and reform the market so that it is more competitive and delivers more homes faster.
We will not achieve our aims if we remain reliant on a speculative model of development that fosters slow build-out and poor competition. Next year, we will set out our vision for a reformed, more diverse housebuilding system in a long-term housing strategy. At the heart of our ambition is delivering the biggest boost to social and affordable housebuilding in a generation. That is why we have made a down payment on this through our £500 million investment in the affordable homes programme in order to deliver 5,000 new social and affordable homes, taking its annual budget to more than £3 billion next year.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned the development opportunities in releasing grey-belt land and supporting communities through our planning golden rules. That is how we will unlock some of this development. We are taking the important step of reviewing the post-war green-belt policy to make sure that it better meets the needs of present and future generations. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, may have misunderstood the policy. We have made it completely clear that development must look to brownfield first. I totally agree with him about the density of building but we know that brownfield alone will never be enough to meet our needs, even if we provide the brownfield passports we have been talking about. This is why we are introducing reforms that will make it clear that local authorities otherwise unable to meet their development needs should review their green belt in order to identify opportunities to create affordable, sustainable, green and well-designed developments. In doing so, low-quality brownfield and grey-belt sites in the green belt should be prioritised as opportunities for development before we even look at proper green-belt sites.
I turn to the important topic of housing quality. Noble Lords have made a number of points on this; I will come to them in a moment. It is essential that people’s homes are safe and secure. We will consult early next year on an updated decent homes standard, which will apply to both the private and social rented sectors; this will ensure that safe, secure housing is the standard that residents can expect in both tenures. It will complement our consultations on introducing minimum energy efficiency standards to the rented sectors and will help both to give people warmer homes that are affordable to heat and to tackle damp and mould.
We will also apply Awaab’s law across both rented sectors, setting clear legal expectations about timeframes. This will ensure that all renters in England are empowered to challenge dangerous conditions. Together—this is the point I want to stress—these measures will ensure that homes are safe, secure and hazard free, tackling the blight of some of the poor-quality homes that we have seen.
On communities, which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the Government are committed to the plan-making system. It is the right way to plan for growth, by bringing local authorities and communities together to agree the futures of their areas. That is the important thing about plan-making: this is what it is intended to do. This will ensure that local communities get the houses they need in the right place at the right time, reflecting the principles of sustainable development. Local plans provide the stability and certainty that local people and developers want to see the planning system deliver, which is why it is very important to us that we see universal coverage of ambitious plans as soon as possible. That has not been the case in the past. The Deputy Prime Minister has made it quite clear that, where plans do not appear, she will exercise her powers to make them come through.
The Government recognise that providing homes and jobs alone is not sufficient to create sustainable, healthy places. Our communities also need to be supported by an appropriate range of services and facilities. The proposals in the recent government consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework include changes intended to support the provision of public infrastructure and to create sustainable, healthy communities. They include changes to ensure that the planning system supports the increased provision and modernisation of key public services infrastructure, as well as the availability of a sufficient choice of early years and post-16 education places. Alongside this work, we are committed to strengthening the existing system of developer contributions in order to ensure that new developments provide the necessary affordable homes and infrastructure.
I turn now to some of noble Lords’ comments, and pick up on those by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, on the three principles. I love, in principle, the “love thy neighbour” principle; unfortunately, my long experience of planning—I was a councillor for 27 years—means that I know that the harm that developments can cause is often quite a subjective issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out. The principle is good in principle, but I need to think about how we might employ it in practice.
On the “carrying weight” principle, infrastructure should be available in all developments through Section 106 or the community infrastructure levy. That does not always happen as it should, and we are looking at that system to see whether we can improve it. Land of community value can already be designated in local plans, noticeably where there are national parks and habitat sites, but the point of a local plan is that such areas can be designated locally.
The noble Lord spoke about pre-1947 as though it was a golden era. It certainly was for my town because it was designated in 1946. I do not think that the people then thought it was perfect because when John Silkin came to announce the development of the new town, he was shouted at in the town hall and people put “Silkingrad” up across the railway station sign. I do not think that people were that happy about planning in those days. I also wonder about how the people of Aspley Guise reacted when Milton Keynes was proposed almost on their doorstep. Yet, now, it is one of our most successful new towns. We have to think about how time moves on in that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, talked about ensuring that our new towns are built to high standards. We are committed to ensuring that the new towns we are looking at deliver attractive places where people actually want to live. New towns will be governed by a new towns prospectus developed in partnership with the New Towns Taskforce. Developers will be required to meet theoe standards.
The noble Lords, Lord Wolfson and Lord Godson, referred to beauty and design in planning. The Government are committed to taking steps to ensure that we build more homes and places that are high quality, well designed and sustainable. When we did the consultation on this, consultees raised concerns about the additional references to “beauty”, which they viewed as subjective in nature and difficult to define and thought might lead to inconsistencies in decision-making. It is possible to set standards for design quality that reflect the context and character of an area and address layout, nature, heritage, public space, street design, active travel and so on, as outlined in the National Design Guide, all of which, when considered together, can contribute to well-designed places.
Land value was referred to by my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Wolfson. We have implemented the reforms in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act to provide for the removal of hope value from the assessment of compensation for certain types of compulsory purchase orders where there is justification in the public interest. We will bring forward further reforms in the forthcoming planning and infrastructure Bill.
My noble friend Lord Mendelsohn talked about construction skills. I have commented on this a number of times in the Chamber. We were very grateful for an investment of £140 million from the industry to help us with capacity in the building sector. We will have more trainees and increase capacity. We have invested in increasing the capacity of local planning authorities and in helping the market to thrive by supporting SME developers. We take all those issues on board.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to CPO powers. As I said, they are coming forward. We are committed to making sure that we expand the powers that local authorities have, particularly for new towns, but also to generate the development that they want to see.
I reiterate my thanks to the Committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for a particularly interesting and important debate. I have listened very carefully to the points made, and I hope that I have set out the vision with which our Government will deliver the right types of home in the right places and that work with communities rather than against them. This Government will get Britain building again to unlock economic growth and ensure that our country delivers for its people. The reforms discussed today in the National Planning Policy Framework and the further detail will be set out in the long-term housing strategy. We will deliver change for our communities and kick-start the decade of renewal that our country needs.
Ukraine: Humanitarian Assistance
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for enhanced humanitarian assistance for the people of Ukraine this winter, and in particular for mental health, energy and housing provision.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, we have recently had two major debates on the current situation in Ukraine. They concentrated mainly on the geopolitics of the conflict, the scale of NATO and EU strategic defence capabilities, the provision of weapons and resources to Ukraine, sanctions and the imminent return of President-elect Trump to the White House. In recent weeks, we have heard reports of offensives and counter-offensives on the front line, a rush to seize territory before any negotiations take place, the prospects of a ceasefire and a diplomatic settlement to the war and the need for strong security guarantees for Ukraine. While all this continues to rage, the number of fatalities and casualties grows ever higher.
My debate today is designed to draw attention to the scale of the humanitarian disaster unfolding before our eyes and focus our energies on what more can be done to alleviate the suffering of the people of Ukraine this winter, including what assistance can be given by the UK Government and civil society. Ever since Putin launched his illegal invasion of Ukraine, the Ukrainian people have faced almost unimaginable challenges, but this winter threatens to be particularly severe, with the deliberate targeting of power stations leaving many Ukrainians once again with no power or heating in the freezing winter months ahead.
A few weeks ago, I, along with other UK parliamentarians, met a group of inspirational female Ukrainian MPs. It was organised by the Ukraine-UK interparliamentary friendship group. Their suffering and, above all, their courage were humbling. I was particularly struck by what they said about the impact on children, so often the forgotten victims of war. They talked about the psychological impact on young children of constant air raid sirens, drone attacks, sleeplessness and periods of no power or heating, as well as the impact on their education and the adverse effects on their mental health.
They also shared harrowing figures estimating that almost 600 children have been killed and 1,700 wounded. Other estimates suggest that nearly 700,000 children have been deported to Russia, often resulting in citizenship changes, forced adoption and children placed under temporary guardianship—as it is called in Russia—effectively seeking to stamp out their Ukrainian identity. I am very grateful to the Library for its excellent research briefing, which highlighted that, according to UN agencies, since the full-scale invasion began, 5 million refugees from Ukraine have been recorded globally, more than 3.5 million people are estimated to be displaced inside Ukraine and—this is of key importance today—more than 14.6 million people inside Ukraine are in need of urgent humanitarian assistance.
I want to spell out in a bit more detail what that means. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the humanitarian situation in Ukraine worsened in August and September due to intensified attacks. The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine reports that in September more than 1,400 deaths and injuries were verified, the highest number since the start of the full-scale invasion. Homes, hospitals and schools have been damaged, in addition to the disruption of other essential services, including water and electricity. The escalation of hostilities has significantly increased humanitarian needs near the front line. The World Health Organization has verified 66 attacks on healthcare facilities in Ukraine. This represents more than one-third of such attacks globally. Under constant shelling and with limited access to critical services, shops, pharmacies and banks, people remaining close to the front line need shelter repairs, hygiene products, clean water and food.
Damage to energy infrastructure is expected to worsen the challenges civilians will face in the coming months, which are forecast to be the toughest winter since 2022. The impact of the continued Russian large-scale aerial attacks targeted on Ukrainian energy infrastructure and the power supply is disrupting essential services such as water, gas and heating in Ukraine, particularly in front-line communities.
The UN World Food Programme estimates that more than 2 million people in Ukraine are suffering from insufficient food consumption, including 20% to 30% of people in the Kherson area. Earlier this month, the Financial Times reported that Russia was using drones to attack Ukrainian civilian targets in Kherson, including ambulances, police cars, fire engines and humanitarian convoys. Russian drone operatives were also reported to be targeting civilians at markets, petrol stations, cafes, post offices and aid centres, as well as dropping explosives in streets, playgrounds and public squares in non-occupied areas, injuring more than 500 civilians.
Turning to housing, the Council of Europe Development Bank noted earlier this year that housing continues to be one of the sectors most affected by the war, with more than 10% of the total housing stock in the country either damaged or destroyed, and close to 2 million households thought to be affected. Many thousands in Ukraine have been forced to leave their homes and are now homeless. While post-war reconstruction may be the only long-term answer to the housing crisis, urgent help is needed to provide services for people sleeping rough, including temporary accommodation and better housing support for people leaving the military, hospitals and prisons.
I shall now focus on mental health. The conflict continues to have profound effects on the mental health of those affected, including refugees, internally displaced people and those on the front line. According to the Ukrainian Health Ministry, the number of patients reporting mental health problems in 2024 has doubled since a year ago, with particular consequences for children’s mental health. A recent Save the Children report found that, for children, the psychological impact and emotional distress of the ongoing conflict remained at high levels across the country, regardless of whether children were displaced, returnees or residents who have not fled. Save the Children is working with a local partner in Ukraine to fund social workers to go into communities affected by the conflict to provide mental health support among other essential items. UNICEF anticipates that more than 2.2 million children need to access mental health and psychosocial support. It points to problems such as depression, insomnia and anxiety linked to children spending thousands of hours in shelters while alarms are sounding.
It is inspiring to hear about the many organisations and individuals who are doing their best to help, and I will mention a couple. UK-Med, a frontline humanitarian NGO which describes itself as “born of the NHS”, maintains a register of NHS medics who travel to global crisis areas and work alongside local staff. The organisation has sent more than 200 NHS and international medics to Ukraine to deliver services including mental health support via mobile medical units and by training civilians and local health workers in mental health support. Psychologists at the University of Manchester have created leaflets for Ukrainian parents, developed from the experiences of displaced Syrian parents living through the country’s civil war.
I have focused on children, but there is also a crying need to support veterans. It is encouraging to hear that the British Army Medical Corps has been providing training to Ukrainian armed forces medics, including psychologists, and that two-way exchange visits have been made. Whatever happens in the coming months, there will be a crying need to support veterans of the conflict with mental health problems.
Finally, I turn to the role of the UK Government. The Government’s assistance, particularly financial assistance, tends to be channelled through international organisations, such as the International Red Cross, which has used it to provide psychological support services for Ukrainian refugees in Poland, Romania and Moldova. It is welcome that, in September, the Foreign Secretary confirmed that bilateral funding for 2024-25 included £100 million specifically earmarked for humanitarian aid. Can the Minister give any breakdown of how this will be used and what proportion is going to support mental health? Has there been any follow-up to the First Lady Madame Zelenska’s very welcome visit in March, when she met children’s mental health services in London to discuss post-war mental health recovery in Ukraine, particularly how best to build community mental health services for children from front-line territories who are dealing with trauma?
Specifically on this point, we have a well-developed, if obviously overstretched, children’s mental health sector in this country, both in the NHS and the voluntary sector. As well as that sector helping displaced children and young people with mental health problems it could, I feel, help share expertise and knowhow, with a little help from government, and provide training for those in the frontline of providing such support in Ukraine. Are the Government actively considering that, and would the Minister meet me to discuss it? I very much look forward to hearing the contributions of other noble Lords.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, very much for having arranged this debate today. It could not come at a more important time in the history of Ukraine, given the pressure on it from Russia and the change in policy in America. The Minister may not be able to do so today, but perhaps he could make a Statement in a few months’ time about how that will affect Ukraine, our relationship and so on.
I speak today to address the critical challenges facing the people of Ukraine as they endure another harsh winter—we think we have harsh winters, but theirs are something else—amid ongoing conflict. Despite their extraordinary resilience, millions of Ukrainians face many crises exacerbated by the unrelenting attacks on essential infrastructure. It is absolutely awful knowing that their hospitals, children’s homes, buses, police cars and so on are being attacked.
Last winter revealed the vulnerabilities of Ukraine’s energy and housing system, leaving millions without heating, electricity or clean water. We know that without clean water it is impossible to cook vegetables or to look after children, and what diseases dirty water brings. The attacks on infrastructure have disrupted basic services, with 85% of Ukraine’s energy production capacity destroyed and rolling blackouts implemented to save energy. It must be very difficult not knowing when those blackouts are going to come. Over 1.4 million homes have been damaged or destroyed since the escalation of the war: 10% of all homes in the country. These realities underline the necessity for immediate, targeted interventions to repair homes, restore power systems, and deliver essential supplies such as solid fuels and heating appliances.
The UK must align with Ukraine’s efforts to support frontline regions, including providing hospitals and clinics with generators, mobile boilers and repair materials and, if possible, somebody to come and help them who knows how to use the materials. Although those in Ukraine are very capable, as we know from those who work here, it would be great if we could get some infrastructure from us to help, when it is safe, or from local volunteers or the military. These measures are safeguarding the lives of the most vulnerable population, including older persons, children and those with disabilities.
The psychological toll of the war cannot be overstated. Prolonged exposure to violence, displacement and insecurity has left millions of Ukrainians grappling with mental health challenges. The number of parents reporting mental health problems in 2024 has doubled since a year earlier. We can understand that, as children are now being taught in schools underground. I have seen some films and talked to some people who are working there. It is very difficult because the children are afraid. They are going down to safety for their education, but do not quite know what it will be like when they come back out. This has real difficulties for the children, those who are teaching them and their families. For those who have sought shelter underground for extended periods or witnessed the destruction of their homes, the trauma is profound. To be in darkness indefinitely is not good for anyone’s health, with no air or light.
Today I met an organisation I work quite closely with, Education For Employment, which goes to schools to encourage children about the jobs that are around—not just party planners or nurses. Children know about people’s jobs because of those who come to their house or what their mothers or grannies do. It has been approached by the OECD to come to help with work in the long term, and over video, to show children what their future can be and how it can help them to look to that. It has worked in these sorts of areas before.
The World Health Organization has reported over 2,000 attacks on healthcare facilities, further straining Ukraine’s capacity to address mental and physical health needs. I urge His Majesty’s Government to enhance the support for mental health services, including training for healthcare professionals if that is possible. Perhaps they could come here, or there could be a safe place where they train or have extra training.
The international community, including the United Kingdom, has a moral responsibility to act decisively. Last year, the UN and its partners launched an appeal for $435 million to assist over 1.7 million people through the winter, and we cannot let the Ukrainians down this year. The European Union has committed €40 million for winter preparedness, focusing on water systems, heating infrastructure and emergency repairs. The United Kingdom should complement those efforts, leveraging its resources to close the gaps in humanitarian assistance. I commend the Government’s pledge of over £100 million in additional humanitarian support for 2024-25 and their ongoing support for Ukraine. I urge continued action to provide immediate and meaningful relief.
I also hope that those cases being dealt with by the Home Office will be looked on favourably before anybody is returned, or at least that people are given a period of time, not a day, if they have to go back for some reason or other. Many people do want to go back to Ukraine and rebuild their country once it is safe—many of those I have spoken to do not want to stay here indefinitely—but at present it is very difficult.
The people of Ukraine have shown immense courage in the face of unimaginable adversity. Let us ensure that our support reflects the scale of their need and the depth of our commitment to their future.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, who feels very passionately about these issues. I too welcome this short debate and congratulate my noble friend Lady Tyler on her powerful and comprehensive opening speech. As my noble friend said, there have been many debates on Ukraine recently but inevitably, and correctly, they have concentrated primarily on defence and geopolitical issues. It is all too easy for war to become about statistics and to lose sight of the life or family behind each statistic that is shattered by the divisions of war.
More than a thousand days since Russia invaded Ukraine, it is welcome that there remains a united front across all mainstream UK political parties in support of Ukraine. There is a general recognition that Ukraine’s future is our future. We should be proud of the support we continue to give to Ukraine, but sometimes it is good to stop and remind ourselves of the impact that war has had on individual lives—the impact of having had your home destroyed by a missile, having no power, heat or light, and the inevitable impact on well-being and mental health.
I refer noble Lords to my register of interests and the various projects I have worked on in Ukraine since 2017, including as an ambassador for the homelessness charity Depaul International and as a trustee of the John Smith Trust. I thank the trust’s fellows in Ukraine for their suggestions and ideas for this speech.
Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 changed people’s lives in an instant. Personal plans, careers and studies were all put on hold. In March 2022, just after the Russian invasion began, I went to the Polish border with Ukraine at Przemyśl. Seeing the young children sitting on their little suitcases with their soft toys and pets in cages on their laps, and the elderly looking so disorientated, shocked and bewildered, was an overwhelming experience that I shall never forget.
The first thing that struck me when I saw the crowds outside Przemyśl railway station was that there were only women, children and the elderly. There were no young men; they had had to stay behind to fight. People had had to grab what possessions they could and flee for their lives.
We are now in the third winter of this war and all my Ukrainian friends fear it will be the worst yet. A Ukrainian colleague said to me this week:
“We are a critical juncture—not just for Ukraine, but for the whole democratic world. The war in Ukraine is not merely a regional conflict. It is a battle between democracy and tyranny. Supporting Ukraine’s energy independence, whether through renewable energy solutions, flexible backup systems, alternative routes, or timely repairs to existing infrastructure, is about more than just keeping the lights on. It is about ensuring Ukraine’s survival this winter and securing the future of democracy itself”.
In terms of Ukraine’s energy supplies, the war did not start in 2022, or even in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea. The seeds were sown long before, with Russia’s gas wars in 2005-06. Even then, Putin’s intentions were clear: using energy as a weapon to undermine Ukraine. Building pipelines to bypass Ukraine was just one piece of his broader strategy.
Ukraine’s energy infrastructure system is currently under tremendous strain. Frequent equipment failures, compounded by ongoing missile and drone attacks, threaten its ability to function. These challenges are made worse by the system’s outdated infrastructure and bureaucratic barriers that complicate efforts to secure vital equipment. I appreciate that we have already given considerable financial resource to Ukraine’s energy sector, but I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little more in his concluding remarks about our plans to assist the energy sector this winter.
In particular, I have heard from colleagues in Ukraine that they urgently need critical equipment such as valves, gas cleaning and drying installations, regulating fittings and pipelines. These items, whether unused, decommissioned or donated, are essential to maintaining operations. I am told that bureaucratic obstacles, both on a domestic and international level, are currently slowing down the provision of such equipment. I suspect that, like me, the Minister is not an expert in these matters, but I would be grateful if he or the relevant Minister could reply in more detail about these energy matters in writing.
Supporting Ukraine’s energy sector and gas supply companies is going to be absolutely key this winter. That is something that President Putin is very well aware of, which is precisely why he is so cynically targeting Ukrainian power stations. Nothing saps morale like the icy cold and the dark and, as someone who used to work in Ukraine, I can testify to quite how cold it gets in the winter. I believe the UK can play a vital role in this. Working with our European partners, we must be able to find creative ways around any barriers to ensure uninterrupted heating and electricity supplies for millions of Ukrainian households this coming winter.
According to a recent report commissioned by Depaul—the homelessness charity that has been doing amazing and very important work in Ukraine for many years, but most especially since the war—3.5 million people are now internally displaced and the homes of 2 million households have been destroyed or damaged. Almost a quarter—22%—of people sleeping rough or in emergency shelters are displaced because of the war. The United Nations has described conflict as a “systematic driver” of homelessness.
To be clear, housing and homelessness were already issues in Ukraine before the war. In 2017, I worked on a public health project to raise awareness of tuberculosis in Odesa. During that project, I met many homeless people who were living with TB. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the difficult transition years following independence, Ukraine was already facing many social issues. But the invasion of 2022 has served to make so many of these issues so very much worse in Ukraine. I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little more about specific support that we can give this winter to provide shelters and rebuild homes, as well as support the most vulnerable.
Living in Broadstairs, Kent, I have had the privilege, over the last few years, of being involved with an excellent organisation called Canterbury for Ukraine. Through it, I have been able to get to know many of the Ukrainians currently living and seeking shelter in Kent. I am proud of the warmth of so many people in the UK who have opened their homes to Ukrainian families. Understandably, many Ukrainians have chosen to stay in Ukraine; however difficult the situation becomes, it remains their home.
As other noble Lords have said, I know that the UK has committed to giving £100 million in humanitarian assistance in 2024-25, but can the Minister give reassurances that a sizeable proportion of this funding will be targeted towards measures for long-term programmes for internal resettlement to safer regions in Ukraine? It is also key that we continue to give support to vulnerable groups, including pensioners, low-income families and people with disabilities. This will not only help people survive the winter but lay the groundwork for sustainable social reforms, keeping Ukrainian citizens connected to their country.
My second issue is that of displaced children. More than 2.5 million Ukrainian children are now displaced; many face broken family ties, psychological trauma and limited access to education. Some 30% of the children who left Ukraine with one parent have completely lost contact with the other parent who remains in Ukraine. Some 80% of children whose parents are serving in the armed forces of Ukraine have minimal or no contact with them. The provision of professional psychological rehabilitation centres, training programmes for social workers and comprehensive family law reforms will be vital in the future, and the UK is well placed to give assistance in this regard.
To conclude, I stress once again, as I have in previous debates, that whatever happens geopolitically in the months ahead and as a result of the Trump presidency, it is for Ukraine to decide its own future. All my Ukrainian friends and contacts are hugely grateful for the tremendous support that the UK continues to give, both militarily and through humanitarian support, but in this most difficult of winters ahead it is more important than ever that we keep up this support.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, for securing this important discussion. We all look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say to update the House on the progress of UK support for Ukraine.
Over the past few weeks, as we move into winter, the people of Ukraine have continued to suffer greatly. Putin’s war machine is trying new and insidious tactics to break the spirits of those brave people. On the morning of 26 August alone, Russia fired more than 200 missiles and drones in one of the largest aerial attacks on Ukraine. The main targets were the country’s energy infrastructure, in the most cynical attempt to freeze the country into submission—no military targets were targeted in that bombardment. As other noble Lords observed, around 8 million households, hospitals and schools were hit without warning. The capital, Kyiv, experienced its first unscheduled blackout since November 2022. According to the International Energy Agency, Ukraine’s energy system has been the subject of regular targeting by Russia since its first full-scale invasion in 2022, with attacks intensifying since the spring of this year.
On 28 November, after Russia’s 11th mass attack on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, President Putin threatened to strike again with new ballistic missiles, this time having nuclear capabilities. We are aware that he has made these threats fairly regularly. Thankfully, none of them has borne fruit yet, but we should bear in mind that someday they might. Furthermore, Ukraine is having to import increasing amounts of electricity from Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary and Moldova.
According to the BBC, on the subject of housing, at least 12 million people have fled their homes in Ukraine since Russia’s first invasion. It estimates that 5 million have left the country and 7 million are still internally displaced in Ukraine. The Council of Europe Development Bank noted earlier this year that housing continued to be one of the sectors most impacted by the war, with over 10% of the total housing stock in the country either damaged or destroyed.
I am proud of the record of the previous Government. We launched the highly successful Homes for Ukraine scheme, with the latest figures showing that since the scheme was set up in March 2022 around 131,000 Ukrainians have been successfully supported to arrive in the UK, with £2.1 billion of funding provided. I am sure that work is continuing, and would be grateful for an update from the noble Lord when he sums up.
It is truly tragic that so many Ukrainians have lost their homes and I commend all the Government Ministers, civil servants and most of all the volunteer families who have helped to provide sanctuary for Ukrainians and welcomed them into their homes. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could update us on progress and on whether the Government intend to extend this scheme. Furthermore, many of the visas issued under this scheme are set to expire after three years, with many expiring early next year. Again, can the Minister update the Committee on whether those Ukrainians will be able to have their visas extended?
Finally, the conflict has obviously had a severe impact on the mental health of the Ukrainian people. According to the Ukrainian health ministry, the number of patients reporting mental health problems in 2024 had doubled since a year earlier. In addition, a study published in the Lancet earlier this year suggested that over 50% of surveyed non-displaced persons, 55% of internally displaced persons and 62% of refugees all met the diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder. I can imagine nothing more traumatic than living in a war zone, whether as a soldier fighting the illegal occupation or as a civilian just doing your best to even survive. We have to highlight, as we do constantly—but we should never be afraid to say it—the sheer brutality of Russian’s campaign in Ukraine, targeting markets, petrol stations, cafés, post offices and humanitarian aid centres, and targeting the civilian population in playgrounds and public squares in many non-occupied areas of Kherson. None of these is a military target. With such distressing stories, we must continue to do all we can to support Ukraine. I know that the Government are doing that and we support them fully.
When the noble Lord summarises the debate, I hope that he will be able to update the Committee on what steps the Government are taking. As we move into the new year, we are all waiting with some trepidation for the incoming American President and the effect of any policy changes on Ukraine. I am sure that the Government are using all the diplomatic sources at our disposal to try and influence the new Administration. Some of the appointments that incoming President Trump has announced give me a little more hope; some of the statements from the likes of Marco Rubio and others on Ukraine have been slightly more encouraging. This really is an existential conflict for us in Europe. I argue that it is also an existential conflict for the US. We have to continue to supply the crucial support to Ukraine in its battle for survival. I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for securing this debate. I think the closing remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, are absolutely correct. Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine poses a direct threat to European security. His comments reflect is that we are united in supporting Ukraine in its fight against this illegal invasion. The Prime Minister has made it clear that we need to double down on our support for Ukraine. As the Foreign Secretary told the United Nations Security Council last month, we will stand with the people of Ukraine for as long as it takes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, highlighted the humanitarian situation as being dire. It certainly is. September saw the highest number of recorded civilian casualties since the invasion, and the numbers continue to grow. As much as 40% of the population is in need of humanitarian assistance this year. Over the past month Russia has intensified its air strikes, primarily targeting energy infrastructure, causing blackouts in several regions, as all noble Lords have highlighted. Its continuing assault has led to Ukraine losing over two-thirds of its power generation, leaving it to manage an energy deficit this winter—a very difficult winter.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, pointed out, further attacks and low temperatures risk making access to power, water and heating intermittent, further aggravating the humanitarian situation on the ground. As ever, it will be the vulnerable who suffer, leaving millions without heating, electricity, clean water and medical care.
Let me explain how the United Kingdom is helping. We remain a leading bilateral donor and will provide over £240 million this year for humanitarian support, energy and recovery reconstruction programmes. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, asked me, I will give a breakdown of this support. First, on humanitarian support: when the Foreign Secretary visited Kyiv alongside US Secretary of State Blinken in September—the first such joint visit to any country in over a decade—he announced that the United Kingdom would provide at least £100 million in humanitarian support this year. The allocation is still to be determined, but this will bring the United Kingdom’s humanitarian aid to £457 million. This support is helping people, especially the most vulnerable, cope with the endless onslaught of the war, including by providing, as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, pointed out, mental health and psychosocial support. Again, this was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler.
The Ukrainian Red Cross Society—funded by UK assistance channelled through the British Red Cross—provides that psychosocial support to about 1,500 vulnerable children and adults in the front-line oblast regions in Ukraine. In practical terms, that means providing child-friendly spaces and support sessions for adults and older people. We will have given £9.5 million to the Red Cross to achieve this. We also support the Kyiv burns unit and train Ukrainian Red Cross staff and volunteers. As asked by my noble friend Lady Goudie, we also enable the WHO to rehabilitate professionals through stress management training. This helps to reduce the psychological distress and increase referrals for specialised care among healthcare workers and patients.
I move now to our energy support—another issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. The UK has been working closely with Ukrainian officials and international donors to fund repairs and provide back-up power generation during the colder months, while also supporting efforts to ensure that civilians have access to warm places. During his visit in September, the Foreign Secretary also announced £20 million for emergency energy needs. Our funds, worth over £60 million, are bolstering the Ukraine energy support fund, helping to protect energy infrastructure.
When it comes to long-term recovery, we are supporting innovations across both countries to develop new technologies that can rebuild a greener and more resilient energy grid. Finally, we are also providing essential fuel to nuclear power plants to ensure that Ukraine does not have to rely on Russian fuel.
To turn to UK support for recovery and reconstruction, our non-military support is helping address immediate needs, including public services, while also funding rebuilding efforts in Ukraine. That is why we are supporting investments now and developing a pipeline of early recovery projects with partners to build local capacity to prioritise, plan and deliver these initiatives. It is why we are working with industry and development partners to improve access to finance for firms in Ukraine and extend war risk insurance cover to investors in Ukraine.
Finally, we are helping the UN refugee agency to prepare safe places for internally displaced persons. It has helped to host over 100,000 people in temporary accommodation across Ukraine. The noble Lord asked about Homes for Ukraine in the UK; it is a Home Office lead, but I will ensure that we write to him on that question.
An area that every noble Lord highlighted is the scale of destruction caused by Russia. That is why we are in no doubt that it must pay for the damage. The G7 will provide Ukraine with up to $50 billion as part of the extraordinary revenue acceleration loans to Ukraine scheme. These loans will be repaid using the extraordinary profits generated on immobilised Russian sovereign assets in the EU. The UK’s contribution of £2.26 billion is earmarked for additional military support for Ukraine.
We are also holding Russia accountable by supporting Ukrainian investigations, pursuing an international register of damages and joining the core group with our international partners on the crime of aggression. We will continue to help the International Criminal Court increase its capacity to collect evidence and support survivors. We will not let Russia get away with its crimes.
In conclusion, the United Kingdom will do whatever it takes to support Ukraine’s self-defence. The alternative would be to confirm the worst claims—that international law is merely a paper tiger and that aggressors can do what they want. The suffering in Ukraine cannot be ignored. It is our collective responsibility to act decisively to end this war and work towards a future where a just and lasting peace can prevail.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, can I just ask the Minister whether he will meet me in the new year to discuss the particular support for mental health?
House of Lords
Housebuilding Targets
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson
To ask His Majesty’s Government what tools they will provide to local authorities to support the delivery of mandatory house-building targets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have announced a £46 million package of investment into the planning system to support capacity and capability in local planning authorities, including the recruitment and training of 300 planners and the development of the skills needed to implement reforms and unlock housing delivery. We have also consulted on proposals to increase resources in the planning system by increasing planning fees and empowering local authorities to set their own planning fees so that they can carry out their vital role in supporting economic growth and delivering 1.5 million new homes during this Parliament.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as laid out in the register. I thank the Minister for her Answer. My particular concern is houses that have planning permission and sites that have been allocated that are not being brought forward. The LGA estimates that there are around 1 million houses with planning permission and around a further 1 million allocated sites that have not yet been brought forward for planning permission. What will this Government do to help councils get landowners, promoters and developers to bring forward those sites?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite right to raise this. I am pleased to say that we have today published the National Planning Policy Framework, which sets out a broad framework of advice for local authorities. This is a particular issue, and we have set up our acceleration scheme to make sure that those sites that are stalled can be brought into use as quickly as possible. The department will work with all areas that have stalled housing sites to find out what the blockages are and make sure that we support them as they work to get those sites released as quickly as possible.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister referred in her Answer to the issue of local skills, particularly for young people, which will be absolutely essential to fulfil the targets. But this will require cross-departmental working to assist local authorities to draw up strategies involving local employers, schools, UTCs and colleges. Can she assure me that this work is taking place at governmental level to help with devolving powers?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. I am happy to assure her that we are working across government and with industry to deliver sufficient high-quality training opportunities and build a diverse workforce that is fit for the future. She is quite right to identify that this is a real issue in getting the 1.5 million homes built. To support business and boost opportunity, we are transforming the apprenticeship levy into a growth and skills levy, which will allow employers to invest in a wider range of training and empower them to train and upskill workforces for current and future challenges.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the large housebuilding companies have too much power when it comes to deciding what homes to build, where to build and when to build? Can she tell us how her Government’s NPPF can possibly be delivered without strong and effective “use it or lose it” sanctions to get the 1 million homes built that are shovel-ready, with planning permission already given?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness is quite right to point to that as an issue. We have set up the housing acceleration unit in the department, which I mentioned earlier, to help with that. We want to be quite clear within the National Planning Policy Framework that, where sites are allocated, they should be built out as quickly as possible. There will be follow-up where that is not the case.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Conservative Benches.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, what consumer protection is in place for those buying properties off-plan that are never completed? I understand that this issue is currently unregulated. Will the Government think about bringing this under regulation so that those consumer protections are in place?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I understand the point the noble Baroness is making. It is important that consumers are reassured that, when they purchase a property, they are going to receive it as purchased. There is a long-standing property law, caveat emptor, which means it is for the buyer to check out these issues and make sure, through their legal advice, that they are getting what they pay for. I will take back the issue about consumer protections and see if there is anything further that can be done.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, what are the assumptions about the average time it will take before the welcome new numbers of planning officers are in place?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend is right that there is no planning officer tree out there that we can go and pick planning officers from—I wish there were. Highly skilled planners are fundamental to running a proactive, efficient planning service for the communities they serve and ensuring that new developments are well-designed and facilitate local growth. We have set up a scheme with the Local Government Association to make sure that we are recruiting and training 300 graduate and apprentice planners, and encouraging some of the planners who have stepped out of the public planning sector to come back in wherever possible. That has proved successful so far, and we hope we will continue to increase recruitment at a level that will support planning for local authorities.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, has the Minister had discussions about the landholdings owned by the Church Commissioners and the Duchy of Cornwall, something very important in the West Country? Is there going to be equal compliance on those landholdings as elsewhere in the country?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that the Church Commissioners are keen to have discussions, and that will be the case. All land within a local plan area is ready for consideration, but I understand the point the noble Baroness is making. I know that the most reverend Primate who was on the Benches previously was very keen to encourage those discussions, and we will continue those. I hope the Church will continue to be keen to support us in our aim to deliver the housing that the country needs.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, if the potential of rural exception sites were to be fully realised, it would make a transformative change for small rural communities, not least in providing the additional affordable housing that is desperately needed. It is frustrating because just before I came in I was trying to read the NPPF response to the consultation but I could not find it. Are His Majesty’s Government committed to introducing a national development management policy for rural exception sites?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the Right Reverend Prelate for that question. We understand the need for particular consideration of rural sites and rural exception sites. I apologise that he was not able to access the NPPF on the GOV.UK website. I hope it is there now and that he will be able to look at it later on today. In the spring, we will produce a long-term housing strategy that will contain detail of how we think rural sites should be considered. In order to give him a specific answer on the NDMP, I will go back and make sure he has a written answer.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, what are the Government doing to ensure that small construction firms play a full part in providing the housing that is needed? Further to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton, how they will have access to the skills they need to fulfil that role? I apologise for my earlier overenthusiasm.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We are taking a number of steps to encourage the use of SME building companies. Homes England has considerable control of the funding for affordable homes, and we have encouraged it to break down the packages on large sites so that they are suitable for SME builders. We will be providing funding to support SME housebuilders as well. In relation to skills, I refer to my earlier answer. They apply equally to the smaller builders in the sector as they do to large housebuilders.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, housebuilding is part of the process of dealing with those who are homeless. However, I have deep concerns about the range of evictions, particularly those faced by houseboat owners and residents. I have already raised this issue with the Government. What plans do they have, if any, to deal with the appalling eviction notices faced by people the length and breadth of the country, particularly at Chelsea, an historic site where people are now being forced from their homes—houseboats—where they have lived for decades?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this important issue, on which he wrote to me this morning. I do not have an answer for him yet, but I will write to him on that subject. I drove past the site at Chelsea the other day, and the driver mentioned to me that this was a big issue in that area. If my noble friend will bear with me while I get a written response for him, I will give him a full answer.
75th Anniversary of Formula 1
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to help mark the 75th anniversary of Formula 1 in 2025.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Formula 1’s 75th birthday is a wonderful opportunity to reflect on the sport’s long history in the UK. Formula 1 is a British success story, with seven out of 10 teams based here, and we look forward to continuing our long and prosperous relationship with them. While I am here, I would like to congratulate Max Verstappen on his fourth consecutive world championship and McLaren on its first constructors’ championship since 1998.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, Formula 1 is indeed a great British success story. British drivers have won the world championship more than drivers from any other nation. As the Minister says, we are home to seven of the 10 Formula 1 teams. It is not just homegrown talent such as McLaren, which I too congratulate on its title; we also attract teams from around the world such as Mercedes, Alpine and, soon, Cadillac. Silverstone hosted the very first round of the drivers’ world championship in May 1950 and will remain home to the British Grand Prix for at least the next decade. As the number of people from all backgrounds enjoying the sport continues to grow, will the Government work with that famous circuit to make sure that it is more accessible by public transport, so that the UK’s largest sporting event can be reached by people, hopefully to entertain them but also inspire them into careers on and off the track?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I fully echo the noble Lord’s comments on Formula 1 as a British success story and completely agree with him about the accessibility of Silverstone. When I did a track day at Silverstone, the only option was to drive—on and off the track, obviously. In terms of next steps, the Government are always pleased to see sports venues explore new ways of improving transport access and we look forward to Silverstone and others developing such plans. If the noble Lord would like me to continue to have conversations with the Department for Transport, I will be more than happy to facilitate.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, if the Minister has any intentions of recognising the 75th anniversary, is she aware that I would be very glad to help? I suppose I am almost the only Member of your Lordships’ House who was present at the Grand Prix of Europe in May 1950, which was won by Giuseppe Farina in an Alfa Romeo 158.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I was born in 1979, so that would be a challenge. I thank and celebrate the noble Lord for his work with grands prix and for ensuring, with his work then, that grands prix have been such an incredible success story, both here and internationally. I am more than happy to work with the noble Lord and I will go back to the department and ensure that he is involved in the conversations the department has about celebrating the grands prix going forward.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, the F1 generates hundreds of millions of pounds for the British economy and turns over £2 billion a year. It is a fantastic success. Can I ask the Minister to consider two things? First, could she press for the Silverstone Grand Prix in 2025 to be made free to air to maximise the British public’s chance to watch that grand prix live and not have to pay? Secondly, could she consider supporting the Racing Steps Foundation to bring young aspiring boys and girls into the motor industry? It receives no funding whatever at the moment. Would she consider a 75-year anniversary celebration scholarship to bring more boys and girls into the industry and—you never know—perhaps create another world champion?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I would be more than happy to meet the Racing Steps Foundation charity to discuss options or arrange for the Minister for Sport to meet them. In terms of celebrating the role of Silverstone, the grand prix and the issue of free-to-air racing, I fell in love with grand prix racing because it was free to air. There are conversations to be had about making sure that significant moments in British sport can be accessed. However, obviously there is currently a commercial agreement in which Channel 4 gets the highlights—which I, like others, watched of the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix at the weekend.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
Would the Minister agree that, looking at the success of Formula 1, it has been achieved mainly by not having a government regulator? Does that draw lessons for the Government on other sports?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, all Members of your Lordships’ House will appreciate that Formula 1 is highly regulated on health and safety and wider issues. We will explore appropriate governance arrangements for every sport as and where appropriate.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister talk to all the major sporting venues? There are many worldwide sporting events that take place in the United Kingdom. I have in mind the likes of Wimbledon, sports at Wembley and the like. Major sporting events face a very specific problem in terms of organisations moving in and out of this country—whether that be on tax or mobility or the like. Therefore, it would be appropriate to bring sporting venues and events together to ensure that there is a co-ordinated government policy.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The Minister for Sport has regular conversations with all relevant stadia. With regards to Formula 1, those will start for next year’s celebrations in January. If the noble Lord has specific concerns, he should feel free to raise them with me and I will make sure the department addresses them.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, nine years ago I was in Mexico at the same time as the grand prix there, sharing a hotel with the Ferrari back-office team. I got stranded at the hotel because the disability taxi failed to turn up. After 36 hours without sleep, three of the team worked with me to solve the problem and help me rebook my flight. I have a picture in front of their Ferrari. My next car is definitely going to be a Ferrari. Does the Minister agree that we need to recognise the support of the back-office teams, who are often invisible? In this particular circumstance, it was unusual for a grand prix team to help somebody in a wheelchair, and they were brilliant.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for sharing her story and put on record our thanks to Ferrari for making sure that she did not get stranded. I think we can see that our collective teams want to help as many people as possible, and it was great they were able to do so in that instance.
Lord Magan of Castletown (Con)
My Lords, should we not also be celebrating the extraordinary global success of the often-denigrated Milton Keynes? Milton Keynes is the global engineering and technological hub of Formula 1.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I think we celebrate everyone involved with the development of Formula 1. Across “Motorsport Valley”, we have 25,000 highly skilled engineers working to support it, which is why Formula 1 is so effective. We have 45,000 people working in the pipeline for Formula 1 and wider motorsport in the UK. This is to celebrate all parts of the UK and their contribution. As someone who goes past Milton Keynes on the train every week, I think we should always celebrate Milton Keynes.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we know that petrolheads find motor racing tremendous, but we also know that motor racing has been connected closely to innovation in the industry. Are there any plans for experimenting with racing with cars that might be powered by electricity or hydrogen in the future?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a very good point. One of the roles of Formula 1 has been as a driver for cultural change, whether in health and safety, as it has developed safer cars, or in making things that were seen to be unacceptable acceptable in terms of technology and going to the cutting edge. In 2026 we will see a hybrid car for Formula 1, with a new sustainable fuel source. I look forward to seeing how that develops for the commercial market.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, would the Minister agree that, when we talk about innovation, we should also support Formula E? It is a fully battery-raced series, which is innovation at the top level. Will the Government do more to promote Formula E and inspire young people to get involved? Before I sit down, I offer my services in celebrating 75 years of Formula 1; I am a massive McLaren fan.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I think we are all proving to have our own teams today. Personally, I started with Damon Hill.
Formula E is a significant development. We have seen the wider Formula 1 pipeline through Formula E and the also very important F1 Academy programme to encourage women to come through. There is also Mission 44 to encourage more diversity and engagement from every part of society. How Formula 1 can be a case for developing wider participation and engagement in a sustainable way needs to be celebrated. The Minister for Sport is meeting with the industry in January to talk about how we can frame that through the celebration of 75 years of Formula 1.
Post Office: Capture System
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to overturn the convictions of sub-postmasters or former Post Office employees convicted in relation to the Capture system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the important work that the noble Lord has done in campaigning for justice for the postmasters—and indeed his ongoing work on that issue.
We were concerned to learn about the issues outlined in the Kroll report, which related to the Capture system. However, the report did not comment on whether the convictions were unsafe. As the noble Lord will know, the Government are committed to responding to the report, and that response will be published next week. In the meantime, convictions in relation to the Capture software are being reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commissions. The UK Government and the Post Office are assisting them with their requests for information, and I encourage all those who believe they have been wrongly convicted to contact the CCRC.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. It is now clear from the Kroll report that the Minister referred to that the Post Office’s behaviour in relation to the Capture system was just as bad as its behaviour in relation to Horizon. The Horizon Compensation Advisory Board—I declare an interest as a member of it—wrote to the Lord Chancellor in November saying that there was no difference between the Horizon victims and the Capture victims on the question of whether they should have their convictions overturned.
Might the Government consider an alternative approach, which might not offend the understandable concerns of those who do not like the idea of Parliament overturning judicial decisions? Earlier this year the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, who I see in his place, proposed such an alternative arrangement, which involved the judges in an appropriate way. Perhaps we can take the opportunity of reducing the evidential requirements to take a case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that. The proposal for the Horizon cases from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, related to the Lord Chancellor taking a power to refer cases to the Court of Appeal, and putting in place a statutory presumption that any convictions are unsafe unless there is evidence to the contrary. As noble Lords will know, this would represent a significant departure from existing appeals processes, and any further exploration of such an approach would need careful consideration, not just for this case but potentially for others. That is not to say we are dismissing it; it would be under review. I emphasise that, unlike Horizon, we do not yet have evidence that the flaws in the Capture system resulted in wrongful convictions. In fact, the Kroll report is clear on this point, stating:
“Kroll does not provide comment on whether any convictions arising from sub-postmasters using Capture could be considered unsafe”.
Part of the problem with the Kroll report is that because it related to the 1990s it had some difficulty in getting the documentation to assess whether that was the case.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, can I ask Ministers to be absolutely sure that there is no cover-up, as happened so scandalously with Horizon? Surely the plight of the sub-postmasters under Capture, as the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, said, is exactly the same as under Horizon, except that the convicted Capture sub-postmasters were badly treated more than 20 years ago and have suffered ever since without any redress. All that time, the accounting officer for the Post Office was a Civil Service Permanent Secretary and the Government had their own appointee on the Post Office board. Will Ministers ensure that these sub-postmasters get the justice denied to them for so long and are not forced to go to court to do so?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I hope my noble friend will bear with us, because we are coming back with a response on the Capture system next week, so I am sorry I am not able to answer on the detail of that. On the current ownership and governance arrangements, we are committed to a Green Paper looking at those relationships between the Post Office and the Government. It will be published in the early part of next year and will address issues about the involvement and representation on the board that my noble friend has raised.
Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)
My Lords, as my name has been mentioned on two occasions already, it is perhaps apt that I should say something. I yield to no one in my admiration for the work that the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, has done in this field. He was good enough to pay an undeserved tribute to some of the work I did in the background as well. I fear, on this occasion, that in praying in aid the scheme I proposed for the Horizon problem, to deal with a constitutional solipsism, we are not yet there with Capture.
Does the Minister agree that, in our constitutional arrangements, the separation of powers and rule of law suggest that courts should deal with wrongful convictions, and overturn them if they are established as such? Does she also agree that in this instance it is much better to wait for the Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer some cases to the Court of Appeal, which will then deal with them by looking at all the facts, evidence and arguments and, if there are problems, quash the convictions?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble and learned Lord raises important issues of law. He will know that the Law Commission is already looking at the law relating to criminal appeals and is due to report next year. That review includes consideration of the CCRC’s role and the statutory tests it applies. The Government will carefully consider any recommendations.
To return briefly to the Capture system, the Court of Appeal is yet to overturn any convictions relating to the use of Capture. The Criminal Cases Review Commission is already considering five potential cases and it is right and proper, in these circumstances, that we let the CCRC and the SCCRC finish conducting those reviews.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is appalling that the key information for the Kroll report forensic investigation into Capture, which pre-dates Horizon, was provided only the day before the report was submitted to government; it did not change the report. Kroll has found that there is a “reasonable likelihood” that Capture had caused these accounting shortfalls.
Back in May, when we were discussing the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill, I asked questions about Capture on three separate occasions. I was told that it was completely different and there was absolutely no connection. It now appears there is a connection. Regardless of the route to justice, will the Government undertake to move as speedily as they can, not just to overturn these cases but to provide redress to these postmasters and staff?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that. There is a difference between Horizon and the Capture system. The Capture system was not networked to a central system like Horizon was, which meant the data in Capture could not be accessed or manipulated from elsewhere. However, notwithstanding that, we are looking at whether there have been miscarriages of justice. I am sorry to say this, but perhaps the noble Baroness should wait for the report we will produce next week. I feel frustrated saying this today, but I know noble Lords will understand how the machinery of government works. I hope to come back with clearer news next week.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
More broadly, can the Minister tell us what safeguards are being put in place to ensure that no authority, public or private, can act with unchecked power similar to that exercised by the Post Office during the Horizon case?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise this; it is an issue that relates not just to the Post Office and Horizon. We are very aware of that and are looking at whether other actions should be taken on a more general basis. It is at the top of our list of concerns, and I hope we will be able to come back with more information on that.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, does the Minister not accept that in the case of Capture, as Horizon, justice delayed is justice denied? Dewi Lewis, the sub-postmaster in Penrhyndeudraeth, is the son of my late agent, Maldwyn Lewis. He had to sell his house to bail out his son, hoping to avoid further prosecution. Is it not necessary to make maximum speed with these cases to avoid such circumstances?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right: speed is of the essence. No postmaster who suffered from either of these schemes should have to wait longer than is absolutely necessary. We are doing everything we can to speed up the payments for the Horizon scheme, and we are working very quickly on the Capture scheme to see whether there are major issues we need to take on immediately. We moved quickly to conclude and publish the results of the independent investigation into Capture. As I say, we are committed to publishing a response this month, which will now be next week. We are moving quickly on this. The noble Lord is absolutely right, and none of us wants to see anyone waiting longer than they should to get justice in what are some terrible cases.
Avian Flu: Turkeys in Norfolk
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports of avian flu affecting turkeys in Norfolk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, following the detection of avian influenza in England, Defra has stood up its well-established response to control and eradicate disease. This has included humane culling of affected birds and establishing disease control zones to help prevent onward spread. The latest information is that there have been six cases in England—three in Norfolk, with two that affect turkeys. Defra will continue to monitor the situation and will consider a regional avian influenza protection zone if risk warrants this.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply—that sounds like good news for Christmas, because there are no more outbreaks in turkeys at present. As someone who once raised turkeys for my local WI market for Christmas, I can empathise with the free-range turkey producers. Can the Minister say how affected poultry farmers, who have the rest of the winter and of the 2025 avian flu season to survive, are compensated should they need to cull? Have the Government changed any aspects of the compensation scheme since they became the Government? Finally, given that insurance against avian flu is virtually impossible to get now, will the Government consider bringing in their own insurance scheme?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
First, the compensation scheme that we are looking at is the same as previously, in that poultry owners will be compensated for the value of the birds if they were healthy at the time of the cull. We have no plans to change that. Secondly, I am extremely aware of the complications around insurance. When we had the previous outbreak, I met a number of poultry owners who were having real problems with insurance. We are very concerned about this, and we will work with insurance companies to monitor the situation.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I congratulate the Government on their swift response to this outbreak. Will the noble Baroness agree with me about the importance of monitoring potential outbreaks from our neighbouring countries in the European Union? Where are we on a potential sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with EU countries, which is so important in this regard?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, it is really important that we work closely with our European neighbours. The incidences of avian flu are currently not what we have seen in previous years, but we must not be complacent. Working with our European neighbours to monitor outbreaks is absolutely critical, because wild birds fly very long distances so this is an international problem. Regarding the SPS agreements, all I can say is that we are making progress and continuing discussions with the EU.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, my former Norfolk constituency contains a large number of poultry farms that invariably set the highest standards of animal health and biosecurity. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, asked a question on insurance. Many farmers obviously find it difficult to get this insurance. The key thing is for the Government to work with the insurance industry to try to find a way forward, so can the Minister elaborate a bit more on her earlier reply on that point?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I said, insurance is a difficult issue. It becomes difficult in many areas—I am sure noble Lords are aware of the difficulties for businesses during flooding as well. Getting insurance in certain business cases is complex. All I can say is that we are extremely aware of the problems that occurred last time for poultry farmers in getting insurance. The outbreak this time is very low compared with previous years, but we are being proactive and doing our best to prevent further outbreaks. We are working with insurance companies to make sure that we have the best outcomes that we can, should this outbreak get worse.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, with the outbreak of avian influenza, the challenge of bluetongue virus in ruminants and the ongoing battle to reduce bovine TB incidence—to say nothing of the biosecurity threats to, for example, our pig population from African swine fever—is the Minister confident that her department and APHA have the necessary resources to cope?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord asks an important question. I met APHA yesterday to discuss exactly this issue because, when there are outbreaks of more than one disease, it has to look at how it will manage all the different aspects. It has assured me that it is confident that it has the resources to manage the response currently, and I am pleased that the Government have awarded funding to Weybridge to ensure that our future capability will be there.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I commend my noble friend the Minister on her wonderful work with the devolved Administrations, in meeting the various Ministers and organisations in the agricultural field. Whenever she next meets the Minister in Northern Ireland, will she ask him what joint work can be done to address disease in not only poultry flocks but animals such as TB reactors? That is a major problem for our farming industry.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I actually met with the Minister in Northern Ireland only yesterday, and we have very regular meetings. Biosecurity is incredibly important, and it is important that we work right across all our devolved Administrations as well as with our European colleagues. I am more than happy to discuss this—I have discussed it when I have gone over to Northern Ireland. I have met farming communities over there and looked at the biosecurity measures at ports for things such as African swine fever. We are being very proactive about this.
Lord Roborough (Con)
Our Government amended the avian flu compensation scheme to allow compensation to be paid from the outset of planned culling to allow swifter payments. Can the Minister confirm whether such payments have been made in this case, and inform the House how many avian flu-related compensation claims have been accepted in the current year, compared to last year? Can she perhaps also reassure the House that there will be enough turkeys for Christmas?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I mentioned, this outbreak is very low compared to previous years, and we have brought in preventive measures to ensure that it does not become a major problem, as we had a few years ago. As I mentioned in responding to the previous question from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, compensation will be paid in the same way as it was previously. I have absolutely no expectation that there will be any problem with turkeys being provided for Christmas, particularly as 85% of the turkeys that will be eaten at Christmas have already been slaughtered and are either fresh or frozen, as it is quite late in the year.
Lord Deben (Con)
This disease can be spread from the smallest of flocks. Is the Minister confident that we now have the registration of all people who are keeping birds? Without that, we are not able to enforce the necessary protections, should this particular event increase. We are bound to have such events in the future as well.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Obviously, we are keen to encourage all small poultry keepers to register. The system is now working well—I have actually done it myself, because I am a small poultry keeper—so I absolutely encourage anyone to do it. It is very simple: it probably took me about a minute and a half. It is very straightforward so, if you have not registered, please do.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, although this outbreak is very small, the noble Baroness will remember that, in the previous serious outbreak in the run-up to Christmas, uninfected turkeys were slaughtered early and kept in large chiller facilities until needed for Christmas. Should this outbreak get more serious, are there plans to repeat that process?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I said, 85% of turkeys that are expected for the Christmas dinner table have already been slaughtered and are available either fresh or frozen, so I do not see that that will be an issue for this year.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I refer to my interests in the register. My noble friend Lord Trees mentioned the bluetongue virus outbreak, which has been somewhat underreported. The restricted zone for that virus outbreak now runs to 26 counties in England, so it is spreading quite quickly. What assessment have the Government made of the impact on farmers who cannot move their animals easily within that restricted zone? What are the Government doing to help them?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are very aware of the impacts on farmers and the issues around restricted zones. With the weather changing and us now moving into winter, and with this being a midge-transported disease, cases are coming down. We are now looking at the issue of midges that can overwinter and therefore spread the disease next year, without it having to be blown over from the continent. Whether that means we want to keep the restricted zones in place is something we are currently looking at and considering carefully.
Domestic Abuse: Victims and Survivors
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
That this House takes note of the need to eliminate domestic abuse, and to support victims and survivors.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I felt this was a timely moment to bring this debate to our Chamber. We have just had 16 days of action—which started with the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and ran through until Human Rights Day on 10 December—as part of a campaign that seeks to end violence against women. Last month, a documentary by Her Majesty the Queen, “Behind Closed Doors”, aired on television, telling the harrowing experiences of women subjected to domestic abuse, with victims including an MP and a police chief inspector braving speaking to the camera.
There is to be a review on the law of homicide and last week Jess Phillips launched a pilot for the new domestic abuse protection order. We must not forget that Christmas often brings an increase in calls to the police reporting cases of domestic violence. Financial pressure and increased alcohol can lead to outbursts and this in a period with fewer opportunities to report or to escape to safety.
According to the 2021 Act, domestic abuse is where the victim and perpetrator are
“16 or over and are personally connected to each other”
and
“it does not matter whether the behaviour consists of a single incident or a course of conduct”.
Domestic abuse is defined as an incident or pattern of incidents of any of the following: controlling, coercive, threatening, degrading or violent behaviour, including sexual violence, and economic abuse.
The origins of the present Act can be traced back to the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 which aimed to protect battered wives. To me, that does not seem that long ago and all of us, I am sure, can remember watching Punch and Judy on the beach or reading Andy Capp, where domestic violence was seen as humour. Thank goodness, to most of us, that is not the case today.
In the majority of cases, domestic violence is carried out by a partner, an ex-partner or a family member or parent. This heinous, devastating crime can be experienced by anyone, regardless of race, ethnic or religious group, sexuality, class or disability. If you know three women or seven men, statistics suggest that you know one who has experienced some kind of partner abuse or violence.
Last year, there were 2.4 million victims—1.7 million women and 699,000 men—picked up by the data, but we know that it is on the increase, with almost certainly more victims than I have mentioned. Women are more likely to be victims and 95% of those contacting services are women. In a survey, it was found that police received domestic-related calls every 30 seconds.
Women should never feel that it is safer to stay with a man than to leave him but, according to the Femicide Census, 38% of women killed by an ex-partner were killed within the first month of separation and 89% within the first year. A 2023 NHS survey stated how domestic violence escalates in pregnancy, with one in three pregnant women experiencing some kind of domestic abuse. Domestic violence is more common than any other health problem among women during pregnancy.
According to an NSPCC survey, one in three children have lived with an adult perpetrator of domestic abuse. These children are deeply affected, living with bated breath for the next verbal or physical assault, with psychological problems such as anxiety, regressive behaviour, anger and other symptoms of depression, leading well into adulthood.
Age is no barrier. Abuse of older people is underreported according to many people. Older victims are often invisible victims. Older women and men may be affected by what are perceived as low-level individual instances that are part of a long-standing pattern of cumulative abusive behaviour. Many older victims develop coping mechanisms and accept domestic abuse as part of everyday life. They can also experience a feeling of shame because they have stayed with their abuser for many years.
It is also reported that one in five teenagers under the age of 16 have been victims of violence due, in particular, to coercive behaviour in their dating relationships. Many are as young as 13. The moving campaign by the parents of Holly Newton—who was stalked and murdered aged 15 by her ex-boyfriend—brings a devastating reminder of what young victims are experiencing. The age limit of 16 and over is now under scrutiny as the law prevents victims under 16 calling it domestic abuse. In the Young People’s RSE Poll 2024, 74% of girls and 54% of boys surveyed believed that the primary school curriculum should address ideas of how children should behave in their relationships.
The statistics mentioned only scratch the surface and, I hope, set the scene for all other noble Lords to suggest how we can move forward. I feel there is at last so much happening in this space—so much more awareness that victims will feel that they are not alone. The bravery of those who are speaking up about their horrific experiences, and the charities, victims’ advocates, refuges and many more organisations which do so much in this space, set the scene for all of us to join them. Every day we read or see on social media the horrors that happen behind closed doors. Let all of us be aware that, when we know someone who begins to behave differently—does not want to meet up, does not want us to visit them at their home, only speaks briefly or not at all on the phone—we should ask ourselves why.
I have had many moving emails from victims relating how much more is required in support when they bravely start this journey away from the abuse they have experienced, and I look forward to hearing from all noble Lords today about how we can move forward to really help these victims who are desperately in need of support.
Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the advisory council of the Employers’ Initiative on Domestic Abuse. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, for bringing this timely debate to our Chamber and thank her for setting out so ably the extent and horror of the domestic abuse that sadly takes place across our country today.
I will make a number of quick points to the Government about how we are dealing with domestic abuse. My first is about the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. It is important that we see the full aspects of that Act implemented as quickly as possible. It is very good that the Government have announced pilot schemes for the application of domestic abuse protection notices and domestic abuse protection orders. It is important to learn from those pilots, but the sooner the DAPNs and DAPOs are in place across the country the more victims will be protected.
My second point is that, while it is absolutely right that we should consider, think of and have concern for the victims of domestic abuse, there is another aspect which we all too often overlook—the impact it has on our economy. There are many people who are the victims of domestic abuse who on some days will simply not feel able to go into their workplace, but who are unable to talk to their employer about what is happening to them and unable to get the support that they need.
That brings me to my final point—the role that employers can play in dealing with domestic abuse and supporting those who are the victims. I mentioned my connection with the Employers’ Initiative on Domestic Abuse, set up by the former Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Elizabeth Filkin. It does very good work with employers, but it is important to encourage employers to set an environment in which those of their employees who are victims of domestic abuse are able to come forward and feel able to admit what is happening to them, so they can be signposted to support, but also so they can feel that the workplace is a safe environment for them. It becomes more difficult when the perpetrator is also an employee in the same workplace. But an enlightened employer, with the right advice and the right support, can also ensure that that situation is managed carefully.
I urge the Government to make sure that the Domestic Abuse Act is implemented fully as soon as possible, and I urge all employers to recognise the role that they can play. I ask the Government also to recognise that employers should not be forgotten in looking at how we can deal with domestic abuse.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, for securing this important debate and for such an eloquent, powerful and well-researched opening speech. Domestic abuse is a stain on our society; it not only kills women but scars their children and perpetuates a cycle of pain and violence. We have all been heartbroken by the case of Sara Sharif, which we have seen in the past few days. We know this: that violent and controlling men do not just beat women—they often beat their own children.
All of us across the House want to tackle this issue, and I, too, pay tribute to the many brilliant women’s organisations in the sector. I pay tribute particularly to Women’s Aid, which has just marked its 50th anniversary. These organisations do excellent work, giving voice to women who often feel that the world and every public institution has failed them. They listen to these women and, most importantly, they believe them—women like Claire Throssell MBE. Claire had a violent partner. She told the court that her ex-husband was capable of hurting her children. He told her that he would, to punish her, and in 2014, during an unsupervised contact visit, he killed her sons, Paul and Jack. In her own words:
“It took just 15 minutes for my life to end and my existence to begin”.
That did not need to happen, and so many of the relentless tragedies that we shed a tear over do not need to happen if we listen to victims and we listen to women like Claire.
I hope that this new Government will listen to the victims. They have got off to a good start, and there are many good champions within the Government, particularly the honourable Jess Phillips, MP. But we need a system that is designed for victims, particularly women and children. At the moment, it feels like the whole system—from the family courts to the police, the criminal justice system and the Child Maintenance Service—exists to grind women down and exhaust them with all the bureaucracy and expense, and to punish them again and again.
Many people think that it is all over for a woman when the immediate violence stops and she leaves her partner, but that can often be just the beginning of a nightmare journey, trying to survive economic abuse and coercive control, with the ex-partner using the family court system against her and accusing her of all sorts. The emotional, psychological and financial abuse can carry on long after those initial bruises fade. We must listen to women and work with organisations such as Women’s Aid and Surviving Economic Abuse.
Finally, I ask my noble friend the Minister: will he consider recognising domestic abuse as the national emergency that it is?
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for securing this debate. The Prime Minster has pledged to halve violence against women and girls within 10 years. At the moment, police receive one call every minute about domestic abuse. If the Government achieve their aim of cutting this by half within 10 years, that means the police will receive one call every two minutes about domestic violence. This is not going to give comfort to the 2 million women who, every year, are victims of male violence, because this scourge on our society accounts for around one-fifth of all murders, as well as a rising number of suspected victim suicides.
Yet, the scale of this problem is still not widely understood, and exposure to extreme porn and misogyny is pushing violence against women to epidemic proportions. Criminal justice is not the whole answer; our justice system must step up and do much better for victims.
Domestic abuse happens in relationships and is often complex, yet too many police first responders are still failing to identify what offences have occurred and to respond appropriately. Too many still minimise the risk and harm experienced, failing to understand why a woman might have little choice but to stay with her abuser.
We welcome the Government’s new protection orders, but if the police do not get that first call right, opportunities to impose them will continue to be missed. Currently, orders are rarely used and poorly enforced. This must change, with specialists embedded with front-line officers to build victims’ trust and identify what type of order, if any, is appropriate.
Then, there is the absolute scandal of court backlogs. Domestic abuse hearings are currently being listed more than two years ahead, but most victims do not remain in the process for two months, let alone two years. Almost half withdraw within five days of reporting an incident, and the majority drop out before a charge is even filed. Recognising this, one police force recently piloted a programme to get all domestic abuse cases before court within two weeks, many within 72 hours. Women were turning up with black eyes, and the early guilty plea rate was remarkable. But without enough court space, sadly, the pilot was cut short.
It is also critical that sentencing levels for domestic abuse-related incidents do not dip in the face of prison capacity concerns. Unfortunately, a number of domestic abusers have been freed under the Government’s early release scheme, largely because England and Wales do not have a specific offence of domestic abuse. Instead, these cases are prosecuted under general offences such as actual bodily harm or common assault. So the Liberal Democrats this week have tabled a Bill which would put into law a specific set of domestic abuse-aggravated offences, and I hope the Government will support it.
Having a 10-year plan is not the answer. We need a repeat of the swift justice that we saw following the summer riots. The rioters were stopped in their tracks because they knew that there was a will to identify, charge and prosecute them immediately. If it could be done then, it can be done now.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, for securing this debate. I declare my interest as CEO of Muslim Women’s Network UK. I shall focus on four points: funding, domestic homicide rates among minority ethnic women, spiritual abuse, and transnational abandonment.
No funding was pledged to tackle domestic abuse in the last Budget, which was surprising given Labour’s manifesto commitment to reduce violence against women and girls by 50%. The current funding crisis and the rise in employer national insurance will result in many women’s organisations scaling back their services, taking away vital support for domestic abuse victims. Can the Minister provide assurance that the next Budget will announce funding to tackle domestic abuse?
Domestic homicide rates for minority ethnic women are around 22% higher. This issue can be addressed only if we know why it is happening. Will the Government agree to carry out a public consultation exercise to find out what the contributing factors are to the higher rates? This will help to save lives.
Spiritual abuse is not legally defined and is not limited to abuse by faith leaders. It is also a form of domestic abuse, where families and partners may misuse religion to control and manipulate women and children in particular. A legal definition could help to better recognise this form of abuse and hold perpetrators to account. Will the Government consider having a legal definition of spiritual abuse? Will the Minister write to me about the number of spiritual abuse cases recorded by the police in the last five years?
Transnational abandonment is another form of domestic abuse. This is when—usually—a husband takes his wife abroad on the pretence of a holiday and leaves her there, sometimes with children. The wife is usually on a spousal visa waiting for indefinite leave to remain. Helplines such as the one that I run are then left to apply for documents and pay for flights to get the women and children back into the UK. In the first six months of 2024, there were 28 transnational abandonment cases.
Being abandoned in this way is traumatising. It is time to make this a specific criminal offence. Perpetrators need to be held accountable for treating women as though they are property that can be discarded in this way. Recently in Australia, a man who had deceived his wife into leaving the country left her in Sudan. He was then convicted of exit trafficking and sentenced to more than four years in prison. It is time for perpetrators of this type of domestic abuse to also be convicted in the UK. Will the Government consider a law change here?
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, may I make a brief intervention to suggest that it is not always men abusing women? I am very familiar with women who control the behaviour and lives of their spouses, over many years, with threats that often involve children.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, homes and relationships should be places where people feel safe and loved but, with Northumbria Police receiving about 115 calls about domestic abuse per day, this is sadly not the case for many. The north-east has particularly high rates of domestic violence, at 19 per 1,000 population according to Health Equity North, while the average for the whole of England is 13.
Steps are being taken to reduce this number, with Northumbria Police having placed domestic abuse specialists in their emergency call rooms since 2022. The project has received positive feedback, and I welcome the Government’s plans to introduce this more widely through Raneem’s law.
At the end of May, I met the family of Holly Newton, a 15 year-old girl who was stalked and murdered by her ex-boyfriend in Hexham, Northumberland, which is in my diocese. The noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, mentioned Holly in her opening speech. The law states that this case was not one of domestic abuse, as both the victim and the perpetrator were under the age of 16, and it was classified as knife crime. This places an emphasis on the weapon rather than the build-up to the crime, which showed clear signs of domestic abuse.
In light of the recent Youth Endowment Fund survey of teenagers aged 13 to 17, which found that 49% had experienced some form of violent or controlling behaviour in their relationships in the past year, what consideration have the Government given to lowering the age limit to include those under 16 in the definition of domestic abuse?
I commend the Government’s ambition to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, but I fear that it is not possible without more focus on prevention. Holly’s family have raised the need to improve relationship education. The YEF survey also found that only 40% of respondents had lessons on building healthy, respectful romantic relationships, and even fewer teens received practical advice on recognising or addressing unhealthy relationships. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that teenagers receive high-quality education on healthy relationships and spotting signs of violence and coercion?
Bold ambitions require bold actions. I hope that this Government have the courage to take the necessary actions, centring the voices of victims and survivors.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, for securing this debate, and my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead for her long-term leadership on this issue. I also thank Her Majesty the Queen for the compassion that she has shown on this issue, including by becoming patron of SafeLives, the charity that I founded almost 20 years ago.
I want to share with the House three things that I learned during my time at SafeLives. First, one of the principles to which we worked was: what would you want for your best friend if she was experiencing domestic abuse? We decided on a dedicated specialist who supported her, whatever the issues, be they criminal justice, housing or her children, and for that person to be the linchpin in co-ordinating other agencies to meet her needs.
Secondly, we too had the ambition of halving high-risk domestic abuse, so I share the Government’s ambition here, and you cannot do it if you do not work with perpetrators. We worked with two other charities and founded the Drive Partnership, which worked with the most high-risk perpetrators of abuse. One of the first young men we worked with had already had 10 partners by the age of 24 and had multiple children by those earlier relationships. Without working with him we can make his current partner safe, but we must make his future partners safe by changing his behaviour.
Thirdly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, said, we are all thinking today of the tragedy of Sara Sharif. We must keep children central. Even the press coverage of her death talked about her parents having a volatile relationship. The child was killed, and we can imagine what happened before that. We did a big research study which found that 60% of the children that we looked at had lived with domestic abuse since they were in the womb, with everything that meant for their futures.
I will close with two other thoughts. First, please let us not forget health in all this. We piloted putting domestic abuse specialists in A&E and safeguarding settings. Women who would never talk to the police were able to disclose what was happening to them. Finally, as others have said, we learned more by listening to survivors and families who had lost their loved ones than by doing anything else.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, for bringing this debate before us today. I agree with her that the need to eliminate domestic abuse is a worthy and crucial ambition, as is supporting victims and survivors.
Violence against women and girls is not inevitable but perhaps should be regarded as a national emergency. According to the Office for National Statistics in its latest bulletin, Domestic Abuse in England and Wales Overview: November 2024, an estimated 2.3 million people aged 16 and over experienced domestic abuse in the year ending March 2024.
Two of the purposes of the Istanbul convention—or, to give it its full title, the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence—are to
“protect women against all forms of violence, and prevent, prosecute and eliminate violence against women and domestic violence”,
and to
“contribute to the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and promote substantive equality between women and men, including by empowering women”.
The previous Government ratified the convention in 2022, and we were all very happy when that happened, but there were reservations on Articles 44 and 59. This Government are reviewing Article 59, and I look forward to the Minister reporting on that review soon, as it will be of great help to migrant women who are victims of domestic abuse. This convention is fully in line with what we are debating today.
I am pleased that this Government have set out an unprecedented ambition to halve violence against women and girls within a decade, and they have announced new measures to tackle spiking, stalking and other crimes that disproportionately affect women and girls. They have already taken significant steps to transform the policing response to these awful crimes.
I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, mentioned older people. Older people who are victims of domestic abuse are often overlooked and not taken seriously. Hourglass, the charity that campaigns for better protection of older people, of which I am a patron, is calling on the Government to begin a consultation on developing a strategy to tackle the abuse and neglect of older people. To make sure that we see the full picture of the abuse of older people, police forces should implement a consistent and accessible data collection system in each police force, categorising crime according to age. Will the Minister agree to look at this, as it is so often overlooked?
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, the Government’s aim to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, target perpetrators and address the root causes of abuse and violence is clearly ambitious. It is perhaps less ambitious than the elimination of domestic violence, referred to in the Motion before us.
Statistics do not suggest either aim to be possible. The World Health Organization reports domestic violence to be the largest cause of morbidity in women aged 19 to 44—more than wars, cancer or motor accidents. Domestic abuse used to be seen as essentially a private problem, except in extreme cases. Changed perceptions and the Human Rights Act have given the state responsibilities for positive, preventive and protective action, now reinforced by the Istanbul convention, signed in 2012 and eventually ratified in 2022. That is a convention based on realities rather than on abstract rights.
Domestic abuse persists and will continue to do so, but having worked in family law for a long time I want to emphasise some significant improvements: first, the changes in terminology that have already been referred to. The 2021 Act provides a wide and useful definition of domestic abuse, including psychological, emotional and economic abuse, and it is not confined to what happens in a home, if there is one. But the word “domestic” remains fundamental, emphasising the need to protect homes as places of security and safety, and not as places of dangerous misery.
The recognition of controlling or coercive behaviour has served to focus the attention of the courts and professionals on patterns of behaviour rather than individual incidents. There is now a much better understanding of the impact on victims, in terms of social and familial isolation and loss of self-esteem, particularly in households and relationships in which violence and abuse have become normalised.
However, many perpetrators of abuse, lacking empathy and insight, all too easily move on to other harmful relationships. The family courts see this time and again. Sadly, Sarah’s law and Clare’s law are seldom used by those who most need them.
There are positive indications, however. The police have become more responsive and better at recognising domestic abuse. Refuges remain vital in giving at least temporary safety and enabling women to move on. IDVAs are an invaluable addition to the practical support available; funding for them should be assured. Cafcass officers are now subject to a new Cafcass domestic abuse practice policy, based on hearing victims clearly and taking concerns seriously.
I do not wish to take any more time defending the role of the family courts, but we have to resolve conflicting claims of ulterior motives. There is now a very valuable Family Justice Council document giving welcome and important guidance, giving greater weight to domestic abuse allegations and to suggestions of potential alienation.
Lord Patten (Con)
My Lords, I take a pretty broad view of the phrase “domestic abuse”, for it includes not just men and women battering each other, using emotional abuse or battering children, but sometimes partners jointly abusing the elderly, the frail and confused men and women of some age. I have been interested in this for some while, and I can do no better than unashamedly borrow a phrase from a campaigning outfit called Hourglass: often, people of age are left out of the conversation on domestic abuse.
I hope that the Minister addresses it in his reply. If he cannot find time, understandably, to mention it in his wind-up speech, he may choose to write to us and place a letter in the Library of the House on what exactly the Government propose to do. A considerable number of elderly people have a pretty horrible time domestically.
How to reduce domestic violence is one of the great social challenges of the day; it is going to take time to resolve. The mention of the word “time” causes me to pause over just one word in the title of this excellent debate put forward by my noble friend, on which I congratulate her—“eliminate”. I wish that we could eliminate it, but it is never going to be an easy challenge when people have been violent with each other over generations.
Lastly, we need to take a broad view of how we deal with domestic violence. Of course, legislation, new orders and the panoply of political undertakings are very important, but education as a background is terribly important too. It is nothing like as important as stopping people being beaten up or abused, but I believe that social change is brought about by getting messages across, whether through the use of media or in schools. Schools cannot do everything, but it is very good for schools to address their attention right through to what I have learned to call the “manosphere” and messages being put across online through new mediums, which we have to use in subtle, non-specific and non-harassing ways. I am convinced that educational messages have a limited but very important part to play in the long term.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, for securing this debate and pay tribute to her work in this House. This is such a fundamental, important area for us to address.
I commend the Government on their ambition to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. It demonstrates a commitment to tackling this scourge, and we must do all we can to take a stand against gender-based violence. The voices of men and boys are fundamental in this.
I too welcome the recent launch of the pilots of domestic abuse protection notices and domestic abuse protection orders, and hope they will prove effective in providing greater protection for victims and survivors. I note that implementation is the key issue here. Without proper awareness, monitoring and response to breaches of these orders, they will inevitably have just a limited impact.
Of course, as well as enforcement, there is an urgent need for prevention. Upstream prevention is much better than helping victims and survivors down stream. Although men can be victims, as we have noted, it is mainly women who suffer from this. So how can we tackle the misogynistic and sexist views that can lead to these horrific crimes? In particular, I wonder whether the Minister can be tempted to reflect a little on what can be done in our schools and education systems, as others have raised, as we address this issue.
I wonder if more can be done by His Majesty’s Government to work in co-operation with the voluntary sector. A couple of weeks ago, I was delighted to be invited to speak at an open meeting organised by the St Albans branch of the Soroptimists—“Orange the World” was its title. People from all around the community came together to address this and to raise its profile in local media. I also note the work undertaken by the Mothers’ Union. Its RISE UP campaign involves activism against domestic abuse and gender-based violence and goes on throughout the year, not just during the 16 Days of Activism campaign.
Could the Minister tell us whether the Government intend to publish a more detailed strategy of how they intend to reach their target of halving violence against women and girls in a decade and how they intend to measure that target?
Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)
My Lords, it gives me the greatest pleasure to support my noble friend Lady Chisholm of Owlpen today. I thank her for her powerful opening speech and for giving us the chance to debate this most important and deeply concerning topic. My noble friend mentioned Her Majesty the Queen’s documentary on domestic violence, “Behind Closed Doors”, which was moving and compassionate but often uncomfortable and chilling viewing. It should make us all look for the best and most immediate ways to break this evil cycle.
In Bolton, we are blessed with a wonderful refuge, Fortalice, which opened its doors 47 years ago to women and children to keep them safe from domestic abuse and violence. Over the years, it has grown to offer not just a refuge but 22 services within the community, including a children and young people’s hub. It delivers programmes and early intervention aimed at breaking the cycle of abuse and helping children work through the trauma they have suffered.
Started by a group of friends, Fortalice is now led by two equally inspiring and determined women: the CEO, Gill Smallwood, and chair, Diane Hawkins, who is the Lord-Lieutenant of Greater Manchester. Under their leadership, and supported by a team of dedicated staff, Fortalice has gone from strength to strength. Gill has always believed that we need to look after victims at a local level. When she first arrived at Fortalice, 13 years ago, she saw that there was a huge gap in some working partnerships. She duly forged a partnership with the police, which meant victims were reached as early as possible because help was in the right place, at the right time. Through this essential early intervention programme, the police came to value its work, which was also educational, especially when dealing with an area where violence may not be immediately obvious and is often not taken as seriously as it should be.
Attempts to scale this up to a regional level lost that essential local element; when you lose that, victims too get lost. Local commissioning reduces trauma for the whole family, especially where children are involved, because local services understand the needs of their communities and can react in a timely way, especially with rising demand and complex needs.
Last year, the office of the Deputy Mayor of Greater Manchester asked Fortalice to run a local pilot partnership with the police, similar to the original programme. Built on highly trained volunteers drawn from all walks of life, including former police officers, teachers, counsellors, students and survivors of domestic violence, they go out on appointments with the police, meaning that once again the right people are in the right place, at the right time, with the right skills. They provide a lifeline of protection and support, and a rebuilding of self-esteem and trust, which domestic abuse in all its forms so cruelly erodes. We are rightly proud of all they do. I pay tribute to all who work in this distressing but vital area.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, this is a story about how long it takes for good ideas to get on to the statute book before being finally implemented. In February 2010, Kit Malthouse, London’s then deputy mayor for policing, attended a conference and heard about the South Dakota 24/7 sobriety project, the aim of which is to reduce the recidivism of offenders who drive under the influence of alcohol or commit domestic violence when drunk. Between 25% and 50% of domestic violence incidents are linked to alcohol consumption. The project mandates offenders to a period of enforced alcohol abstinence. In the US, this is monitored by daily breathalyser tests paid for by the offenders. If they do not turn up or if they test positive, they are subject to flash incarceration for a day or two. Convinced that this model could help reduce violence in the night-time economy and domestic violence, Malthouse campaigned to conduct the first trial of 24/7 sobriety in Europe.
The alcohol abstinence monitoring requirement, or AAMR, was introduced in the LASPO Act 2012. I am proud to have played my part in persuading the then Justice Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, to accept amendments which permit courts in England and Wales to impose a requirement for an offender to abstain from alcohol and be regularly tested to ensure compliance. Various AAMR pilots were conducted using sobriety bracelets, with a compliance rate of 94%.
In 2020, 10 years after Kit Malthouse began campaigning, an SI enabled a rollout of the AAMR, followed in 2022 by alcohol monitoring on licence. Here is how it works. The tag takes a sample of the wearer’s sweat every 30 minutes and provides a continuous record of whether the offender has been drinking. If the tag detects alcohol or is tampered with, an alert is sent to the Probation Service. If an offender breaks their alcohol ban, they can face a return to court or a prison sentence. Recent data shows a rapid rise in the use of alcohol monitoring post-release, but it is still very low. It would appear that prison governors are using it most. Does the Minister know why the Parole Board is not using this option at the same rate? Would the Minister agree that, if people are to be released early from prison, monitoring via tags might increase the number of candidates for early release?
I understand that a new agreement has been reached to supply more tags, but now that the effectiveness of the intervention has been proven, what is needed is more competition for better, cheaper devices. US data shows that keeping men sober in the community on these schemes helps reduce violence in the home. However, I believe this to be underresearched here. Will the Home Office agree to fund such research and explore how we can use this technology to keep even more women safe from abuse? It is a cheap option, enables safer early release, keeps men out of prison, and reduces much alcohol-fuelled abuse and probably death. Compulsory sobriety has the potential to be a game-changer. Will the Minister commit to looking into it further and giving it a very good push?
Lord Loomba (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, for initiating this vital debate. Domestic abuse devastates lives, families and communities. Despite increased awareness and legislative progress, the scale of the issue remains alarming. According to the Office for National Statistics, 2.4 million adults aged 16 to 74 in England and Wales experienced domestic abuse in the year ending March 2022. Domestic abuse not only inflicts a heavy emotional toll but imposes significant financial costs. The Home Office estimates the total cost to be £78 billion a year, which includes healthcare, lost economic output, and housing and support services. The human cost—the loss of safety, dignity and sometimes life itself—is incalculable.
While the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 marked significant progress, critical gaps in appropriate provision persist. Refuges—a lifeline for survivors—remain underfunded and oversubscribed. In 2022, Women’s Aid reported that as many as one in five women referred to refuges were turned away due to lack of space. This shortfall is even more acute for ethnic-minority survivors, who face additional barriers, including language challenges and cultural stigmas.
Another pressing issue is the rise of technology-facilitated abuse. Online harassment, the misuse of surveillance tools and digital manipulation have become common tactics for abusers. Research shows that 71% of domestic abuse victims have experienced some form of online abuse, and we are struggling to address this evolving threat.
It is also vital to think of children in these situations. Exposure to domestic abuse affects their emotional and psychological well-being and can result in long-term harm. Adequate funding for services supporting child survivors in child and family social care is crucial to breaking this cycle.
In light of these challenges, I ask the Government to address two questions of particular concern. First, what plans do they have to ensure that there is sustained and adequate funding for specialist domestic abuse services? Secondly, how do they intend to address the rise of technology-facilitated abuse, ensuring both victim protection and accountability for perpetrators in the digital age?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing this debate. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 was an important step forward but, as my noble friend Lady May said, it must be fully implemented as soon as possible and more must be done to eliminate all forms of domestic abuse.
Considering sexual and reproductive coercion first, pregnancy is widely recognised as one of the most dangerous times for women with abusive partners. Around 30% of domestic abuse begins during pregnancy, while 40% to 60% of women experiencing domestic abuse are abused during their pregnancy. In abusive relationships, perpetrators often seek to control every aspect of their partner’s life, including their reproductive choices. We have seen abusers coercing their partners into pregnancy by destroying birth control methods and forcing sexual activity without consent.
Women can be forced into carrying a pregnancy to term against their will, through threats, physical violence or emotional manipulation, with forced or coerced pregnancy being more common than forced or coerced abortion. That can be further impacted by mental health issues, isolation, financial control and fear of the retaliation that they can experience. In his response, I hope that the Minister can outline what steps the Government are taking to ensure that reproductive healthcare services are adequately equipped to recognise and support individuals experiencing domestic abuse.
Turning to honour-based abuse, campaign groups are calling for a statutory definition of honour-based abuse, including Karma Nirvana through its Push4Change campaign, in memory of Fawziyah Javed and the countless other women who have been killed through honour-based abuse. Introducing a statutory definition would provide much-needed clarity for victims, professionals and legal systems. It would help ensure that the abuse is properly recognised and responded to, and that this form of abuse is recognised for what it is: a form of gendered violence that needs to be eradicated. Can the Minister say whether the Government will support a statutory definition?
We are tragically seeing an increasing rate at which women are dying as a consequence of domestic abuse. Domestic homicide reviews should play a crucial role in understanding the circumstances surrounding domestic homicides and preventing future deaths. Organisations have raised concerns about the number of repeated recommendations emerging from DHRs, which show little systemic change. There are concerns about the lack of accountability for recommendations, the inconsistent quality of reviews across different regions and the insufficient focus on the victim’s experience. Can the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to ensure that DHRs lead to meaningful, consistent improvements in response to domestic abuse? The process of learning lessons from past tragedies must be more effective and impactful.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, and to Her Majesty the Queen; I saw the documentary and thought her unforced, natural empathy had huge power.
I applaud the Government for their commitment and focus to reduce violence against women and girls, and I commend them particularly for the appointments of Jess Phillips and Alex Davies-Jones. As a head-hunter for 31 years, I could never understand why previous Conservative Governments did not immediately put the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, into a position to deal with domestic abuse, on the basis that she was far better qualified than anybody else in that Administration. However, the Conservative Government did many things that I did not fully understand.
I pay tribute to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Nicole Jacobs, and her team for all they do. What a legacy this Government have inherited. Nicole Jacobs’s six priorities for the Government encompass: domestic abuse service provision and funding; the policing and criminal justice system; children and young people, and the trauma that domestic abuse can create; family courts; migrant survivors; and domestic homicide and suicide.
Turning briefly to domestic abuse services and funding, her submission to the Autumn Budget and spending review has some significant requests in it, including £303.8 million for community-based DA support, of which £187.8 million should be ring-fenced to ensure that it delivers what is planned.
I am particularly concerned about how we tackle the policing and criminal justice challenges, with only 6% of domestic abuse crimes reported to police resulting in a charge and even fewer resulting in a conviction. Multiagency and cross-geography co-ordination and co-operation are simply not working. With 43 police forces and police and crime commissioners, it is “Let a thousand flowers bloom” and priorities are all over the place. The police force data quality is inconsistent and our ability to measure the effectiveness of measures to reduce domestic abuse is severely handicapped by systemic shortcomings—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale.
The Minister may remember the interchanges we had last week about the new initiatives on stalking and independent stalking advocates. Can he commit to ensuring that this strategy is truly cross-governmental? It needs to bring in health, education, welfare, communities and local government. Can he use his best efforts to ensure that we have far more effective and focused metrics to measure success and, equally helpfully, to measure failure?
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, it is customary to thank the noble Baroness who has secured a debate for having done so, but in this case I—and, I believe, the whole of your Lordships’ House—genuinely thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, for having secured the debate today.
Surely the problem that we are facing here is not that Governments, for the last two decades, have ignored domestic abuse, and it is not that the police, the courts or Cafcass have ignored it; it is that all the efforts that have been made have not improved the situation, because what we really need is a change in attitude in society. As the noble Baroness, Lady May, rightly said earlier—I commend her for all the work that she did on this subject, particularly when she was Home Secretary—getting employers involved is terribly important.
We are all awfully polite in Britain. We say, “Oh, there might be something wrong, but it’s none of my business”. That is the change of attitude that we need. We need to have a change of society’s attitude so that we say, “I recognise that this person”—usually a woman, but sometimes a man—“is in some kind of difficulty”. So rather than saying, “It’s none of my business”, let us all see what we can do to improve matters.
We have come a long way in getting the police to recognise how important this hidden crime is, but it is still terribly difficult, especially in cases of coercive control, which is a very hidden crime. Where there is violent behaviour, there is often evidence—bruises, illness and other obvious problems—but, with coercive control, none of those is present: and certainly not if everyone turns their back and says, “It is none of my business”. Because it is all of our business and I only wish that the media would report this debate, and all the excellent points that have been made in it, in the way they take up columns in the newspapers and time on news bulletins talking about the trivia of celebrities and their relationships. Let us look at the relationships of real people throughout this country who need the help of the whole of society.
I ask the Minister: will the Government consider the definition of domestic abuse, which includes the age limit of 16? We have all been shocked by what happened to Sara Sharif. Because she was under 16, it does not mean that it was not domestic abuse.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Chisholm for this debate. It saddens me, though, that we only have three minutes to talk about it. If it was to do with EU law, we would have three days. I think that shows you. Are we really serious about tackling domestic abuse? I am going to keep mine short. I have lots of speechwriting from my team, but I think this should be a debate about the victims and the survivors.
I have met many, both in my role as Victims’ Commissioner and outside the role, and the one thing that everybody has said to me is that they do not want to go to court. They do not want to go through these processes that we talk about here today. They want somebody to listen to them. They want them to understand what they are going through. They want them to help them to get out of a horrible, chronic relationship. And they want to protect their children. We have wonderful organisations that work tirelessly to help these victims. They are bursting at the seams because, when they do go to court, we have court backlogs, as we are noting, and it could be years before they get anywhere.
The one thing that we cannot see is coercive controlling. Even though we send perpetrators to prison, that coercive controlling still goes on while they are in prison. We need to tackle that with better training and understanding and looking at it like a chronic, invisible illness—which, as I stand here today, I have, but you would not think so because I do not have a broken arm or leg. We need, as a society, to look at people, and the default button should not be, “Well, they go back”. They go back because they need to put a roof over their head for their children. They go back because they have no control of their finances. They go back because they are worn down by the very person who says they love them. And they go back because they know the consequences of what will happen.
In this House and in the other place, we talk about legislation. This is for the professionals and this is where we can safeguard—and I hope that agencies will get this into perspective. But, more importantly, we are missing a trick. This is not about legislation; this is about understanding a societal problem. It is understanding the language that we talk about and it is understanding that, when a victim goes to report domestic abuse or any crime, this is not the first time that they are suffering at the hands of somebody who will absolutely go on to brutally murder them.
I ask the Minister not to keep using the two words “lessons learned”. It is an insult to the victim and to the family and, more importantly, as we have just seen in the young girl who has brutally lost her life, there is going to be yet another inquiry—another one that sits on the shelf—when in fact there needs to be accountability, because we have enough legislation that should have protected that child. As a whole, we need to do better, quicker, to protect other young lives.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, on securing this important debate and all the other speakers who have so movingly talked about the scourge of domestic abuse and why it must be eliminated. She was right to say that it can affect anyone, but much of it remains invisible. And the noble Baroness, Lady Laing, was right to say that there is still much to be done. It was good to hear from our own Victims’ Commissioner, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, who talked about the experience of women and girls who are at the forefront of our minds today as we have this debate. I thank the many organisations who have sent us briefings and all the amazing work that they do with women struggling to flee from domestic abuse.
One in four women experiences domestic abuse. Women’s Aid is right to describe this as an epidemic. Women also experience higher rates of repeated victimisation and are much more likely to be seriously hurt or killed than male victims of DA. At least one woman a week is killed by a current or former partner. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, said, this is a public emergency, yet four in five British people do not believe that the scale of domestic abuse is greater than car accidents or house fires. That is to do with the way that we as society, and our press and media, handle it. So, can the Minister say what plans the Government have to help society to listen and understand that DA is just not acceptable, and to teach people, all of us, to help intervene if we have concerns? On a practical level, can the Minister guarantee that the police and crime commissioners’ budget for victim support will be protected?
It was good that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, outlined some of the positive changes that we have seen in the family court system and the effect on children. The support is vital for victims, as my noble friend Lady Doocey outlined. Too many are persuaded or bullied into withdrawing their criminal cases. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has outlined three-planet model of types of victims. There is the domestic violence planet, where domestic abuse is considered a crime. There is the child protection planet, where victims and survivors are expected to remove themselves and the children from the perpetrator. And then there is the child contact planet, where there are lots of negotiations between all three. She says that most of the rest of the systems in society do not understand how all of those conflict to make life for victims very difficult.
The excellent Ministry of Justice report some years ago on assessing the risk of harm to children and parents in private law children cases, the Harm Panel report, has really started to make some changes, and it is good that that has finally been recognised. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Hazarika, also said, Sara Sharif’s death was shocking, not just for the violence that was inflicted on her but once again for the continued failures of all those in important roles to keep our children safe. “Lessons learned” is no longer good enough; we really need to make sure that things change. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, I want to pay great credit to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, who has really begun to change the tone of the debate that we have.
Other speakers have spoken about the effect on young people aged 16 and under. We definitely need a law change. The law ignores the fact that Holly Newton and other teens do have relationships. The Children’s Commissioner noted that only 1% of under-18s access advocacy services because they are not targeted at that age group. It is not the young people’s fault; they are just not seeing it. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, outlined the shocking effect on older people of abuse, and I absolutely agree with him as well. When you add dementia into it, it becomes a very difficult issue to manage. The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, spoke movingly about the special problems of migrant women who are victims of domestic abuse, and she is right. We have to make sure that services for the particularly vulnerable in our society who are also victims of domestic abuse are supported.
The noble Baroness, Lady May, talked about the impact on the economy, but there are other financial impacts too. The Price of Safety report found that it could cost a woman up to £50,000 to leave her abuser. That is just the direct cost of fleeing and rebuilding a new life. Even women who have state support and benefits can find themselves facing a deficit of up to £10,000 and nearly 1 million women in the UK cannot escape dangerous partners because of economic abuse. The noble Baroness, Lady Laing, was right to say it is even less visible than DA. And the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, rightly outlined spiritual abuse, which is a particularly unpalatable form of coercive control. The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, talked about honour-based abuse. That is such an appalling misnomer that almost gives credibility to the perpetrators. We need to find another way of discussing it.
The elimination of domestic abuse needs a whole-system response. As the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, outlined, health and domestic abuse are inextricably linked. Others have talked about pregnancy, but there are other health issues as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, spoke about the sobriety tag scheme started by Kit Malthouse and her success in getting this into legislation. There is another reason why it is important. LSE research shows that domestic abuse rises after football matches when people have more opportunity to drink alcohol. Perhaps for repeat offenders in that area there might be short-term tag wearing that would help.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans talked about the important role of civic society. He specifically mentioned the Mothers’ Union, but there are many other groups as well. There is a lot of work going on behind the scenes. We need to make it much more visible, so that everyone recognises that there is strong and good work continuing. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, talked about the importance of initiatives and pilots, and oh my goodness, she is right. How can these initiatives be scaled up and turned into something that will work and be financially supported at the right level across the country?
Above all, we absolutely must have a complete change in society. Will the Government ensure that there are changes and perhaps even a bigger campaign to make us in society understand that?
I have one last question for the Minister. Hardly any of the Victims and Prisoners Act has been commenced. Can he tell us when every part that relates to victims will be fully commenced, including the revised victims’ code?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, in addressing this extremely important topic I sincerely thank my noble friend Lady Chisholm of Owlpen for securing this debate, and thank all noble Lords who have made enormously important contributions.
Let me be clear: domestic abuse is a scourge on our society, and we must take all the steps we can to eliminate it. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that victims and survivors of these horrific crimes deserve the strongest assurances that His Majesty’s Government can give that they are doing all that they can to eliminate domestic abuse.
My noble friend referred to Her Majesty the Queen’s documentary “Behind Closed Doors”, which tells the harrowing stories of women subjected to domestic abuse, with many victims bravely speaking out and Her Majesty the Queen doing an impressive service to bring this to the country’s attention. I do not think any of us would fail to be touched by the stories of the victims.
As the Government over the last 14 years, the Conservatives took a number of steps to seek to eliminate domestic abuse and, as referred to by a number of noble Lords, to reduce violence against women and girls more broadly. However, as always, it is important to be honest: there is certainly more that we could have done when in power to address this issue. We welcome the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence against Women and Girls introducing the new pilot domestic abuse protection order. As the noble Lord, Lord Patten, mentioned, we should not forget violence towards senior citizens, and in many cases it is hidden.
Last year, there were 2.4 million reported victims of domestic abuse, which is a tragic statistic. The numbers seem to be on the rise, and it is certainly the case that my party looks on these statistics with great sadness and anger, as I am sure do all noble Lords.
We tried to tackle the problem of domestic abuse in our 14 years in power but it is not easy. First, we elevated violence against women and girls to a crime type that policing leaders must treat as a national threat, ensuring that victims can always access professional support. We committed a total of over £230 million to our Tackling Domestic Abuse Plan from 2022 to 2025, including quadrupling funding for victim and witness support services by 2024-25, which complemented our £300 million investment in our 2021 tackling VAWG strategy as part of our goal to drive down the prevalence of domestic abuse.
Secondly, we toughened sentences for rapists and stalkers, making sure that they feel the full force of the law. We doubled the maximum sentence for stalkers from five to 10 years, with the average sentence length for adult rape now nine years and eight months, up from six and a half years in 2010. This increase of 46% keeps those who devastate communities behind bars for longer.
Thirdly, we launched the end-to-end rape review, delivering victim-centred system change for victims of rape in the long term. We met ambitious targets set out in the review ahead of schedule to more than double the number of adult rape cases reaching court by the end of the last Parliament, and to return volumes of cases being referred to the police to at least 2016 levels, ensuring that justice is done for the most horrific crimes.
Fourthly, we created new offences of coercive control, strengthening protections for victims. We introduced the offence of coercive or controlling behaviour to recognise behaviour that stops short of serious physical violence but which amounts to extreme psychological and emotional abuse, helping bring perpetrators to justice.
Finally, I should mention that I well remember my own experience as a police officer in the 1980s and the 1990s, when it was quite difficult at times to bring assailants to trial at Crown Court, as in many cases the victim was unwilling to proceed with the matter either due to threats or other reasons and was unprepared to give evidence. It is a real challenge—a great challenge to the police and to the criminal justice system.
One of the things that we did get right, though, was that we introduced measures to make it easier for victims to give evidence in court, ensuring that they can give a full account of the offending without having to face defendants in person. Rape victims are now able to pre-record their evidence, ensuring that they can give a full account of the offending without having to face defendants in court. I suggest that this is an enormous step forward, and I am sure the House agrees. All these measures are aimed at supporting victims and survivors of violence against women and girls, and clamping down hard on those who commit these heinous crimes.
I am sure that, on this occasion, the Minister will welcome the work done by the previous Government on this, as it is a matter above party politics. Can he perhaps confirm, first, whether the Government will continue to work with our Benches on key issues to prevent violence against women and girls? Secondly, as the previous Government had committed £230 million to the Tackling Domestic Abuse Plan from 2022 to 2025, including quadrupling funding for victim and witness support services by 2024-25, can the Minister perhaps confirm whether this Government will honour that commitment?
As we come up to the Christmas period—the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, is absolutely right—we must bear in mind that Christmas is not a happy time for everybody in our country. It is a fact that it is a period when cases of domestic abuse rise. I hope the Minister takes these questions in good nature, and I wish to offer my support to help him and his ministerial team so that we can present a very unified voice on this issue.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, on bringing this debate before the House. As has been seen from the contributions today, there is significant interest and a number of very strong points have been put which the Government will consider. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that we welcome the work done by previous Governments and welcome any support that he, and indeed all Members of this House, can give to the Government to tackle this issue in the longer term.
The important point was made that this takes place at the end of a 16-day period when we have had a very high focus on domestic violence prior to Christmas. It is also important that this House recognises both the work and endorsement of Her Majesty the Queen and the documentary that she has made, and senses the wish of this House to raise the issue and to tackle it with a societal approach. That is a very significant contribution which I very much welcome.
The contributions that we have had all raised a number of different issues. I will try to resolve all those and respond to them in due course; if I cannot, I will write to noble Members about those issues in the meantime.
I want to thank my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, the Minister Jess Phillips and the Minister Alex Davies-Jones for their commitment in developing the plans that I will be outlining now on behalf of the Government, because they are the drivers behind these measures and I want them to be recognised.
In our manifesto, the Government gave a number of key commitments which we will be judged by but which I hope will have the endorsement of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, mentioned the scale of the task, and the metrics of measuring it are extremely important. However, the measures that we have put in place of halving violence against women and girls over 10 years, the specialist workers in 999 control rooms that we committed to in the manifesto, the specialist rape investigation units for England and Wales police forces, the police and other interventions to target repeat offenders, and the specialist support in courts to fast-track and support the early resolution of cases are all important, and they are part of the key manifesto commitments that I will refer to now in more detail. Those are important because, as noble Lords mentioned, in the year to March 2024, over one in four women reported experiencing domestic abuse, as well as one in seven men—to pick up the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, made in an intervention.
The point that the noble Lord, Lord Patten, mentioned about elder abuse is extremely important. He and the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, both mentioned that. Whatever we say about the level of abuse, abuse with older people may be more hidden, and there may be more confusion and more difficulties, especially in seeking help. We should recognise that, and the Government will certainly reflect on it. For many of the individuals concerned, whatever the level of abuse is, it is a daily occurrence and, tragically, as has been mentioned in a number of contributions, the home is not a safe place, nor does the abuse end when the perpetrator leaves the home. The scale, and the stories mentioned by Members of the House today, should shock us all and lead us to what we need to do, which is to raise awareness and policy issues to tackle this around the country.
I was particularly struck that the briefings before the discussions today did not mention the economic impact in the scale of this problem. I was very interested to learn from the former Prime Minister the noble Baroness, Lady May, and from the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, of the recognition of that economic impact. That is an important point to take away from today.
Quite clearly there is a view from the House that, whoever is in government, we make sure to go further and faster. We are still, sadly, nowhere near where we need to be. I give the commitment that the Government I represent here today are committed to changing that. They require the support of Members who have spoken and of the voluntary agencies mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and others to ensure that we achieve the mission of halving violence against women and girls in the decade ahead.
There are a number of points I want to mention. The question of individuals who have been offenders and reoffend is extremely important. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran; the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, in relation to alcohol abuse; and the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, in relation to reoffending, all mentioned that as a key issue. This is a Ministry of Justice, Home Office and voluntary sector issue, but we have to look at what interventions we can make to target the most prolific and repeat offenders. It is a particularly important issue.
The police clearly have a vital role to play in this. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans mentioned that, and I endorse the comments that he made. We have just introduced the domestic abuse protection orders—Raneem’s law—in a pilot form. The noble Baroness, Lady May, mentioned that and asked specifically about the full provisions of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 being implemented. I hope I can give her an assurance that the domestic abuse protection orders are the first step on that, and that the Ministry of Justice, which is also party to the Act, is considering full implementation of its Section 62 very shortly. Again, I reach out to her to say that there is, I hope, agreement that this will be done in due course at an early stage.
The noble Baroness, Lady May, also mentioned the way in which employers treat and look at individuals who are subject to domestic violence, who may be hidden, who may come into work and may have challenges and have their performance in their work impacted by the situation at home. It is an extremely important point. Let me say to her that it is not just in the private sector that there are employers: the biggest employer in this country is the UK Government. I hope I can again reassure her that the Government are working closely with organisations such as the Employers’ Initiative on Domestic Abuse, and that the Government will be, or are soon to be, signing up as members of that alliance. Again, that is a really strong point for the Government as a whole.
Baroness Barran (Con)
A key employer in this is, of course, the police. I am sure the Minister is aware of this. I have never done a day’s training with police officers where at least two or three have not come forward afterwards to disclose that they are victims of domestic abuse and that their partner works in the force. The quickest way to improve our response on the doorstep would be to make sure that the police treat victims of abuse within the force in the same way that we expect them to behave on the doorstep.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for that intervention. I give the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, the assurance that I will take that back and draw it to the attention of Diana Johnson, the Police Minister, directly, so that she is aware of the issue. The general point here is that Government, as well as regulating, can lead.
I think that the points the noble Baroness, Lady May, made are sound and good. Those are not things I have always said of her, but I mean it in the nicest possible way—we have had several discussions over many years on Home Office responsibilities. I agree with her on this, and I hope that we can work together on those points.
There was also a range of discussion about modern technology. I think it has a role to play. We want to work with the police to ensure that we improve that information, which also relates to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, just made. We need data-driven tools and algorithms to track and target high-harm offenders. That again goes to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, mentioned earlier. We also need to look at the issue raised by a number of Members of the House on prevention and education. The noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, herself, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and a number of other Members mentioned how we improve standards and teach children, male and female—I suggest, in this context, particularly male children—to be respectful, have healthy relationships and understand the meaning of consent, and ensure that they grow up to be adults who, wherever we can, we put prior activity in for to prevent poor behaviour downstream in due course
Throughout all this, the needs of victims are central. My noble friend Lady Hazarika was very focused on victims; the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, as the Victims’ Commissioner, self-evidently has a focus on victims; the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, also put at the heart of things how the support of the voluntary sector can help victims as a whole. We know that access to housing, particularly when people cannot return to housing, is important. That is a real priority for government, and I am pleased that this Government have announced a funding increase of £30 million to a total investment of £160 million in the domestic abuse safe accommodation grant of 2025-26 to ensure that local councils can provide front-line accommodation services to help support victims in their workplace.
Housing is important, but victims also need holistic, wraparound services. That involves the National Health Service and schools understanding domestic abuse and victims getting appropriate support. We need to focus on the importance of specialist services, with tailored support for victims and survivors in due course. That all takes resource. The noble Baronesses, Lady Gohir and Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, all looked at the question of resources. There is a spending reviewing process, and there will be a spending review for the three years post 2026-27. The Government have to make choices, and these are representations that will be made. A police settlement will be announced next week, which covers a number of the areas funded. We will have to reflect on that. I know again, from representations from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, His Majesty’s Opposition Front Bench and others, that resources will be key. That will have to play out in its own way over the next few weeks as we go through the spending review, the police settlement and others.
I turn to the contribution by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg. She made three very important points. First, I think that the definition of domestic abuse needs to recognise coercive behaviour and the question of reproductive coercive behaviour. I hope I can reassure her that the current definition is designed to do that. We can discuss whether it does in practice, but that is what it is designed to do. Secondly, she mentioned very clearly the question of honour-based violence. I, and my honourable friends the Ministers Jess Phillips and Alex Davies-Jones, have heard loud and clear that there needs to be a robust framework on safeguards for victims. The Government are considering this again. Sometimes I have to stand at this Dispatch Box with a hint but nothing definitive, and I hope that the noble Baroness can understand where we are with that at the moment. She also mentioned domestic homicide. There is a real issue there. The Government are committed to looking at domestic homicide review processes to see whether we can improve them.
The Right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle and the noble Baroness, Lady Laing, raised the definition of domestic abuse relating to age. Following the terrible case of Holly Newton, which was mentioned by other Members, our thoughts have to be with the family but, ultimately, we have to do something about that. Therefore, it is important that we look at how we record violent incidents and how the victims are supported, whether they are under 16 or over 16. The police must have information to protect victims and take action against the perpetrators. This is something that we can reflect on, and I would welcome contributions from Members on how we can best do that.
My noble friend Lady Gale and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, mentioned Article 59 of the Istanbul convention. This is an issue on which my noble friend Lady Gale has pressed me previously, and I know she will again. The system of settlements under domestic abuse provisions is currently only for those who have an expectation of being able to settle here when they enter the UK. But our policy review is now looking at the very issues that she has raised. I hate to ask for patience on these matters because I know how important this is and how impatient my noble friend is, but if she can have some patience, we will review this as part of the policy review and look at those issues in due course. The UK ratified the Istanbul convention in 2022 and the convention’s monitors visited the UK in January this year. We look forward to receiving their report and then, I hope, the UK’s compliance with the review in due course.
Colleagues also mentioned the tragic murder of Sara Sharif. I am limited in what I can say, for the simple reason that a conviction has happened but the sentencing has not yet happened. Therefore, I hope noble Lords will understand that while we know who is guilty, we do not yet know what the penalty is and any statement from this Dispatch Box would be interpreted as interfering in that judicial process. I am in a difficult position. My noble friend Lady Hazarika and the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove and Lady Brinton, raised that issue. Post sentencing, the Government will reflect again on whether there are areas of required action. We need answers. An independent panel will look at those issues in due course. I hope that we can settle that for today, difficult though it is, and in due course reflect on the issues that are ahead of us.
I hope I have covered most of the points that colleagues have raised. To conclude, this Government have a clear agenda to build—
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I made three very important points on spiritual abuse, transnational abandonment and the higher domestic homicide rates among ethnic-minority women, which have not been addressed.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I appreciate the noble Baroness raising those issues again. Can I write to her on those important points? I noted in the steam of the debate all the points that were mentioned. I am trying to respond to as many as I can. I took from her contribution the need for funding, which I have noted. I will reflect on what she said and her subsequent intervention, and will respond in due course. The transnational issue, of individuals being abandoned in a different country, is extremely important. I do not have a policy solution in front of me, but I will take it back to discuss with my colleague, Jess Phillips. I hope that will assist the noble Baroness.
In conclusion, the Government have a very strong agenda which I hope will build on the all-party work and the work done by the previous Government. There is a need to set a target, which we have done, of halving the incidence of violence against women and girls over a 10-year period. We have a first five-year stab at that in the course of this Parliament. To do that, we have tried to look at how we can improve measures in control rooms, improve measures on perpetrators, improve support for victims, improve the understanding and speed of court cases, and look at how we can settle on resource to ensure that some implications of previous legislation can be implemented. We will be judged on that.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today. A lot of good points have been made. As well as reflecting on the bits that I have responsibility for, I will make sure that the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary, the Lord Chancellor, reflect on the bits that they have responsibility for. On behalf of the Government, I thank the Members who have spoken. In slower time, taking the point that the noble Baroness has just made, I will look through Hansard over the next 24 hours. If there are points that I need to respond to further, I will do so.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Non-Afl)
I thank your Lordships for taking part in this debate. It shows this Chamber at its best when we come together like this. As the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, said, there are marvellous organisations out there helping victims—but, as she also said, there are still victims who feel they have to go back to the abusive household that they have tried to leave. I hope that in some small way us speaking up today can help, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, we need a whole-systems approach.
I thank the Minister for his empathy in this debate. Now I am getting emotional; I knew this would happen. I absolutely swore to myself that I would not. I thank him for his empathy and for all that he is hoping to do on this hideous, awful crime. We can probably never eliminate it, but we can certainly all come together to make sure that everybody has the support they need.
Planning Committees: Reform
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, the Government committed in their manifesto to involving local authorities in the planning process. However, the Deputy Prime Minister recently announced that applications that comply with local development plans will not have to get approval from local planning committees. Given that sites in local plans often have very little detail associated with them, how will the Government ensure that local voices are heard throughout the planning process?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I want to be clear that I do not think local authorities should have the finger pointed at them for holding up planning. However, applications can get stuck, and we need to do all we can to make the processes as efficient and effective as possible. We recognise the great importance of democratic oversight of planning decisions. This is a working paper for discussion with the sector, and the changes we propose will support that plan-led system by ensuring that planning committees operate as effectively as possible and encourage better-quality development that is aligned with local development plans. The paper puts forward for discussion with the sector three models for how this could work. It is not the intention to exclude local authority members but to get them, and the public, more involved at local plan stage, so that they can influence things at an earlier stage in the process before detailed applications come forward.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, strategic planning is very important but very difficult for members of the community to grasp. Often, local residents do not get involved until there is a real planning application in front of them, on an allocated site in the local plan. Does the Minister agree that it is at that practical level that local residents have local knowledge that can positively and constructively influence the outcome of a planning application at that stage? Does she agree that we should not deny this useful way for local people to help shape their area?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness that the voice of local people and local councillors in the planning process is absolutely vital. There is no intention to change the consultation rules on planning applications. Representations will be considered by any decision-maker in the process. The best way for councillors and communities to engage in the development proposed for their areas is through the local plan process, which will be agreed by the council. Where a controversial development is proposed that has not been planned for, councillors will continue to play a key role in representing the voice of their communities. There will be no change to the ability of local people to inform and make their views known about planning applications; this is about speeding up the decision-making.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, is not one of the problems with the planning system that a planning application is made which is in clear conformity with the local plan, the planning officers recommend approval but, because it is unpopular locally, the planning committee turn it down in order for the Secretary of State to take the blame? That just wastes a lot of time. Will the proposals that are being considered deal with that?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite right to pick up this point. It is the intention that, where applications are in conformity with the local plan, a speedy decision should be taken. The whole point of these reforms is intended to make that much easier, without removing the ability of local councillors and communities to make their views known on it. This is a working paper for discussion with the sector, and we hope that the sector will put its views forward. The intention is to speed up the process, not to have planning applications stuck in the system.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I had the honour to chair the Select Committee on the review of the Licensing Act 2003. One of our most powerful conclusions was that planning and licensing committees should be merged, and that there should be consistent and frequent training of planning and licensing officers before they take their place on these committees. Is that something that the Government might look favourably on introducing? It would increase the effectiveness of the local voice and the way in which planning and licensing committees operate.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. I must admit that, at my local authority, you had to have training before you went on the planning committee, and I had assumed that that was the case everywhere. It is not. Part of the consultation on the working paper is the introduction of mandatory training. We are considering a wide range of implementation options, and we look forward to working with stakeholders. There are great examples of training around the country. However, it is inconsistent—more inconsistent than I had realised—and we need to find out where the best practice is so that we can work nationally on that issue. I totally agree with her point that the public will have more confidence if they know that people have had training.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that local plans are central to the whole planning process and a vital way of involving local people in what the overall future of their area should look like. Is she able to tell us how many of those local plans are actually up to date? What work is outstanding from local authorities to make sure that they all are up to date?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend is quite right to mention that. The Government have a stated intention of making sure that all local authorities have an up-to-date local plan in place. That was not the case when we came into government. A great deal of work has gone on with local authorities to ensure that they are making progress on their local plans. In the National Planning Policy Framework publication today, we see more enforcement steps that we intend to take if local authorities have not produced their local plans. The Secretary of State has been quite clear that, if encouragement does not work, we will use our powers to step in and do it for people. I hope local authorities will realise that the best way to make their local plans is with their councillors and their local communities.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I welcome many of the announcements from the Government today in the NPPF, especially on flooding-risk policy. However, I am concerned about the protection of agricultural land, not least around the vital need to keep the highest levels of food security in this country. Therefore, why was the decision made not to include in the NPPF explicit protection of the best and most versatile land?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
When authorities do their housing needs assessment, they will have the opportunity to state why they think that the housing numbers they have been given are too high. If one of those reasons is that they have high-grade agricultural land for food production then they can put that forward as part of their mitigation for having some reduction in the housing numbers. The process is in place to allow authorities to do that; in the same way as would be done for large areas of national landscape in an area, they will be able to put that forward as a mitigation.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the Minister helpfully said at Question Time that she would be looking at blockages to housing development. Today, she has emphasised that the proposals we are discussing are out for consultation. As part of that, will she examine whether judicial review is overused in planning cases? This can cause delay and increases local authority costs, and other costs, to almost the sole benefit of the legal profession involved in the judicial review.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I am not a lawyer, so I do not want to get involved in discussions about the merits of judicial review. People need to have some recourse to law at some stage. I will take her question back, because she makes a very good point. If she wants to put in a submission as a response to the working paper, I would be very pleased to consider it.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, the Deputy Prime Minister has flagged up the role of elected mayors of combined authorities. As someone who lamented the coalition scrapping regional spatial strategies, I see this as a possible way of replacing those. Can the Minister perhaps flesh out a little how she sees that layer working?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. There certainly needs to be a strategic planning level above the level of local plans. She can expect to see more news about that in the English devolution White Paper that will be coming out shortly.
Plan for Change: Milestones for Mission-led Government
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement, which was delivered in the other place last week.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
The noble Baroness has thanked me for repeating the Statement, but I am not repeating it. This is questions on the Statement.
Baroness Finn (Con)
I apologise to the Lord Privy Seal. We welcome this relaunch and look forward to more in the months ahead. However, the Statement, while undeniably rich in aspiration, is regrettably bereft of a clear plan for transforming its lofty ambitions into real change for the British people.
Few would disagree with the Government’s aims and their six missions. A mission-driven approach to governance makes sense—indeed, it is something that echoes the last Government’s levelling-up missions—but, unless the Treasury waives its dogmatic commitment to rigid silo budgets, it is hard to see it working.
It is encouraging to see the Government recognise the need for clear objectives. There are many words that we welcome, such as growth, value for money, getting rid of waste and accountability. However, as we all know, governance is about more than words; it is about action, and the Government will be judged on what they actually achieve. The Prime Minister has been quicker than most to blame his Government’s shortcomings on the Civil Service, which he describes as being all too comfortable in
“the tepid bath of … decline”.
Yet, while the diagnosis may be accurate, the prescription is notably absent. Indeed, the Prime Minister seems to have been forced into what is known as walking back his words of criticism.
I have spent many years working with civil servants, and I put on record that I believe we have some of the finest civil servants in the world. However, there is widespread agreement—especially among those of us, both politicians and officials, who have had the privilege and responsibility of participating in government—that the Civil Service is not performing to the standards of the modern, effective state. We cannot ignore serious failures identified in several public inquiries: the infected blood scandal, the Post Office Horizon debacle and the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. In each instance, inquiry chairs identified systemic issues: officials neglecting statutory duties, misleading Ministers and, in some cases, deliberately destroying evidence.
Furthermore, institutional failings have been identified over decades, since the Fulton committee report in 1968 and beyond: the cult of the generalist and lack of enough deep pools of knowledge; churn; the unplanned and random movement of officials without regard to business need; and the resistance to influence and incomers from outside. Yet we have heard nothing in the Statement about how this Government intend to address any of those shortcomings. Instead, we are told vaguely that more will be said about reform soon. Government requires more than promises of future promises, and we look forward to hearing the detail of a serious programme of reform.
I have some questions for the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal. First, raising living standards in every part of the UK so that working people have more money in their pockets, no matter where they live, is obviously a good idea, but how is that to be measured? What are the metrics? When will the data be published, and who will be held to account?
Secondly, the Office for Budget Responsibility said that this Government are very unlikely to build more homes than the last one. Why do the Government now believe they will be able to deliver on their commitment to build 1.5 million homes? Is there more money? Have the spending plans changed?
Thirdly, getting children ready to learn is also a good idea, but what do the Government mean by “ready to learn”? What are the definitions and metrics by which they will be measured and held to account?
Fourthly, the missions are notable for what is not in them. The Government have dropped the target to be the country with the highest sustained growth in the G7. There is no commitment on unemployment or getting people back to work, nor is there, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out yesterday, any clear objective of reducing migration. The Government have chosen these six issues over GP surgeries and A&E or defence. Can the Lord Privy Seal explain the rationale for the choice of government priorities?
Lastly, can the Lord Privy Seal clarify the purpose and function of the so-called mission boards? Who attends them? What powers do they exercise? What decisions are they empowered to make, and under what legal authority do they operate? Crucially, do they work alongside, or in substitution for, the established Cabinet system of government? Why did the Prime Minister break his promise of chairing these himself?
At the PACAC hearing on 4 December, the Civil Service chief operating officer said that
“the governance and the wiring of how we do this might not be immediately observable”,
and made clear that the publication of the membership terms of reference and regularity of meetings was a matter for Ministers. Can the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal therefore commit to that information being in the public domain, in the interests of transparency and to monitor progress?
Ultimately Governments are judged not by the promises they make but by the results they deliver. This Government have set out an admirable if incomplete wish list but, without a hard-edged commitment to institutional reform and stronger implementation capability, that is what it will remain. Words without action are a disservice to those citizens who rely on public services and who look to government for leadership.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, in my view, the targets—or possibly milestones—set out in the Statement are laudable, but I have severe doubts about the Government’s ability to meet them. Setting targets is easy but, without a proper plan for delivery, they are so much hot air.
In an attempt to improve delivery, the Government’s focus is on how budgets are used and whether the right systems are used to deliver policy outcomes. That is clearly crucial. In relation to that, the Statement poses the question: is power being devolved enough? Our view is that it is not being devolved nearly far enough, and that, unless power over budgets and tax raising is devolved to a far greater extent than the Government plan, those on the front line will not be in a position to exercise their discretion to deliver policy in the most appropriate way for the communities in which they live.
So I ask the Government: how rigorously are they going to look to devolve power? Will they report regularly, with reasoning, on the extent to which they have considered and accepted or declined to devolve power in individual policy areas? Given that their targets can be achieved only if the Civil Service is highly motivated, how do the Government believe that recent statements by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which cast doubt on the competence and enthusiasm for change of civil servants, will help meet that requirement?
Of the six milestones, I would like to question those on health and housing. On health, how do the Government reconcile their milestone of reaching the standard of no patient waiting more than 18 weeks for elective treatment with the Secretary of State for Health’s statement earlier in the week that the NHS should prioritise emergency treatment and “forget targets”? How is the NHS supposed to know what its priorities are if they appear to be changing from day to day? How can any target in respect of hospitals be achieved unless the Government fix the broken care system, which currently sees so many people stuck in hospital who do not need to be there?
Of all the targets, the one which strains credulity most is that on housing. The Government have pledged to build 1.5 million homes during the lifetime of this Parliament. They seem to think that changes to the planning system will be the most significant contribution towards meeting this target. I do not intend to comment on today’s planning announcement, but no planning changes are likely to come into effect until a year after the election at best. So the Government will have to meet their target with a maximum of four years’ increased rate of housebuilding.
This seems implausible, particularly as the Government have said very little about two of the non-planning policies that will be needed to make this happen. First, what is the Government’s numerical target for the building of social homes? Social houses are desperately needed to meet demand but, without a major increase in social housebuilding, it is very difficult to see how the Government can meet their overall target.
Secondly, where will the workers come from to enable the houses to be built? Present skills shortages in the construction sector make a rapid scaling-up of housebuilding literally impossible. Changes to the skills regime will help, but they will not yield a significant increase in new skilled employees until towards the end of this Parliament. The only way to meet the skills gap in the short term is to allow more migrant workers into the building sector. Will the Government therefore replace the arbitrary salary threshold for work visas with a more flexible, merit-based system to enable this to happen?
Finally, having set such clear priorities, what plans do the Government have to report regularly on their achievements? Will today’s Statement be followed by regular updates on progress? Setting targets is easy, but being able to achieve them is vastly more difficult.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their questions and comments. Perhaps I should apologise to the noble Baroness; she obviously expected me to repeat the Statement. It may be that that was her mistake in talking about the missions.
The Plan for Change is the milestones. As she will recall, the missions were during the election. They are the long-term ambitions. The milestones—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, made—are the progress we make against those missions. It is the milestones that we can be judged against. Whereas the missions are long-term ambitions, the milestones are those that we can be judged against. I can provide the noble Baroness with more information on those.
The noble Baroness talked about siloed budgets. The Government have to work across government, and the noble Lord picked up on mission boards. When you work across government, so many of the issues you are dealing with are not for one department alone. For example, the noble Lord mentioned social care. It is absolutely the case that, unless people move out of hospital into the kind of care we need, we cannot meet the targets to give people elective surgery in the timescales we have set, which is part of the commitment we have made. So, to be clear, there will be higher living standards across the country. The reason for saying that is that we do not want economic growth to be centred on one or two places and work on the basis that this will spread out; there should be economic growth across the country.
I totally accept that 1.5 million homes is challenging: 90,000 of those, by the way, will be social housing. I do not think the noble Lord was here for the Question earlier, answered by my noble friend Lady Taylor, and for her Statement earlier today. We have already started the process. The National Planning Policy Framework is one of those steps. There is also a new homes accelerator and a new homes task force.
Skills are absolutely crucial to this. The work to ensure that the right skills are in the right place at the right time is already being undertaken across government and with industry because, unless industry buys into this, we will not be able to meet the commitment. The noble Lord’s point was well made, but that work is already going on and part of it will be transforming how the apprenticeship levy has been operating and making it the growth and skills levy, which is one of the things the industry has been asking for.
The noble Baroness spoke about the Civil Service. I think she will be aware, and many civil servants will be aware, of the frustration within the system of moving things along. For every new Minister who is enthusiastic about doing things—this is not a criticism of individual civil servants—the system is sometimes difficult to wade through. We want civil servants who are innovative, creative and professional and we want to help them achieve that.
Quite often, a lot of expertise can also come from outside the Civil Service. I do not think Ministers and civil servants should be wary or concerned about looking to outside expertise as well. When the system works well, it works well together. The relationship between Ministers and civil servants is really important. Ministers should not blame civil servants for their own failings. That does not mean that Ministers always have to take Civil Service advice, but it has to be taken into account.
The noble Baroness raised those issues in the context of the infected blood scandal, Covid and Horizon. I think there is some ministerial responsibility in respect of all those, as well, not least promising compensation without budgeting for it properly. That is what we have had to do in this Budget, and we have welcomed the opportunity to do so. It is absolutely right that those compensation schemes are there, but they were not budgeted for at all.
One of the problems I have with the Opposition is that although they say they support all the things we are putting in place to invest for the future—for growth, the economy and the NHS—when it comes to paying for that ambition for the country, they do not like any of the approaches we are looking at. That is the conundrum at the heart of the Opposition.
We should be held accountable. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asks how we are accountable. These targets are there for us to be held accountable to, by Parliament and others.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, asked four questions, and I hope I got them down quickly enough. First, she said that the OBR said that we cannot deliver the housing. That is not quite what the OBR said, but we accept it is a very ambitious proposal. I make no apologies for the scale of ambition the Government have, and we are determined to meet that ambition. She also asked a rather curious question, on how we will measure whether children are ready to learn when they go to school. That information has already been collected, and it was found to be wanting. That information is already there so we can measure against the current matrix that is undertaken when kids first go to school.
The noble Lord also asked about ambitions on devolution and whether they will match our proposals. I hate to do this, but can I urge patience? Next week, we will publish our devolution White Paper, and there will be information in that I think will address some of the questions he raises.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I note that in the Statement, the Prime Minister said, regrettably:
“We do not believe that a tawdry surrender to Tory Back-Benchers should be allowed to cut off the dream of home ownership”.
Is it not time we had a bit of honesty, rather than chutzpah, from the Government? The Labour Party, now in government, whipped its Peers in this House to vote for the nutrient neutrality regulations that blocked 120,000 homes. That was the Labour Party’s decision, when the previous Government were seeking to go ahead with home ownership. I hope the Leader of the House will address that point.
Surely, if we really do want to drive up GDP, we need to look at per capita GDP, which has stalled because of uncontrolled and unlimited immigration—which I accept is the fault of the previous Government to a large extent. In that vein, is it not important to have a proper, coherent, time-based and realistic immigration policy to tackle legal immigration as well as illegal immigration, in order to grow per capita growth and the wider economy?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
First, on the nutrients neutrality issue, the noble Lord will be aware that the previous Government’s proposal was to override environmental concerns. We were very concerned that there should be mitigations in that legislation to ensure that it did not just override environmental concerns but took those into account. I have listened to some of the discussions on the environment and housing, and the two should go hand in hand: we should be looking to create good-quality housing and a good environment at the same time. I have looked at some of the proposals. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and I both come from new towns, and there are some great examples and some poor ones. Where you have green lungs in new towns, green gyms surrounding housing and nature areas within developments, those are really important. Our commitment is both to the environment and to increasing housing.
On immigration, I can understand the noble Lord’s embarrassment about the last Government’s record. I think we were all shocked when we saw how much the figures had gone up and how inaccurate the previous Government’s figures were. It is fundamental to our polices that economic growth, secure borders and the security of the nation go hand in hand. Some £700 million was spent on a bound-to-fail, flawed Rwanda immigration policy, and we can all think of ways that could have been much better spent—actually processing asylum claims and securing our borders. The Prime Minister has undertaken work, building up relationships with other countries and looking for agreements with them. Some people leave their country and seek refuge, asylum and a better quality of life here because they are fleeing war or poverty, for example. We should be working internationally to address those issues and not just spending a lot of money on flawed policies.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I was glad to hear the Leader of the House talk about the use of external expertise in moving forward these milestones and missions. As somebody who came from business and has worked within government, I think different perspectives are very helpful. That is particularly important with very difficult challenges on things such as skills, especially in construction and planning. It is obviously vital that we progress that fast, so I welcome the efforts that have been made. I just wanted to pick up something my noble friend Lady Finn asked, which was about how the mission boards would work, who would be attending, who would be involved and how that fitted in with Cabinet committees and so on.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I do not have an organogram in front of me, so that is detail I probably cannot supply. But the purpose of the mission boards is to follow the missions we have in government. This is a way of having cross-governmental working, bringing key people together. If the Prime Minister is not available, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is. On that cross-government working, Cabinet committees work, in some ways, and some may still do so, but we felt that the mission boards better reflected the missions we have outlined and made a commitment on.
Lord Birt (CB)
This is territory that I trod for six years when working as the Prime Minister’s strategy adviser. I have also trodden the same territory widely in the public and private sectors. I have a couple of points to make. First, it is entirely right, in any institutional environment, to have ambition—you have to start with that, and it right that this Government have it. A special factor of government is its sheer scale and size, and the multiplicity of departments. The Leader of the House is entirely right to emphasise that challenge. That is why I strongly support the notion of mission boards, which will be operationally not the same as Cabinet sub-committees. I will raise one issue positively and constructively: before you get to milestones, you have to have a holistic strategy that is deeply based on analysis of all the factors in play, which are always dynamic and changing. You always have to refresh your way of reaching ambitious goals.
Secondly, my experience in government was that, overwhelmingly, the Civil Service was properly skilled, very collaborative and fit for purpose—not always but generally. But, dare I say it, that was not always true of the politicians. I have great respect for their skills and experience, but they inevitably sometimes have to recognise that they lack the heavy-duty institutional experience necessary to achieve fundamental reform.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for those comments. He is welcoming the mission-led strategy with the milestones, and he is right to say that you have to measure them and look at what is behind them overall. He has a point about experience and longevity. The Prime Minister has been wise and has spoken about Ministers being in post for longer—I have some skin in the game here. We saw such a churn of Ministers under the last Government, and it gets very difficult for them to build expertise and relationships with civil servants and stakeholders, only to be moved on. I speak as a Minister who has served in a number of departments over the years, and the good sources of information are the civil servants who have been there a long time, as well as new civil servants—who bring fresh experience to you—and past Ministers in your role.
All of us, at any stage in our careers—whether we are new to the job or have been in it a long time, and whether we are politicians or civil servants—need to find that way of learning from each other, building on the best and having respect for different perspectives. We expect civil servants to give that professional advice and guidance and to understand that we are politicians, who need clarity. I hope the milestones bring that clarity to the workings with the Civil Service as well, so that both politicians and civil servants have clarity about what they are doing. My own experience of civil servants over the years has been very positive. I have never known a civil servant to balk when I said that I wanted outside expertise; they have never had any issue with that, and in fact, they have welcomed it in many cases.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, will my noble friend take the opportunity to develop the issues around young people? It is tragic that over the last 10 to 15 years the opportunities for young people in this country have diminished rather than increased. Some of that is external, but a lot has been caused by decisions taken by previous Administrations which limited what young people were able to do. Now, in the missions and the milestones, we have the opportunity to bring in mental health expertise, with both the voluntary sector and the NHS—alongside the work of improving buses. I can tell you about a youngster who left the care system and was then in a village nine miles away from the DWP offices and the jobcentre. It took three buses to get there. He missed his appointment and was sanctioned. Bringing everything together will make a difference for that youngster but also for lots of others. That is why the White Paper on opportunities for getting people back into work was so important, but the DWP and the department of health cannot do it on their own. You cannot even do it just from the Cabinet Office; it has to be across departments. I hope that the Government are really working to crack those issues, to give our young people real opportunities.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very powerful point. I followed on from her at the Cabinet Office, where we had the v programme in place. I was reminded of that only last week when I had an email from a young man who became a volunteer in my office and is now a mental health worker. He would never have taken that step had it not been for the opportunity to volunteer and the support to do so. She makes a powerful point around linking government together, and I was interested in her comment about mental health as well. Talking to a number of young people, it seems to me that one thing that has quite a significant impact on young people’s mental health is the insecurity of their housing. If we can address some of that to ensure good-quality, secure housing for young people—and that young people are part of the solution in building those homes as well—that goes a long way. The opportunities for young people and the expectations of young people about their future concern us enormously. She is right that the only way to tackle that is across government.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s milestones are very much to be welcomed as steps towards progress in the broader strategy over the years ahead. It is somewhat depressing to find—maybe not surprisingly from the Conservatives but more so from the Liberal Democrats—the dismissive tone saying, “You’ll never achieve those aims. They are quite unrealistic”. Surely it is far better to be overambitious than underambitious. The previous Government set targets—I cannot remember what they were called—in a number of areas. They were going to be met anyway and were not stretching. These are stretching milestones and that is important, particularly in the housebuilding programme—albeit there is a need to change the planning system—and in getting three-quarters of five year-olds school-ready, which is not the case at the moment.
My final point is one I am less happy about. The 13,000 new police officers, special constables and PCSOs, with an emphasis on community policing, are very much to be welcomed, but does my noble friend agree that the comments immediately afterwards by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner that he was set to cut police jobs were at best unhelpful—perhaps they were a bargaining chip—and could undermine that process? Can she assure me that Home Office Ministers will meet the commissioner to make sure that this does not undermine the Government’s aims in this area?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My noble friend is right; I suspect the comments may have been perhaps to influence an upcoming spending review. We are absolutely committed to seeing more police officers. I remember when the last Labour Government introduced police and community support officers—named officers in communities—and going to a public meeting in my constituency where they were dismissed by so many as “plastic policemen”, which was quite an insult. One year later, the praise for those officers was off the scale, because they were known to the local communities and their presence was reassuring and had a real impact. We remain committed to that and will seek to deliver it.
My noble friend is right about being ambitious. One thing that worries me about the last Government—or Governments, in a sense, because we had several Prime Ministers—is that people became disillusioned with politics and are now very cynical about seeing politics and political decisions being a force for good. We will do everything we can to meet the ambitions that the country had for us and we have for the people of this country. We know that that these targets are ambitious; they are not targets that will be easy to meet—there would be no point in saying that—but we are determined to meet them, because it is what the country deserves.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, said that few would disagree with the target to grow the economy. However, as Greens we disagree, because we think that the economy should be there to serve people, to deliver a decent, secure life for everybody and care for our natural world, rather than have the Government directed towards the artificial figure of GDP, which is so unequally distributed. With regard to that unequal distribution, I ask the Minister about the first milestone:
“Raising living standards in every part of the United Kingdom, so working people have more money in their pocket”.
Why are the Government explicitly excluding children from having more money be spent on them? Why are the Government explicitly excluding pensioners, most of whom are not working, from this first milestone? Why are the Government excluding those with severe disabilities and illnesses, who may not be able to work? Why are they not included in this milestone?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
If that is the best that the noble Baroness can do, I think that the Green Party will be disappointed by her interventions. Those people are not being excluded, but people who get pay packets are working people, which is why the milestone references working people. If she looks at the other measures that we have about child poverty, the triple lock and support for pensioners, she will see that all those are people for whom we want economic growth. I really am amazed that the noble Baroness thinks that economic growth can come only at the expense of the environment. I do not know whether she was here earlier today when I was talking about how we can have better houses, more houses and homes for people, and a better environment. The two are not mutually exclusive. I am disappointed, because I have to disagree with her: we want economic growth for the benefit of the country and the environment.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, my question also relates to the first of the six admirable milestones, on having higher
“living standards in every part of the United Kingdom”.
I looked at the document to see how that was to be achieved and saw three bullet points on page 22, the first of which is:
“Deliver growth by working in partnership with businesses”.
Of course, one understands that higher living standards cannot be achieved without working in partnership with businesses, but I was a little troubled by the fact that there was no reference to trade unions or the extension of collective bargaining. Does my noble friend agree that there is no possibility of improving the living standards of the 30 million employees and 4.25 million self-employed workers without the intervention of trade unions and the extension of collective bargaining?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
As a member of a trade union myself, obviously I welcome the role of trade unions in business and working in partnership with business, and the benefits that brings to both, but I do not think that is something missing out here. What is focused on here is working in partnership and making sure that
“every nation and region realises its full potential”,
as well as driving
“innovation, investment and the adoption of technology to seize the opportunities … from artificial intelligence to net zero”,
to help
“people get a job, stay in work and progress in their careers”.
The trade union movement would sign up to all those, I would expect, because it wants the best for its workers, as we do as well.
Earl Russell (LD)
From these Benches, I welcome the Government’s progress in making the UK a clean energy superpower. We really welcome the change of tone from the previous Government and the progress that has been made already on onshore solar and removing the de facto ban on onshore wind, as well as the work done on the Crown Estate and in the Great British Energy Bill. Obviously, renewable energy brings us energy security and will help to bring down bills. We welcome also the power to decarbonise power generation by 2030. NESO has clearly said that this is a challenging target, but it is one that we welcome.
I want to make three or four brief points. First, we are still concerned on these Benches about Labour having cut its own budget for environmental matters prior to the general election. A lot needs to be done with urgency and at scale, and I worry that the budget that Labour has available to do all these things is stretched too thinly.
My second point is that this Government need to work to improve their communications and take people with them on this journey, because it is so important. It goes beyond the Labour Party and this Government; our society depends on it. It needs to be communicated and we have to take society with us. That means doing things not just top down but bottom up. It means having citizens’ assemblies, talking to people and cutting our energy bills early on.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for his welcome for this. He has an idea of the broad-brush overview of the policies. Yes, the Budget situation is very challenging; it is more challenging than we anticipated. My noble friend Lord Livermore is sitting next to me, and I am sure he will not mind my repeating that it was very difficult for us to have to address the £22 billion black hole in the current year’s spending. Even the OBR did not know about it. It is a challenging financial situation.
I concur with the noble Earl: improving communications and communicating policies are really important. As politicians we too often talk in numbers and matrices, and we sound very boring and disconnected. I have to say that I am quite emotional about a number of the issues in this document, because improving people’s lives and their environments, giving them opportunities and ensuring that healthcare is there when they need it and they feel safter in their streets are things that strike at the heart of what every citizen wants for themselves and their families. I entirely concur with the noble Earl’s point and thank him for his comments.
Small Farms and Family Businesses
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Leicester
That this House takes note of the impact of the Government’s budget proposals on the future of small farms and family businesses.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to Conservative colleagues for giving me the opportunity to hold this very topical and important debate. I look forward to hearing what noble Lords have to say on the matter. Indeed, looking down the list I see that it is populated with titans from this House. I also look forward, albeit with some sadness, to the valedictory speech of my remarkable noble friend Lady Cumberlege. She has been a giant at the centre of healthcare for decades, and we are grateful to her for her many achievements.
The achievements by the Chancellor in the Budget are too many for me to list in 15 minutes, so I shall rely on noble Lords following me to elaborate on those I miss. The delinked BPS payments have been summarily cut, out of the blue, with no warning. Money that businesses had earmarked for growth or investment, or to pay the wages of a new tractor driver to undertake all the environmental work on a farm that I know of, has gone. Meanwhile, national insurance contributions have gone up and the baseline has come down. The living wage has gone up way beyond inflation again, with no recognition that this affects the pay differentiation of supervisors and junior managers who are just above employees on the minimum wage or living wage. This will have a huge effect on all business across the country. I know of a small GP surgery in Norfolk that now has another £250,000 added to its costs. Were we not told that this money was to plug the gap in NHS funding?
The cost of employment has become prohibitive, inflation is creeping up and interest rates remain stubbornly high. This Government are making the cost of business prohibitive. Then the Chancellor dropped the “A-bomb” in the Budget, which she followed with a “B-bomb”: agricultural property relief capped at £1 million as if it were personal wealth, instead of what it really is—a business asset.
The president of the CLA, Victoria Vyvyan, visited Lower Leighton Dairy in Wales a couple of weeks ago. It has invested millions of pounds in technology. It is a cutting-edge dairy, an incredible place with inquisitive animals that themselves are valued at over £1 million. Now, all that investment is going to be taxed on death. Will the dairy go to the bank to borrow £10 million again? I do not think so. Why would it bother?
All the CLA and NFU modelling shows that farmers and their businesses cannot afford this change. There is not the profitability in farms or in the diversified farm businesses to pay this tax. I have heard it said on the Government Benches that APR is a loophole—that is so not true. It is a specifically designed policy introduced in the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 to protect Britain’s family farms from being sold and broken up. For this reason, Governments of all parties have retained APR. APR and BPR are necessary tax reliefs that help people do business across multigenerational businesses.
Ironically, this Government were elected on a mandate for growth. In the rural economy we have the capacity to grow, so instead of taxing small businesses into non-existence, perhaps if they encouraged people to grow their businesses with the right policies, they might end up with more income tax.
While in opposition, Defra’s Secretary of State, Steve Reed, provided multiple reassurances privately and publicly to the NFU and the CLA that Labour had no intention of changing APR. Rural businesses now have no faith in the man or his party, although I have some sympathy for those at Defra and its hapless Ministers. They have been cut off at the knees by an unthinking Treasury.
Outside of agriculture, many small family businesses will be caught by this. According to BDO accountants, in one short month since the Budget, high street retailers had their worst slump since Covid, with November sales tumbling 5.8% year on year. Part-time Christmas job vacancies have fallen by a staggering 12.9% this year. Business confidence, as judged by the IoD, has nosedived to the lowest form since April 2020, plunging from minus 52 to minus 65.
Business leaders are pointing the finger directly at the Chancellor and her tax hikes, with national insurance contribution hikes alone expected to cost industry £7 billion. Wetherspoons boss Sir Tim Martin said:
“All democratic governments need to manage the relationship between an economic horse and the public services cart—society needs both. This Government has disincentivised and discouraged the horse”.
BPR is crucial for family business owners, helping them to plan for succession, with long-term strategies that retain value within the business to drive investment and growth. Changes to inheritance tax create uncertainty among family businesses, which will feed through to reductions in investment, headcount and turnover.
There are currently an estimated 4.8 million family-owned businesses in the UK. They are predominantly very small. Oxford Economics has estimated that 74% have zero employees, owned by people who are themselves self-employed, while 25% have between one and 49 employees. The vast majority—92%—of UK family businesses are worth more than £1 million.
Family Business UK commissioned CBI Economics to undertake research into the effects of the loss of this relief on family businesses. More than a quarter of family businesses expect to change ownership in the forecast period, which is the four and a half years that this Government might hope to have in office. Some 18% of businesses expect to change ownership between April 2026 and 2028, with a further 9% expecting to change ownership between April 2028 and 2030.
There will be a reduction in economic activity as a result of the Budget changes: 85% of family businesses say they will decrease investment by, on average, 17%. More than half—54%—will decrease headcount by an average of 10%. Four in 10—41%—are anticipating reductions in turnover, with an average loss of 7%. An overwhelming majority of family-owned businesses expect detrimental impacts from the changes to BPR, with 15% expecting to have to sell off their business entirely, 2% closing the entire business and liquidating it, and 2% locating the business overseas.
When BPR reliefs are reduced the Government believe that it will bring an increase in tax revenue and, bizarrely, an increase in UK economic activity. But the reality is that an increase in tax burden on businesses due to increased costs will lead to reduced investment, reduced headcount, reduced turnover, partial or full selling of the business, reduced stability and, crucially, reduced competitiveness versus foreign and non-family businesses that do not have to pay these charges or make tax planning a priority. The net result is that the total tax take will be smaller than the Government think they will get. In the process, they will have destroyed thousands of family businesses that are the bedrock of the country’s economy.
Every single Labour Government that ever existed left office with unemployment higher than when they came in; with this Budget, we will see more of the same. The Exchequer is expecting to raise £1.4 billion in tax revenue from family-owned businesses over a five-year period by changing BPR. However, the reality is that the Exchequer can expect a £2.6 billion reduction in total tax revenue from family-owned businesses, caused by reduced activity of those businesses in the same period: less production, less spending, less income and less national insurance contributions. The Exchequer will actually be expected to make a net fiscal loss of £1.26 billion over the next five years.
I return to family farms. Farming has a very small profit margin. We are talking about a return on capital of anything between 0.5% and 0.9% each year, from what a farm’s land, buildings, tractors, equipment and stock are worth. I predict that the impact of the brutal withdrawal of the remaining single farm payment of agri-funding, with no warning, will supress that surplus by a third—let us say a 0.5% return. A tax of 20% over a generation—typically 30 years—comes out at 0.66% recurring. That is clearly unpayable if someone’s return has dropped to 0.5% a year. Can the Minister please acknowledge the mathematics of this question?
Then there is the practicality of actually paying this death tax—because that is what it is, a tax on death. The first instalment has to be paid within six months of the date of death. This can be interest-free and paid over 10 years, but only as long as you have paid the first 10% within the first six months. But how many farms, quite complicated businesses, will even have completed probate by this time? District valuer officers have not dealt with these sorts of valuations for over 40 years—over a generation. I doubt very much whether they will be tooled up with enough resources to provide the service they should and ensure that their letter, or that of the capital taxes office, arrives within six months. What the successors pay on time to qualify for this interest-free allowance will therefore be guesswork. This is unnecessarily cruel when you have just lost your father.
The Government say that 75% of farmers claiming agricultural property relief will not be affected, but most claimants are not even farmers. Nearly 40% of land holdings that claim APR in England are under 50 acres, containing perhaps a couple of horse paddocks. These account for barely 4% of the farmed area, so the Government’s claim is specious. Furthermore, BPR is to be merged with APR, meaning that all tractors and combines—which can cost up to £0.5 million—and stock will fall into the equation too. Therefore, it is very likely that, if the owner of a small family farm dies, his or her successors will be charged IHT at the new rate of 20% on at least some of their assets, even if the land does not reach the APR threshold.
Suppose a farmer is hit with an IHT demand of £500,000; it is very unlikely that that money will be in the bank. Most farmers are either in debt or have very small cash reserves. It is unlikely that they will be able to pay that bill out of income, so they will have to sell some acres—admittedly, for quite a bit of money. However, this will make the farm less viable in future. Sale of land or assets, integral to the viability of the farm, will be the only way to get cash to pay the tax. In this case, they will have to realise an asset, with all the costs of selling it, and then from the profit of selling it, hand back a big chunk to the Government. Of course, they have just become liable for 24% capital gains tax too.
CLA modelling has suggested that, based on differing models of farm size, this may mean selling between 16% and 28% of the farm. A farm is not like a share portfolio or a collection of buy-to-let properties; it is so much more difficult and inefficient to try to sell 20% of a farm. The land cannot be consolidated or relocated.
Who will buy this land? It will not be the neighbouring family farm, as they will be in the same boat. It is more likely to be a very rich individual, to whom a 20% tax hit will not necessarily be a problem. It is much more likely to be a corporate farming business—a corporate that wants the land for energy generation or tree-planting and carbon sequestration; a charity such as the RSPB or the National Trust; a government body such as Natural England or the Forestry Commission; or a local council that may need it as a carbon land bank. What is the single factor that separates these large organisations from a family farmer? They do not die—I repeat to the Minister: they do not die—so they never have to pay this tax, whereas individuals do. That is simply unfair.
IHT is a death tax on family businesses and on small people. It is deeply unfair, when, as I have just illustrated, much larger and wealthier land-owning organisations are exempt from it. I would like the Minister to answer that. One thing I hope this debate does is to shine a spotlight on IHT generally. As I understand it, 96% of people in this country do not pay it and it does not raise a great deal of money.
What we are seeing now in some sections of the Labour Party is the old-school socialist view that land should not belong to an individual: yes, you can own a house, but land should belong to the state. That was Lenin’s view, and he deliberately expropriated land from an enormous number of people, with disastrous effect. Following the Budget, the Deputy Prime Minister was heard to say that, when a farmer dies, it is right that some of the value of the land comes back to the state. Really?
As Jeremy Clarkson said, if Rachel Reeves had wanted to attack landowners such as himself or Sir James Dyson,
“she would have used a sniper’s rifle, but she’s used a blunderbuss”.
I hope that, at the end of this debate, the Labour Government will have gained a greater understanding of the issues at stake. They must surely reconsider this disastrous Budget, or are they really determined to be this tribal and venal? If they are, it will not end well for them. This is structural vandalism of the farming ecosystem by a Government that did not consult, did not listen, did not learn and did not see the flaws in their plan, and that now need to stop, listen and think through the harm that their Budget proposals will cause. They need to step back and understand that APR and BPR are not tax loopholes; they are enablers of successful tax-paying businesses that take multiple generations to achieve the ability to operate in a highly competitive, difficult and volatile market.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for initiating this debate. If last night’s Bill goes through, we may lose from this House a number of people who have first-hand knowledge of farming and whose going will leave the countryside immeasurably less well represented in this House.
I declare my interests as president of the Countryside Alliance and as a small livestock farmer on Exmoor—too small to be affected by the APR changes, which I will talk about. We are, I hope, debating the unintended consequences of a government policy that has pitched its figures for those likely to be affected by the changes proposed far too low. Also, it will affect those beyond whom the Government say are the target: tax-dodging non-farmers. In fact, it now catches farms with anything over 200 acres. The blow to them is exceptionally cruel, because it strikes not just at the pockets, as most tax rises do, but at a whole way of life, at people’s families, at their homes and at the futures that they had planned.
The Treasury cannot have intended to put one of my near neighbours, a widower in his late 80s and in poor health, in the position of having to die before April 2026 or leave his son and young family who share the farmhouse with him with a tax bill which his advisers say far exceeds any profit that the farm is likely to make over the next 10 years. There have already been suicides. Most farmers have a gun. I hope that the Treasury is listening, because this is urgent.
I believe the Government know that they have got this one wrong. The question is: how do they get out of the mess? I invite Ministers to sit down and correct me if I am wrong on any of the things that I now say.
Defra has not denied that it was not told about this change until the day before the Budget. Steve Reed, as shadow Environment Secretary, went around the farming groups reassuring them that it was not even “in contemplation”, and I believe he is an honourable man. The industry was not consulted, and it was not just Defra. Where was the rural-proofing to which this Government are committed? I hope the Minister will tell us, if he can, because so many other departments and policies are going to be adversely affected.
Net zero requires investment from the farming industry, yet this policy is a disincentive to invest. What about growth? This policy means a cutback on each owner’s death. Small farmers may be asset-rich, but the money is in the farm, not in the bank, so that means they will have to sell land, and possibly even the whole farm. Surely you do not increase productivity by selling off the means of production.
If the land has to be sold to pay, who will buy it? The noble Earl has made some suggestions. All those people who are likely to buy it will be either industrial livestock farmers, who we condemn abroad, or the environmental groups and charities that will plant trees and rewild or find better ways of using the land to make better returns. Where does that leave us on food security, given that the food strategy which the Government have embraced says we must increase our production?
What about rural unemployment, given not only the wage rises which apply to all employers—national insurance and the minimum wage—but the rampant inflation in the cost of farm inputs? This is the last straw, and a disincentive to farm for the future and take people on.
I am very much afraid that my Government—and I stress “my” Government—have underestimated public affection for family farms. When you turn on the television or the radio, it is there. It is not just Clarkson, there is the Yorkshire Shepherdess, “The Archers” and “Lambing Live”. This rightly is seen as an attack on a way of life which is held in great affection, far beyond the farming community. In the last few weeks, all those trees came down in the storm. Who cut them up and took them off the road first thing so that people could get to work? It was the small, local farmers.
Good will towards my party in the countryside was higher than I have known it for many years at the time of the general election. That is no more. There are over 100 Labour MPs representing rural seats. Good will and trust are essential for the success of any Government, even one with a large majority. It is surely time for the Government to sit down with the agricultural industry and put these figures right.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for bringing this debate today and enabling us to talk about these issues.
I welcome the valedictory speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, not because she is going but because it gives me the chance to say something about her. She has done so much for women’s health, in particular maternity care and empowering women to choose the sort of birth that they want. She then went on, among other things, to look at pelvic mesh repairs, which had not been much talked about and were affecting many women’s lives so adversely.
I first met the noble Baroness here through a shared interest in food and health, and the food and health agenda is very relevant to today’s debate. One of the biggest issues facing farmers today—I suggest that it is bigger than APR—is the state of the food system itself. Who sells what to whom, and where do the profits go at each stage of that transaction? Farmers produce good, wholesome food; how then can it end up as ultra-processed food?
The report of the Food, Diet and Obesity Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lady Walmsley, concluded that the Government should develop a
“comprehensive and integrated long-term food strategy”
to fix our broken food system. Sue Pritchard, the CEO of the Food, Farming and the Countryside Commission, said:
“There is a clear and urgent economic case for changing the UK food system … As things are, Big Food companies are profiting from developing, making and marketing unhealthy food, leaving people with too many unhealthy options—while farmers struggle to make ends meet”.
There you have it. That is why farmers are particularly struggling. It did not start with this Government.
There are things not in the power of the Government that really are affecting farmers very adversely, including extreme weather challenges—that has to be a huge one—and biosecurity incidents, as was highlighted at Question Time today. Then there are the things that the Government are responsible for, such as the tax changes. I am sure that much will be said about APR today, so I will simply say that I feel that the Government set the threshold too low, especially considering land prices.
I want to talk more about the massive increase in land values that has had such a swathe of negative effects. It is much harder to enter farming now, for example. I believe that some of the massive increases in land values should be returned to the public. The Government need to devise how to do that, rather than hit simply on family farms.
Guy Singh-Watson, who made Riverford Farm in Devon so successful, with its vegetable box scheme, made the point that he farms both in Devon and in the French Vendée. In France, the price of land is less than a 10th of its equivalent in Devon. Why is that? I spent a bit of time in France, and I have seen that you cannot just buy up land speculatively because the Government make sure that the people buying it are serious farmers and are qualified to farm. Even the local mayor has a say in that. Some noble Lords may say that there is too much control there, but it has meant that land is available for genuine farmers.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for promoting this debate, and I declare my interest as a retired farmer who has already handed on to his son.
To plagiarise LP Hartley’s famous opening lines: “The farm is a foreign country: they do things differently there”. There is a different culture, with different priorities, in this foreign country. Here is where humans work from dawn to dusk, weekends included, to harness the soil, with its miraculous ability to produce growth. Here is where those humans manage this growth to feed the nation, and where most are simultaneously nurturing the soil and biodiversity so that the next generation can also feed the nation—live as if you die tomorrow, but farm as though you live for ever.
Those nurturing these farms do it not for the small amounts of money desperately needed to keep the bank at bay but because they have come to love the land on which they were reared. The rewards are the pride they have in their own work—there is nothing better than harvesting a crop that you yourself have sown and grown—and pride in the local recognition of being good stewards. To sell would be a betrayal of their duty, a betrayal of their grandchildren, and to fail in the eyes of their community. Underlying this morality in this foreign country is a key emotion that says to them that they do not own the land, it owns them. As I say, the farm is a foreign country: they do things differently there.
These inheritance tax changes will undoubtedly force family farms to sell their assets—which they know how to manage better than any man alive, which is a key point—thus placing more land in the hands of large corporations. It is a form of madness to change this tax when food security is now more important than ever in our fragile world and when the Government’s stated priority is growth—it cannot be the growth of food, nor of business. Business property relief is vital to all family businesses, wherever they might be based, such as key local shops or those that make the nuts and bolts that keep our wider economy on track. These businesses have involved the owners, and probably their parents before them, working all hours to make a living, earning the respect of their community and paying their annual taxes to the Government year in, year out—a Government who now seem determined to undermine them and their country’s economy.
We are a nation of shopkeepers, of family businesses. It is the essence of what we are and what makes us so resilient. So why attack rural and other businesses in this way, for comparatively small reward, when your declared priority is economic growth? Surely a priority is a policy that trumps all other interests and prejudices. It makes no sense. It also shows a complete lack of understanding of what makes our countryside tick and re-emphasises my point about farms and family businesses being a foreign country to our political masters. If this goes through as it currently stands, they will never be forgiven.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for bringing this timely debate. Let us not beat about the hedgerow: the Government’s Budget proposals are bringing huge stress and deep concern to the farming community, as we have already heard. For many, this is the final straw after years of challenges.
I have become aware of a particularly tragic circumstance in south Norfolk where, due to a terminal cancer diagnosis, if the farmer survives after 5 April 2026, the policy change will have a huge impact on his family’s well-being and fortunes. That pressure puts enormous strain on him, almost wishing him to die sooner, because then the farm will be safe.
What of situations of the unexpected sudden death of a young farmer? The family would not only have lost the primary breadwinner but would probably have an unsustainable farm to carry on farming.
For others considering a lifetime gift, I am hearing deep concerns about the fact that you need to be able to afford to make it. The challenge is what you are going to live off or where you are going to live, because farming businesses have been squeezed in so many ways. In many cases, there is simply not the spare cash available outside funding capital, machinery and living costs.
All of this is affecting the well-being and mental health of our farming communities. The suicide rate among male farmers is three times the national average. Thank goodness, at a time like this, with added worries and pressures, that we have organisations such as the Farming Community Network and the excellent YANA charity in Norfolk ready to provide a listening ear and practical advice.
It is not just farming finances: there are wider implications of this policy change. If small farms have to be broken up or are no longer viable, there is a major risk of multinationals buying up family farms. That is likely to negatively impact the 30 by 30 biodiversity target, as research shows that smaller farms tend to have higher biodiversity.
A second impact, which I am sure the Government will be concerned about, is around community cohesion. Farming families have played, and continue to play, an important and valuable part as community leaders, volunteering in their neighbourhoods as local councillors and churchwardens, and running agricultural and county shows. Fewer farms, fewer people.
So let me dare to ask the Minister whether he will pledge to do two things. The first is simply to raise the threshold on APR. The Treasury’s own figures estimate that a substantial amount of the money raised through these reforms will come from the wealthiest 2% of farm estates. Raising the threshold will not make a great deal of difference in terms of tax revenue. Secondly, please tweak the rules around tax-free gifts made in the seven years before death and exempt people over a certain age, so that farm owners who die in the next seven years have an opportunity to make tax-avoiding gifts in light of the Budget changes. This seems to be eminently sensible and compassionate.
Wendell Berry, the American poet, essayist and farmer, has reflected that the agricultural economy has almost always, from the earliest times, been slanted against the primary producers, the real risk takers, the real workers. Our farming families feed our nation. They provide nature benefits. They contribute to the warp and weft of community life. We need them. We owe them a fair system. I urge the Minister to choose a positive way forward.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on calling this debate and on bringing to it his customary knowledge and experience. It is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich: that is three speakers from Norfolk already in this debate.
The tax changes for farmers announced in the Budget have sent shockwaves through every rural community in the land. People feel betrayed—we have heard evidence of that—and let down by the Government, and with reason. Why? Because the Labour manifesto promised that it would champion British farmers, because Keir Starmer’s pre-election speech to the NFU promised a constructive relationship with the farming industry and because, as we have heard this afternoon, government departments apparently cannot agree on how many firms will be affected. I believe that the Treasury is claiming that it is only a quarter—but it would, wouldn’t it? Defra, which was not consulted, claim that it will be two-thirds. This is not a good basis for a farm business plan.
All this follows cuts to grants for nature restoration and for the promotion of British food and the pausing of capital grant offers. Every rural community will be affected, and this matters. Our farmers produce 60% of our food. Food security becomes ever more important when the incoming United States President is telling the world that “tariff” is the most beautiful word in the language. It is important because farmers care for 70% of our land. They are the guardians of our countryside and environment. Above all, it is important because the rural economy depends heavily on the prosperity and stability of the farming sector. The Government so far show no sign of understanding this basic fact, although they should after this debate. They should, at least, act on the recently revised advice from the IFS and tweak their plans.
I have comments from three businesses based in north-east Norfolk. Nicholsons, a farm machinery business established in 1937, faces a huge annual rise in wage costs from national insurance increases. It says that uncertainty over the the future of family farms will reduce its income, with the consequence that:
“Investment in people, infrastructure and technology will have to further reduce … firms will fail”
and jobs will be lost. The second comment is from a large animal veterinary practice with 23 staff. Because of the national insurance increases, it has to increase its fees. The director fears that, because of the Budget changes for farmers, the practice and all such practices will lose many of their farm customers, with dire consequences for the whole veterinary profession.
The third comment concerns grain merchants. Mr Dewing writes that, as a result of tax changes for farmers, the farming industry will focus on holding on to cash, reducing capital investment, employee numbers and investment in diversity projects. He adds:
“The Budget is killing employment, investment, UK family businesses, rural economies and structures, confidence in government, and the future of an industry which once ‘dug for victory’”.
The Government must change their mind.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, I too very much welcome this debate. Like other speakers, I am indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for tabling it. It is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard.
I declare my interests. Until six years ago I was a tenant farmer, having started farming in 1971 with very little capital. I mention this because I know what it is like to be under serious financial pressure. I can relate to those thousands of family farms—farmers who are worried, stressed and unsure about the future of their businesses. I know what it is like to lie awake at night knowing that there is not enough cash to pay the bills, having difficult conversations with the bank manager when the overdraft limit is exceeded, having to arrange extended credit and having lots of hire-purchase agreements.
On top of all that, those farmers who demonstrated a couple of weeks ago and came to town yesterday with their tractors have had to contend with the most extreme weather events in history. Many are embracing the change in policy—the transition to ELMS—and finding it incredibly complex and difficult to access. The rules keep changing and the RPA records are unreliable, according to a friend of mine who has been a consultant on environmental schemes for 25 years. He tells me that
“there seems to be a hostile culture within Defra and the RPA to farmers causing worry and stress over tiny details. The SFI is the most complicated scheme yet designed, mostly due to rotational options and multiple schemes on the same farm”.
The previous Government promised that leaving the EU would be a great opportunity to reduce bureaucracy, red tape and complexity. The reverse has happened. In addition, the recent decision by Defra to suspend capital grant applications is causing confusion and concern. A friend of mine has embarked on an arable reversion scheme within the SFI and everything is in place—the crops sown, the field ready and the stock purchased—but he is now unable to get the grant to put the fence up to graze the field. It does not make sense.
Against this background, the Budget decision on inheritance tax has been the final straw. I applaud the Chancellor on achieving a remarkable feat. She has succeeded in completely uniting the entire farming sector: landowners, owner-occupiers, tenants, the NFU, the CLA, the TFA, the NSA, the CAAV and numerous other organisations. The decision to change the rules on APR and BPR demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the way the countryside is managed and the crucial role of the family farm.
There is confusion about the numbers affected. To take a snapshot of one year, as the Treasury appears to have done, is far too simplistic. The CAAV is quite clear that, over a generation—and that is what we are facing here: the ability of one generation to pass on to the next—75,000 businesses will be affected. This is potentially devastating for farming families.
A lady spoke to me after the demonstration a couple of weeks ago. Her aunt, who is 86, asked whether she thought the assisted dying Bill would be in place next year, because she needs to die next year before the changes to inheritance tax take place. Otherwise, her family will have to sell the farm.
This is a big mistake. The Treasury needs to review the detail. To try to capture those who are investing in land only as a tax shelter is perfectly understandable, but to destroy thousands of family farms in the process is unacceptable. Farmers are not good at succession planning, and many have been advised not to do it. Give them more time to prepare. Raise the limit. Do something to reduce the risk of potential devastation that this Budget will cause.
Incidentally, I feel rather sorry for the Defra ministerial team, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, stated. They worked hard before the election to build relationships with farmers and growers with significant success, and the Chancellor has chopped their legs off. Farmers feel undervalued and unsupported. This inheritance tax issue needs to be reviewed.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for bringing this debate to the House, as it is of fundamental importance that we discuss the impact of the recent Budget on the UK’s rural community. Obviously, it would have been preferable that the discussion on the impact of the Budget measures had been assessed before their announcement, but that was not what the Government chose on this occasion. It means that policy decisions have been made on flawed data.
We have heard much from the Government about how the changes to agricultural property relief will impact on only relatively few farming families, but the reality is somewhat different, certainly in Northern Ireland. This week the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland published an analysis of the impact of the budgetary measures. The figures are stark. The price of land in Northern Ireland is high, for a variety of reasons, and the latest government figures for 2026 projecting forward are that it will cost £21,000 per acre. That figure covers agriculture and business property on farms. This means that farms that own greater than 19.5 hectares of agricultural land will be caught by the new measures announced in the Budget. That is 50% of the farms in Northern Ireland. Those figures are not from farmers or their union, the UFU, but from the government department in Northern Ireland. Even more striking is that this covers 80% of total farmed land in Northern Ireland.
I think noble Lords will agree that those are devastating figures, which is why solutions will have to be found before 2026. Food security for the whole of the UK is at risk. Why do I say that? Noble Lords will say, “Surely Northern Ireland is only a small part of the equation”. It is true that we have a population of only 1.9 million, but our farmers produce enough food for 10 million people, and 6 million of them are here in Great Britain. As a former Economy Minister in Northern Ireland, I know the importance of the agri-food industry very well. It is simply the largest economic driver in Northern Ireland. That is why these new tax rules will have a disproportionate impact in Northern Ireland, on not just our rural communities but our economic well-being.
The next issue is that these tax rules, if implemented in full, will cut to the very heart of the fabric of rural Ulster. If farms have to be sold to pay tax bills, families will leave the rural way of life. That will bring hugely negative changes to our society. Schools, rural shops, churches, sporting organisations—life will fundamentally change if there are fewer rural dwellers. Of course, farmland is not just an asset; it is a legacy, a symbol of perseverance, and a promise to future generations. We have to allow that promise to be fulfilled.
The well-being of our rural dwellers is also of huge concern. We all know that farming is a solitary profession, and mental ill-health is often an undiagnosed issue. The implications of the tax burden have added to farmers’ worries, and that cannot be dismissed. I commend the National Farmers’ Union’s president on trying to explain the emotional stress yesterday to the Select Committee in the other place. Whether you are an elderly farmer worrying about estate planning or a young farmer wondering whether it is worth the worry taking on the debt that you would have to take on to keep the family farm going, it is a really worrying time. Yes, farmers are particularly bad at succession planning—I used to be a country solicitor before I entered politics, so I know it all too well—but they often work for very little just to have the hope of handing on the farm to the next generation. This policy threatens that hope and adds to the growing burden on farmers. They are already under pressure from government regulation and supermarket powers.
So solutions have to be found. Of course, I would prefer the tax to be scrapped but, if that does not find favour with the Treasury, please set the threshold much higher—so you are not attacking the rural way of life—or have a definition of an active farmer and exempt active farmers from the tax. That would deal with those who are buying up farmland for other purposes. That is what happens in Germany and the Republic of Ireland, so solutions are available. I really hope the Government take the time to listen to those solutions, because farmers are fair people and it is wrong to attack their way of life.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con) (Valedictory Speech)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness’s interesting speech, for which I thank her.
Farming should be a really important subject of concern. In this country, we are 50% reliant on food from abroad. The Government may well stock vaccines for pandemics, increase GP numbers and cut health service waiting lists—all moves to appease critics—but we must never forget that the first essentials for life are food and water.
I have lived in tied houses on a farm that my husband managed. I witnessed the collapse of 10 smaller farms, now incorporated into one big unit, which, like so many industries, has had to change. The farm is now highly mechanised and efficient, but the margins are tiny.
I think the policy of taxing large, efficient farms out of existence in an uncertain world is wholly ill-conceived. These enterprises will become fragmented. Less efficient farmers have already been reclassified as not being working people. How come? I know from experience that producing food is a seven-day-a-week job.
While my husband farmed, I was able to bring about some changes in the NHS—for instance, giving nurses the right to be practitioners and to prescribe. That was part of women’s liberation, as well as using the workforce much more effectively.
We closed great, out-of-date Victorian mental institutions. So-called fallen women, handicapped people and others with shell shock lived in those institutions. I thought that was a poor existence, so we did close them and put the people into the community—or gave them an opportunity to be in the community.
With friends, I started one of the first rural playgroups for children aged under five. The playgroups were opposed at the time by a formidable neighbour who had no children of her own, and I was told by her in no uncertain terms, “Mothers should look after their own children, day and night”. Well, some of us did to some extent, while some of us had relatives who were very forgiving and who took part in bringing up my children.
Changes are important. I remember clearly going to boarding school at the age of eight, and the first question I was asked was, “My dear, where is your ration book?” Today there is a belief that food will always be plentiful and affordable. However, that is really not a sustainable policy for the long term. Would any Government expect manufacturers to close or sell off part of their factory? That is what they expect the agricultural industry to do. Their policy is that the expected shortfalls will be made up by imports from abroad.
We should remember the thousands who lost their lives in the wartime convoys trying to bring food to Britain as the population—including MPs and Ministers—drift further away from farming roots, in the knowledge that many people will have scant ability to grow food. We must support farmers, and it is time for food to be priced realistically.
I beg noble Lords’ patience for just a minute. It is no secret that this is the last formal occasion that I have to say a few words in your Lordships’ House in this wonderful Chamber. I want to thank so many—the army of secretaries, advisers, professional staff and, not least, all the Members of this House. I have learned so much from all my colleagues and I have enjoyed my time here. I am truly grateful for the debates, the incisive questions and the contributions made by all noble Lords that enrich all our debates.
Of course, with regrets, I leave. But I know that this House is in very good hands and I look forward with excitement to reading Hansard—did you know that Hansard can be exciting?—and discovering the progress on some of the subjects that really are so dear to my heart.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, it is a real privilege to follow my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. She has been a remarkable Member of this House and we are very lucky to have had a speech which was so characteristic of her. My noble friend was in this House 16 years before I came here, and I came 18 years ago. So she has been here an awfully long time and has done so much.
The House listens to her in a way that it does not listen to others. When she rises, whether at Question Time or in debate, the House gives way to her, because Members know she is an interesting contributor to whatever is being discussed. She has done so much. She is really well known. She was known in my household when my wife was involved with social services in Lincolnshire. She has been involved in all these reports on community nursing and maternity services and the emancipation of women through medical care and home care. My noble friend was also a Minister in the Department of Health when my noble friend Lord Waldegrave was the Secretary of State. He and I share offices and I know he pays tribute to her as well.
Hers has been a dedicated life, lived for others, and she has achieved so much. She is quietly spoken but, as her former Chief Whip, I can say that she is steely of purpose. I think her vocation came from her early education. She described being taught to care for others and, by caring for others, she herself has taught us that we can help, wherever we sit in this place, by caring for other people.
I turn now to the subject of the debate. My interest in this debate is twofold. People will know that I am a farmer and grower. In fact, I am retired from my family business; like others, I have moved on. I moved here House instead. It is a very important business in its sector.
I believe that this particular debate gives us a chance to show the impact this will have on businesses such as my own family’s. Fortunately, it has not affected my generation but it will successive generations. I have a grandson at Newcastle University—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle will be following me later—who wants to go into the family business. Our customers are small businesses in the main: garden centres and retailers. We all face the imposition of a tax on death that is a total disincentive to what really matters.
I believe in the Government’s growth agenda and I want it to succeed; I want this Government to provide this country with economic growth because that will furnish us with everything that we plan for ourselves and our colleagues, in terms of care, education, training, job opportunities and everything else. I believe they have made a great mistake with this tax, because they have destroyed the concept of investment and that is what is needed for people to make progress in business. If investment is going to be taxed on death, it is a discouragement from making that sort of investment.
We need to achieve food security in a global world that needs food and be efficient in the way we produce it. Our farmers need to feel that they are doing the right thing by investing in the future of their business, and they will be discouraged by the concept that they may well be taxed on the benefits that they are giving through their life’s work within such a business. It is a global task, and the farming industry needs investment just like any other.
I asked the Minister about this, and he replied to my Written Question on Monday about the consequences of this tax. There is no impact assessment; there is no concept in Government of what the impact of this tax will be. I think we have all gathered what it may well be from this debate, but there is no impact assessment. Instead, I got a scenario about how the tax will be levied.
I am president of the Institute of Agricultural Management. I believe in investment, in progressive agriculture and that we can do better than we do now. We are doing well now but we can do better, but only if farmers are encouraged to invest. As was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Leicester in moving this debate, investment will actually increase tax yields and give the Government more money. I cannot, for the life of me, think why they chose to take this path. I regret it very much and feel that it is a great mistake.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. It is the season, so I will try to lighten the mood by offering some congratulations. The first is to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for her amazing valedictory speech and remarkable career. I live on the west bank of the River Exe and grew up in the shadow of Exminster’s Starcross and Langdon hospitals—mental institutions that she described. She really transformed our community with that work, so I am hugely grateful. I also congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for calling such an important debate and gathering such a wise group of heads to address this important issue; and the Minister and the Government, for they have managed to convert London into Paris or the Thames into the Seine. We have Monet at the Courtauld and revolting farmers across the boulevards of our fair city.
I note my interests: I am a farmer in Devon and inherited farmland and a local long-owned family business relatively trouble-free under the previous rules. I am also a lawyer at a law firm, based in the south-west of England and London, that advises numerous rural businesses. I congratulate my partners, who will have an awful lot of work over the next few years advising these poor rural businesses on how to deal with this terrible and very surprising change in the tax regime for rural family businesses. I also congratulate the Government, who achieved something quite notable: the urban population, who do not really know how rural businesses work, were surprised that farmers are so wealthy in assets and did not pay any inheritance tax. This has cast a fresh light upon how our farming and rural businesses work.
There are some good things about this policy. I remember, as a relatively young man, being incredibly disappointed when my father discovered that he could own the family business until death and that that was to his and my benefit. It meant I would not get my hands on the business until very late in life. Speaking seriously, there is a good thing in this policy—I will give the Labour Party some credence here—which is that we will get farms and family businesses into the younger generation’s hands sooner. We have complained for years about flatlining productivity in the rural economy and farming. If we can get these businesses into younger and more ambitious hands sooner, that may be a good thing. However, the way the Government have done it is so cruel.
We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry, about how individual farmers—those in their 70s and 80s, who have planned their lives and their inheritance based on these reliefs—are in an incredibly cruel spot right now. I implore the Government please to think again: they do not need to change the policy, but please soften the impact, as some people are really suffering.
Many other aspects of this Budget are challenging for rural businesses and farmers. The inheritance tax burden is apparently payable over 10 years, but delinked payments for BPS have decreased to £7,600 a year without any notice. No one has mentioned the carbon border tax. Importing fertiliser, which impacts every single piece of food produced in this country, will have £50 a tonne added by 2027. That will impact all of our food production. The increased cost of employment in rural businesses is incredibly cruel too. So please think again. I look forward to the rest of this debate.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Leicester on this debate, and I take this opportunity to say a fond goodbye to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege—and not only that but a thank you. She is one of the few people who have changed this country for the better.
Promoting growth is supposedly the Prime Minister’s number one priority:
“productivity growth in every part of the country”,
screamed the Labour Party manifesto. That is absolutely a laudable goal, but is it realistic? Unfortunately it is not. Growth comes from the private sector, not state employment. Productivity in the state sector is below the level seen in 1997, yet state workers have been rewarded with significant pay rises, which will be paid for by the private sector.
The £40 billion in tax rises in the Budget, so applauded by the Cabinet, was
“an egregious act of self-harm”.
It will
“kill entrepreneurship, snuff out wealth creation and stunt growth”.
The Government would do well to heed these words of Sir James Dyson, one of Britain’s leading industrialists.
The consequences will be severe, and we have already witnessed the sharpest fall in hiring for four years, with huge damage to the employment prospects of many and the inevitable increase in unemployment to come. It is a remarkable feat, even for this Labour Government, to alienate the entire food sector in under six months in office. The most recent Defra English farm profitability data demonstrates that 30% of English farms lost money in the last year, with another 25% making less than £25,000, even when all the income streams were accounted for, with hill and upland farms suffering the most. Does the Minister realise that we have lost 7,000 farm businesses since 2019?
There were no significant pay rises for farmers. Instead, the Government poured petrol on to the flames of an industry in crisis. In addition to the ideological attack on farmers by changing the APR and BPR rules in the Budget, there have been announcements on changes to employee national insurance and 4x4 double cab tax rules, an immediate reduction in BPS from original timescales, no increase in ELMS payments despite input cost increases, a carbon tax on fertiliser imports from January 2027, the pausing of most of the capital grant schemes, the Defra review into farming rules for water guidance and delays to SFI applications.
Furthermore, climate change is resulting in more extreme rainfall events, which is challenging the ability to farm heavy land. Its viability was formerly aided by grants for drainage and the advent of pesticides and fertilisers. About a third of lowland England is relatively low-grade clay soils, and these fields are becoming waterlogged and unviable. This will have a significant implication for food production and food security. A catastrophe is unfolding in front of our eyes and the Government do not seem to care.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. I commend her speech and her lifetime of bold interventions.
Stretching from the Scottish borders to the River Tyne, my diocese is largely made up of farming communities. For many, farming is about much more than making a living and has been their way of life for generations. A tractor horn outside this Chamber yesterday loudly proclaimed that “Old MacDonald has a farm”,’ but for how much longer?
I appreciate that the Government intend to target wealthy landowners buying land to avoid tax, but I fear that they have not adequately considered the impact on tenant farmers. The north-east has the highest regional proportion of tenant farmers. I pay tribute to my noble friend from the north Lord Curry of Kirkharle, who spoke from his own experience. Following the Budget, farming tenants are now faced with a greater lack of security. What assessment has been made, and will be made, of the impact that the changes to inheritance tax will have on tenant farmers?
Furthermore, only 32% of farming land in the north-east is arable. The national average is 52%. Most farmland in the region is used for upland and hill sheep farming. These farms receive a lower income, with the average business income for hill farms in 2023-24 being £23,500. Many farming families in Northumberland are cash poor, and hidden poverty is widespread. Hill farming requires less land than arable farming, meaning that under the new tax reforms, if a family is forced to sell their land to pay inheritance tax, in many cases there would not be enough land left to make the farm viable. As a farmer at the Hexham auction mart said last week: “If I die, that’s it”. What assessment have the Government made of the impact that the changes to inheritance tax will have specifically on upland and hill farmers?
I finish by sharing the situation of a farming family in Northumberland, where three generations are living in one farmhouse, with five adults and three children. Three of the adults have full-time jobs away from the farm to make ends meet but spend their evenings and weekends working on the farm. Last week, the grandfather had to take time off work to sell his sheep at the auction mart. Families such as this one illustrate how farming is not simply a way to make money but their way of life. If a death were to occur in this family, three generations would be left without their home.
I urge the Government to truly consider the impact of these reforms and encourage them to have continued dialogue and an assessment of the impact on farming families and rural communities—the people to whom we owe the food on our tables.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests in owning a small farm in Devon, not too far away from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, to whose speech I listened with great interest. I hope that her noble friend on the Front Bench listened with equal interest and took note of the very powerful arguments that she and other noble Lords have put forward today.
I start my remarks by paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, whose valedictory speech, to which I listened with such care, was so splendid. She really is an extraordinary person—an extraordinary Member of your Lordships’ House. She is kind, compassionate, committed and deeply knowledgeable—and great fun, if I may say so. Whenever I see my noble friend, I am taken back to 31 May 1992, the day when I made my maiden speech—from the very seat that the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, occupies at the moment—holding that Dispatch Box as a rather windy 25 or 26 year-old. My noble friend was kind enough to hand over the keys to the famous Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Bill, which she allowed me to take to Second Reading. I am deeply grateful to her for her trust in me and for all the guidance that she has given me since that time.
The House is full of experts on farming, and I am not one of them, but I have listened and learned a lot from the debate today. I will use my small allocation of time to look at the broader context of farming. It seems to me that a gulf has arisen between the regulators and the regulated, between government and the farmers, and perhaps between Defra and other arms of government. That is a regrettable situation. The industry needs to have confidence that the Government are knowledgeable, deeply understand the issues that farmers face, and are able to be their champion and make representations within the broader government effectively. That is not the case at the moment. In case the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench thinks that this is a party-political point, it really is not; it is a gulf that has grown up over a long period of time.
The farming industry is unique in its national strategic significance, but much of it is delivered by small, multigenerational family businesses. It is hugely capital intensive, as we have heard, but it produces very small returns. It is intertwined with national and international government policy, yet the farmers are also the instruments of delivering government environmental policy. Farmers take their role as stewards of the countryside incredibly seriously, but they need to understand what the Government’s agricultural policy is. To my mind, it is not clear. The weight with which food production is put right at the centre of that strategy is not clear. Farmers have to deal with a great deal of complexity in interacting with Defra, with perverse incentives not to grow food. It makes one wonder at the strength of the commitment at the centre to food production.
A great indication of the strength, confidence, wisdom and maturity of a Government is that they listen when powerful arguments are put to them. I hope that the Minister on the Government Front Bench will demonstrate that when he replies to the debate this afternoon.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, the Government’s Budget proposals talk about addressing the £22 billion fiscal gap, but, as a result, they are undermining the viability of our family-run farms, disrupting food security and having a long-lasting effect on our rural communities. I refer to the reform of agricultural property relief, or APR, and business property relief, or BPR. This will, in effect, lead to 20% tax over a value of £1 million, on top of a national living wage increase of 6.7%, which will raise labour costs for farmers, as well as the phasing out of direct payments.
I think that many farmers will regret voting for Brexit, as many of them did, and losing so many subsidies as a result, which have not been replaced by Governments since then. On top of that, there are food security concerns and the combined effects of rising costs, land consolidation and a reduction of direct payments, all destabilising food production. The UK’s reliance on food imports increases the risk of food insecurity, with the global supply chain disruptors.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for initiating this debate. As has been said before, we produce 60% of our food for consumption but we rely on imports for nearly half of it. However, domestic food production is vulnerable to many factors: climate change; the prices offered by purchasers; high energy costs—in the UK we have some of the highest energy costs in the world; the international supply chain—we saw fertiliser costs shooting up after the Ukraine war started, for example; labour shortages; biodiversity and water quality; and biosecurity and animal health.
The Government say that 73% of APR claims come from estates with qualifying assets worth less than £1 million. But the National Farmers’ Union says that 75% of farmers are affected. Will the Minister clarify why there is a huge difference between what the NFU thinks and what the Government think? They say that the agricultural property relief addresses a loophole, but Alistair Carmichael, chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, said:
“Agricultural property relief is not a loophole; it has been a deliberate policy of successive Governments for the past 40 years, designed to avoid the sale and break-up of family farms … These changes will have a ripple effect across the whole rural community.””.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/11/24; col. 24.]
The NFU has said why it feels that the Government’s assumptions are flawed. It says that there is a failure to adjust for inflation, an unfair inclusion of non-commercial holdings and an underestimation of the tax burden of APR and BPR combined. Does the Minister agree? Further, on the economic impact on working farms, the NFU says that there are unsustainable tax liabilities. It says: “Medium-sized firms will face annual inheritance tax instalments that far exceed their profits”. Of course, it is a fact that farming is asset-rich and cash-poor. On top of that, NFU analysis shows that the £1 million threshold means that cereal farms will see their returns entirely wiped out by their tax liabilities. Dairy farms will lose approximately 50% of their returns to inheritance tax. On top of that, there will be implications for food security, the undermining of domestic food production, the disincentivising of long-term investment and a contraction in available farmland.
I do not know who is advising this Government. When I was president of the CBI, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves had good intentions but, since coming into government, they have upset pensioners, farmers and family businesses. They have upset the business community with a £40 billion tax rise and a £25 billion national insurance rise. They have upset employers with regulations that will make us less competitive, at a cost of £5 billion. The Government rightly want economic growth, but how can we have economic growth if we kill the goose that lays the golden egg?
This country’s farmers are precious; they are the backbone of our country. We need to appreciate our farmers and always be grateful for our farming community.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for her eloquent valedictory speech. I have been moved by so many speeches in today’s debate, including those of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, but in particular by that of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, who put her head above the parapet to call her own party to account on the disastrous situation facing family farms and businesses. I declare my interests as a Welsh farmer, as set out in the register.
I want to address these rural economy issues, which go to the very fabric of our communities, and the impact of the Government’s recent Budget proposals. Small farms and family-run enterprises are the lifeblood of many regions in our country. They contribute to the agricultural sector and are pivotal in sustaining local economies, creating jobs and preserving our rural landscapes. However, recent proposals from the Government have put these and many businesses like them under unprecedented strain, threatening their survival and, by extension, the very essence of rural life.
The Budget includes changes to agricultural funding and the ongoing transition away from the common agricultural policy. While the Government have repeatedly assured us that the reforms ensure a fairer and more sustainable future for farmers, there is growing concern that the current pace of change is leaving too many behind.
Moreover, as we have heard today, many farmers are operating on razor-thin margins given the continuing rise in input costs, including of feed, fertiliser and fuel. The Government’s Budget proposals, particularly the lack of direct support for those facing these rising costs, will result in many farms facing the impossible choice of scaling back or closing down entirely. For family farms, this is not just a financial issue; often, generations of history, pride and identity are at risk.
Let us also consider the issue of access to finance. Small farmers and rural entrepreneurs often struggle to access the capital they need to invest in their businesses, particularly in a climate where traditional lending institutions are reluctant to take on risk. We need to stimulate this growth. Without easy access to affordable credit and loans, these businesses cannot expand, innovate or weather the financial storms that inevitably come.
Small farms and family-run businesses are major employers in many rural areas. A reduction in support for these sectors will lead to a loss of local jobs, further exacerbating the rural/urban divide. As larger corporations dominate the marketplace, the social fabric of our rural communities will fray, leading to a rise in economic inequality and a depletion of rural services.
The Government must change course now. I think that we on these Benches always suspected that the mask would slip, but we have just been surprised by how quickly. To any farmers or others in rural communities listening to or watching this debate: the Government do not understand you and they do not care about you. Worse still, they want what is yours—or they want the Deputy Prime Minister to bulldoze it.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, on securing this most timely of debates. It is sometimes said that that the two most important responsibilities of any Government are to keep the nation safe and to ensure that the population is fed. I am sorry to say that the previous Conservative Government failed to properly invest in our Armed Forces over the past 14 years, with the consequences now being laid bare in an increasingly dangerous world. I wish the Labour Government well in their efforts to paper over these cracks.
However, the new Government now stand accused of placing their duty to provide proper food supplies for the nation at risk by seeking to implement a tax rise with what I suspect are unintentional consequences. The Chancellor’s decision to propose an inheritance tax on farms worth over £1 million will affect a small minority of families in rural England, Scotland and Wales, and a significant number in Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom that is particularly resilient, and reliant on farming. Agriculture provides £6 billion to the local Ulster economy. Given the well-documented problems with the Irish Sea border which the Windsor Framework has created—an agreement negotiated by the previous Government but fully supported by the new crop of Ministers—local farmers’ produce is arguably more important to people in Northern Ireland now than ever before. In light of these plain facts, the Government’s ill-advised—and, it would appear, ill-informed—Budget measure has the potential to decimate the Province’s agriculture sector.
UK Ministers have been wheeling statistics over the past few weeks which they claim indicate that the inheritance tax changes will affect only a tiny proportion of farms. However, earlier this week, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland published the results of its own analysis, which the Minister may or may not be aware of. Either way, I will welcome his response when he winds up the debate.
This analysis, which took into account residential property, farm buildings, machinery, livestock and land, found that around half of the 26,000 farms in Northern Ireland could be impacted by the inheritance tax changes that the Government seem determined to drive through. To put that into perspective, as the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has mentioned, this would account for 80% of farmed land across the province, including 40% to 45% of cattle and sheep farms and around 87% of dairy farms. I pose a simple and straight question to the Minister: based on those official figures from a Northern Ireland executive department, how much damage are this Government prepared to inflict on the Northern Ireland farmers before they accept that they have got this wrong?
Whatever the Chancellor may be trying to achieve, her decisions have badly backfired. Respectfully, I suspect that most in government, particularly those forced to defend the Chancellor’s move, including the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, agree. This Government are still in their early moments of office, and mistakes may inevitably be made while they get to grips with the realities of power. Sadly, the farming tax is one of their biggest mistakes. The correct approach should be to acknowledge the error, scrap the tax and move on. They will get credit for doing so, not least from the beleaguered agricultural community in Northern Ireland.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a Suffolk farmer of a certain age. Since the dawn of civilisation, family farming has provided seed for enterprise, food and survival. Yet these retrospective IHT proposals have been widely perceived, not just by Britain’s farmers, as a betrayal of the rural community. In politics, perception is reality. To persist with these proposals could, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, suggested, cost Labour 100 seats at the next election.
In any Government, the relationship between Prime Minister and Chancellor is crucial, and it can be sensitive. We remember that between Margaret Thatcher and Nigel Lawson, or Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Much depends on the public and political standing of the Chancellor. Five months ago, Rachel Reeves arrived at the Treasury flourishing a sparkling CV that might have even suggested she could be a future Governor of the Bank of England. The media searchlights have now illuminated the realities of her skills and experience, however. She will never again, I suspect, be able to avoid pre-Budget political and economic scrutiny of her plans from her senior colleagues, such as Mr Pat McFadden.
So far, the Chancellor has rejected all requests to reconsider the IHT proposals. I will remind your Lordships of a precedent which, I suggest, could be a way out. It means going back 50 years to the 1974 Budget of Chancellor Denis Healey. This proposed the introduction of an annual wealth tax, something that had been in Harold Wilson’s February manifesto. A Green Paper came out in August 1974, with the promise of a White Paper to follow. There was consequent alarm that the effect on cash flows would force many SMEs out of business. In response, in December 1974 the Commons set up the Select Committee on Wealth Tax. It reported in November 1975 that the Government had failed to recognise
“the special dangers inherent in introducing such a tax at a time of … economic crisis”.
On 29 November 1976, Denis Healey, in a Written Answer said:
“The Government have decided they should not introduce a wealth tax in the life of this Parliament, but the tax will continue to be an important part of their programme”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/11/1976; col. 49W.]
So it has been for the last 50 years.
Healey related the outcome in his 1989 autobiography, The Time of My Life:
“Another lesson was that you should never commit yourself in Opposition to new taxes unless you have a very good idea how they will operate in practice. We had committed ourselves to a Wealth Tax: but in five years I found it impossible to draft one which would yield enough revenue to be worth the administrative cost and political hassle”.
If Denis Healey could change his mind, surely the Prime Minister could at least have second thoughts.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I too salute the noble Earl for securing this topical debate. Like others here today, he is an excellent example of this place’s vintage intake of hereditaries in 2021—but I am in danger of straying into yesterday’s debate.
I will focus on family businesses and inheritance tax overall. Given the dire state of our public finances, I acknowledge that this Government had no choice but to raise taxes in the Budget, but it is the way that it was done that troubles me. I have been an outspoken critic and raised a number of questions in this place on the impact of employer national insurance and capital gains tax increases and the minimum wage hike. We now have the troubling issue of inheritance tax and how to levy it in a way that is proportionate and does not unduly damage the economy.
Why should family businesses, and indeed farmers, not share in the burden of inheritance tax like the rest of us, particularly those sitting on valuable assets? It is a perfectly reasonable question. In my own case, I set up and built a business over 30 years, which I sold back in 2014. The sales proceeds first incurred capital gains tax—which, interestingly, thanks to Gordon Brown, had dropped to a much lower rate than under previous Conservative Governments—and, on my death, whenever that will be, a 40% inheritance tax will be applied to virtually all those proceeds, bar £325,000.
This was not a family business; I had no intention of burdening my son or daughter with succession, but that would have been far more tax efficient, as the noble Earl, Lord Devon, already noted. It would not have been in the interest of the company, the staff or the shareholders, let alone my children or indeed the wider economy. My point is that family succession can be far from optimal—just look at the Trumps and the Murdochs, for instance. Economies thrive from the trading of assets and changes of ownership.
I accept that, for small family businesses and farms, the situation is more complex, as we have already heard. In my attempt to be a constructive Cross-Bencher, I will propose to the Government three changes. First, they should cap BPR and APR at £2.5 million per person, rather than at £1 million. Secondly, they should apply the 20% inheritance tax rate above that figure up to £5 million. Thirdly, above that figure, they should apply the full 40% rate—the rate that most of us pay from a much lower level. That, in my view, is more measured and proportionate, and would still generate the budgeted tax revenues. It means that the very asset-rich will contribute more—as I think they should. Yes, some may have to sell their businesses or some of their assets, but that is life and how a modern economy should work.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for securing this debate. I join the torrent of tributes to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for her many decades of service. She taught me a great deal about working in your Lordships’ House when we were debating the now Medicines and Medical Devices Act. I often used her as an example of one of my favourite hashtags, #CampaigningWorks. I note that the existence of the Patient Safety Commissioner is just one of the contributions for which we should pay tribute to the noble Baroness.
On the topic of today’s debate, I am here to demonstrate the breadth of opposition to the Government’s current plans for inheritance tax on farms across the political spectrum. Some noble Lords have already noted this, but we particularly note the huge toll that the announcement and its subsequent concerns have had on the mental health of many farmers. As the Green Party, we strongly support the idea of cracking down on tax dodging where the purchase of land is being used by individuals who are companies to dodge tax and very often to take it out of farming production, but it should not be beyond the wit of the Government to make a distinction between that use of land and genuine farming businesses.
Taking the constituency of my honourable friend Adrian Ramsay, the MP for Waveney Valley, as an example, the typical farm there is about 320 acres and these holdings may be valued at between £3 million and £5 million. That is the value on paper but very often the income is very low. In the Green Party we believe we need more farmers and to create opportunities for the entry of new people into farming, leading to smaller farms and a bigger range of businesses, not even more consolidation which this tax change could well produce. We also need a great deal of support for the diversification of crops and cropping systems, agroecology and the growing of vegetables and fruit.
Given that many issues have been heavily canvassed in this debate, I will take this opportunity to look forward to the spending review. We have to look at the history of what has been done to Defra over the past 15 years or so. From 2009 to 2019, funding for Defra declined 35% in monetary terms and 45% in real terms. That compared to a cut across the whole of government of 20% on average. There was then an injection of funding as an enormous range of new roles came in with Brexit, but we are now again hearing talk—and talk that the Secretary of State is volunteering for this—of at least a 20% cut in Defra. That means big cuts in spending on nature and flood prevention, which has huge potential impacts on farmers as well as rural communities and broader communities in general.
I have limited time, but I want to throw into this debate the point that we need to rethink how we can ensure that farmers who are growing the food that we need have a secure life and business. We cannot keep relying on other people’s soil, water and labour to feed ourselves as we do so much now. We are seeing a very fast-growing campaign for a universal basic income for farmers and that is an area we should be looking at. We need a Defra department that is able to shape the right policies and a Government that acknowledge the importance of food to all of us and food security, which is, I am afraid, not what we are currently getting.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Leicester for securing the debate and for speaking so eloquently, setting out the difficulties of the Budget proposal. I also add my heartfelt tribute to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege who, as the daughter of a GP, has maintained a life-long interest in healthcare. She will be much missed.
My focus today is on the human aspect and the potential social crisis unfolding as a result of the Government’s proposals, in particular what the implications will be for the uplands and tenant farmers. Issues of food security have been recounted in the debate but I recognise that taking land out of production for farming, such as the plans for solar farms on a small scale in Old Malton and on a much greater scale in East Yorkshire—up to four square miles—are just nonsensical. Reducing basic farm payments with a slow uptake of ELMS and the complexity of the SFI on top of the removal of capital grants for those farmers equipping themselves to farm in an environmentally friendly way are deeply regrettable.
What exactly will the impact on tenant farms be? If you look at North Yorkshire, County Durham and many northern counties—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle mentioned Northumbria—48% of farms are tenanted, yet it is deeply unclear how these proposals will apply to them. At the very least, will the Minister, in summing up, commit to issuing draft legislation or the usual tax information and impact note before July next year to ensure that tenants can prepare in the best way possible for these proposals, well in advance of the timescale that the Government are minded to introduce?
Your Lordships will be aware that farmers are fiercely proud, private and independent. They are reluctant even to visit the GP and seek healthcare when they most need it. What I regret most about these Budget proposals is the mood of anxiety, distress and uncertainty that they have created about the future, affecting whole families—not just the adult farmers but their children, who are now displaying signs of mental health issues which need to be addressed. As others have mentioned, this impacts on the whole rural community; farmers are the glue holding it together.
I pay tribute to the farming charities, which are being called on to intervene even more this year—such as RABI, the Farming Community Network, Upper Teesdale Agricultural Support Services, of which I am a patron, and the chaplain to the auction mart at Thirsk, Yvonne Bowling, whom I meet regularly. She is deeply distressed by the hardship caused to the farmers, particularly financially, and she requests urgent action to address this. The Government have not even brought forward greater climate resistance to the farming system nor ensured that productivity does not compromise their farms. Yvonne Bowling says:
“The health issues for our farmers are still serious with many issues, but as chaplains, we continue God’s work listening and walking alongside farmers in their worries and concerns”.
I am deeply grateful that she and others are showing concern for farmers in this way.
Farmers are in a unique and vulnerable position, and the Government seem totally incapable of understanding the uncertainty that they face. I hope that the noble Lord in winding up today will be respectful and mindful of what they are facing at this time.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a Hampshire farm owner.
The Prime Minister, when speaking to the NFU in 2023, pledged to have
“a new relationship with the countryside and farmers”.
He promised to provide certainty and to work with farmers, insisting that
“food security is national security”.
Also, the Defra Secretary Steve Reed, while in opposition, provided multiple reassurances that Labour had no plans to change agricultural property relief. In this speech I will be refuting several government claims to justify the tax change and how they are underestimating its impact on family farms. For this information, I am drawing on briefings from the CLA and NFU. Can the Minister respond to my refutations?
The first claim is that it will affect only a small number of farms. Several bodies and member organisations in the rural sector have independently concluded that this is inaccurate. The CLA estimates that, in its current form, the cap could affect 70,000 farms in the UK over a generation. Significantly, these farms make up 75% of the utilised agricultural area in the UK. This means that, although the cap may not affect the smallest holdings, it has the potential to be immensely damaging to UK food security.
CLA modelling has also found that, for an average arable farm in England, IHT will start applying at 250 acres for a farming couple and 100 acres for a single farmer. With the average farm at around 215 acres, it cannot be claimed that only the largest farms will be affected. This cap will lead to transformational change in the industry over time. The CLA has already heard of numerous examples of rural businesses stopping investment due to these changes.
The next government claim is that most farms will not be affected until they are worth £3 million. It is true that some farming couples will be allowed assets worth up to £3 million before IHT occurs on their farm. However, the £3 million will be available only if both the couple’s nil-rate bands are not used up, and if resident nil-rate relief is available in both cases. Often it is not.
The position also fails to consider the 46% of farms that are owned by single farmers. CLA modelling shows that a typical 200-acre farm owned by an individual with an expected profit of £27,300 would face an IHT liability of £370,000. If spread over a period of 10 years, this would require the farm to allocate 136% of its profit each year to cover the tax bill. To meet this bill, successors could be compelled to sell 16% of their land. For a 250-acre single farmer, the cost would be 151% of their yearly profit for a decade. The fact that these costs are spread over a decade means little to working farms if they are forced to pay over 100% of their yearly profit for each of those 10 years in order to fund their IHT bill.
The next government claim is that, with good succession planning, most farmers will not have to pay IHT. On several occasions, the Government have hinted at this. This misunderstands farming businesses. A major concern is based around rules on gifts with reservation of benefit. In its current form, to avoid IHT, a farmer will have to pass on their land to a successor seven years prior to their death. However, for this transfer to be valid, the farmer cannot take income from the farm or live in their property without paying a market rent for those seven years and after. This is a major concern, as a significant number of farmers do not hold a pension. A recent assessment from Investec wealth management found that 96% of farmers see their farm as their pension, while 46% expect the farm to provide more than 50% of their retirement income. These farmers will not be in a position to succession plan and avoid IHT. In addition, as acknowledged by independent organisations such as the IFS, this policy is unfair to those who will pass on in the next seven years.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for giving us an opportunity to ask again that Ministers really hear the concerns of farmers through our remarks here today. I found the speeches surprisingly moving, because this topic matters. By the way, I must fangirl the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege: she and her work really matter and she has changed the face of women’s liberation.
It strikes me that Government Ministers seem genuinely to have been taken aback by the despair and fury of thousands of farmers reacting to the Budget’s inheritance tax policy. I thought that, when they saw the backlash, we would find Rachel Reeves and team saying, “Oh, we didn’t mean you. We were targeting”—oh, I do not know—“big agriculture, mega-rich landowners or Jeremy Clarkson types”. But, instead of backing down, Ministers seemed to double down, and, worse, they defensively demonised hard-working farmers and carry on doing so. Those who graft 365 days a year with 5 am starts in all weathers, for often meagre rewards—working people, albeit not public sector employees, so possibly unfamiliar in Westminster bubble circles—are now smeared as tax dodgers who are avoiding paying their dues to society for public services.
I sometimes wonder whether Ministers are getting their insider knowledge of farming from “The Archers”. There has been an interminable political messaging storyline on the virtues of rewilding, which has driven me mad for a while. Yet, in a mere 30-second exchange on this topic recently, David Archer said:
“There’s a lot of anger about this new inheritance tax on farms”,
only for this to be batted away by Leonard, who says:
“But we need those taxes to pay for things like the NHS”.
This is scurrilous propaganda, and actually misinformation.
It is concerning when those who are influential in society seem oblivious to the material reality of working lives. Yesterday, one Labour MP went on the BBC’s “Politics Live” and smirked that it was
“quite hard to find a poor farmer”.
She needs to get out more—she could have even walked out of the Millbank studio and met the drivers of the magnificent 400-plus tractor parade going around Westminster, or she could watch Together’s Alan Miller’s insightful interviews with farmers from all over the country vividly explaining their plight.
As one explained, anyone who says that farmers with assets of over £1 million are rich is someone who does not know that a combine harvester costs over £500,000. One bit of confusion is on what family farms are. Commentators talk as though they are a Downton Abbey-style hereditary dynasty. Instead, I present John Shaw, who farms at Crookdyke. His farm’s history is telling, and a challenge to stereotypes. His father was not a toolmaker, but his great-great-grandfather was a coalminer and his great-grandfather a railway worker. His grandfather left school at 14 and worked as a farm labourer. He was forced to, but he got the bug, so, in 1929, when he married, he took a tenancy of a small farm. Three more tenancies later, he bought the farm that John now owns, which his father worked on from leaving school—as did John and John’s son.
This should be an inspiring story of nearly four generations building up a family farm that supports two families and is at the heart of the local community. However, now that the farm has been valued, John says that after his death, the inheritance tax of £750,000 will be impossible to pay without selling most of the land, with the remaining land being unviable as a farm. It is tragic, wanton and destructive.
So I issue a warning and a plea. We are told in this House that we should look to Europe. Do not stop at the EU when you look to Europe. Look at the European farmers, who have brought down Governments, taken over streets and been involved in a revolt. I want to see our farmers win. I would rather that the Government sat round the table with them before they took to the streets in a destructive way, but they have to resolve this.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, my text for today is “Barley, Not Bulrushes”.
There is nothing more damaging to the fate of a nation than a Government with a huge majority taking massive decisions affecting us all without having the slightest understanding of what they are doing, or perhaps—which is even more frightening—understanding the damage that they are inflicting and being happy if the result is disaster because that suits their long-term ends. In the case of farming, it is this destruction of the independent small to medium-sized family farm, to be swallowed up by huge conglomerate blocs that are much more amenable to government control. Whatever the motive, the result is the same and it simply cannot be allowed to happen.
Our striving to increase food production is as old as time itself, from hunter-gatherers to the sophisticated techniques of today, taking in the great improvements of the 18th and 19th centuries, led famously by, among others, Charles “Turnip” Townsend and Coke of Holkham. The latter would, I feel sure, strongly approve of his descendants’ efforts today.
We have a long and proud history of making every acre capable of food production play its part in feeding the nation. Now, with a population growing at an alarming rate and growing demands not just to feed the people but to improve our lamentable record on self-sufficiency, what are the Government proposing to do? They are proposing to tax thousands of farmers out of existence: the kinds of farmers who not only make maximum use of their acreage but understand and care for our unique and vital countryside and its wildlife in a way that larger units simply cannot do.
Taxing farmers in the way that is proposed is deeply shaming. Labour specifically promised not to do it. Breaking your word on an issue of this kind not only does huge damage to the Government’s reputation, which is really not my concern, but shames every parliamentarian in the eyes of the people. All this to fill an invented and entirely fictional £22 billion black hole, the script for the justification of which every Labour MP has learned by heart and repeats ad nauseam. This is childish and insulting to political opponents and, more importantly, the general public.
The other tragic fiction is the need for net zero and all the dreadful consequences resulting from it. The idea that, to meet some scientifically unsubstantiated target by a rigidly imposed date, we should rewild thousands of acres of fertile farmland and smother vast tracts of land in hideous Chinese-manufactured solar panels, will have all our forebears who dedicated themselves to improving agricultural productivity turning in their graves.
We must support our farmers in this battle, which, for the sake of the nation, they cannot afford to lose. The supermarkets must be made to understand that they cannot go on indefinitely screwing farm prices down. It really is farcical that milk, with all that goes into its production, often costs less than bottled water.
Not so many years ago, the government department responsible for farming was MAFF—the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It served farmers very well in many ways. We changed this—heaven knows why—to Defra, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. There is no mention of farming or fishing. We took our eye off the ball. It is time to get our priorities right and put farming back centre stage where it belongs.
I thank the noble Earl for allowing us the opportunity to set out our thoughts on this vital issue. I urge the Minister, when he responds to the debate, to make it clear to the House and to the country that, when it comes to keeping the nation fed, he understands the difference between barley and bulrushes.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a small landowner and farmer in Northern Ireland. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for bringing this important debate forward. I know a number of noble Lords have tried to bring forward similar debates, and I welcome this opportunity. I am interested in the contribution and assessment of the noble Lord who spoke previously. The noble Earl who brought forward the debate went into some detail, and I welcome the assessment and analysis that he carried out in relation to inheritance tax and the APR.
I have to ask the question: what do this Government want from agriculture and farming? Do they want farmers who have the countryside at heart, who want to do the best for the environment, and who want to produce food of good quality and with good environmental standards? Or do they want those smallholdings to be bought up by big institutions and large landowners, with no interest in farming and agriculture, buying produce from countries that do not have the same standards as we do in the United Kingdom? I ask that simply because that is what this is going to be about. If the Government’s intention is to bring about the better movement of farms and land, which other people will have the opportunity to purchase, they are doing exactly the opposite. Instead, they are going to force small family farms, or parts of them, to be sold and bought up by big institutions or people who have no interest in agriculture or producing food for the nation of the United Kingdom.
I heard it mentioned earlier that Northern Ireland punches above its weight. With a small nation, we feed 10 million people. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, who indicated that. That is true, and a large number of those people are within Great Britain.
We need to wake up; if we bring about and follow through on this policy, we are going to decimate small, family farms. I am old enough to remember pre-1984, when there was inheritance tax on farms. I saw how that decimated small rural farms in Northern Ireland. Things have changed greatly since then. The value of farms and livestock has increased, and the amount of machinery needed has increased, along with its value. Many more farms will fall into the category that is now required to pay inheritance tax. Is that what we want? Do we want to stop those individuals and farming families who have worked hard?
I remind your Lordships’ House that many farmers go out and tend to their livestock every morning, making sure that they have feed and water, before going back home to for their own food and water. That is the dedication these farmers have. Some of them are up in the middle of the night tending to their animals, and are still up to milk their cows or tend to their livestock in the morning. That is the dedication of this community. It is not just a job or an individual business that has been there for a small number of years; it is a way of life, which contributes significantly to this economy and this community. Let it go at your peril.
I challenge the Government once again: what type of farming community, and what type of produce, food and agriculture, do they want for our society? If they want proper food, produced to good environmental and animal welfare standards, they should not go through with this taxation.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Leicester on securing this most topical debate, and on his moving and convincing introductory speech. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for her great speech and great contribution to your Lordships’ House over many years.
Farmers deserve compensation for their protection and stewardship of our beautiful countryside, but the Budget has now removed indiscriminately most of the remaining BPS payments and, at the same time, put in jeopardy the long-term viability of many farms with the restrictions placed on APR and BPR. The Government defend their attack on APR by citing the growing number of rich people seeking to avoid inheritance tax by investing in farmland. That may to some extent be true, but surely a solution must be found that closes that loophole while not punishing long-term farmers, many of whom are of advanced years and have reasonably held expectations that they would be able to pass on their farms to the next generation, free of tax. They have done exactly as they have been asked to do by Governments over the past 50 years—to produce food, manage the environment and comply with tax policy. These people have not invested purely to avoid IHT. They are the backbone of the countryside.
Many farms may well now face a cost of over £1 million on death—a bill equivalent to 20 to 30 years of income, or one generation’s worth of income from the land. Farming will rapidly become unviable in this country if we punish farmers in this way. Can the Minister say whether this is really what the Government intended and if he thinks that it is fair?
I understand that the Government want to close the loophole, so should they not restrict APR to exclude mere investors and instead back tenant farmers, allowing both landlord and tenant to invest in the countryside, while the retention of BPR could provide support to genuine farming businesses, suitably qualified, to close any loopholes? Did not the working farmers’ relief scheme, introduced by the then Labour Government in 1976, provide the right solution and form of words?
Farmers should have to qualify for IHT relief. The current qualification for BPR is for at least half the business to be farming. Perhaps the 50% hurdle could be increased a little. Genuine farmers would still get the relief, while those just investing would not qualify.
The new SFI is working, so why, in its first few years, change the underlying rules relating to owning farm assets? Without adjustment, the Government’s proposal to tax farms will mean that holdings which have been built up over many generations will be split up and sold.
The Government should revise their plans. Instead, they should first end holdover relief on premium land sales. That is more palatable and would bring intermediate revenue. Secondly, the Budget measures may, perversely, encourage wealthy individuals to purchase a small farm to avoid IHT, so why not revise the qualification rules to close the loophole? Thirdly, the Government should continue to improve the targeting of subsidies to help farmers most in need, as opposed to the blunt instrument of IHT. Fourthly, they should provide a fair timeframe for those elderly farmers who may not now expect to live seven years from handover.
Finally, let us look at how the Government and farmers can work together to encourage British companies to invest in farming and the environment, ultimately satisfying ESG and carbon-reduction requirements. I trust the Minister will agree that it is enormously important to avoid an outcome where small farms and parcels of land have to be sold in order to pay tax bills. I look forward to hearing other contributions and the Minister’s winding-up speech.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, on securing this debate at such an appropriate time, with so many farmers feeling the need to demonstrate outside this House yesterday and a few weeks ago. The small farmers and family farmers of this country are feeling betrayed, unwanted and targeted. I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, on his moving speech describing the farming community.
The recent Budget has sent shockwaves through the industry as lifelong plans for farming business have been turned upside down. The next three years see three added burdens. The unexpected announcement of the delinking of basic payment scheme payments was disappointing, as it was a direct subsidy to farmers. A family farm that received £19,000 this year would have expected £14,000 next year, but now that has been capped at £7,200.
In 2026 we will see the introduction of the of the APR and BPR capping. While the change is understandable to close an IHT loophole for large individual investor landowners, the new limit of £1 million is far too low and adds large IHT bills to many productive family farms.
I repeat the comment by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that in 2027 another increase to the cost base of farms will be the interest reduction of the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism—or, as it is known to farmers, the fertiliser tax—which is anticipated to add £50 per tonne to nitrogen fertiliser, and a typical 400 acre or 500 acre farm uses about 60 tonnes a year.
There has been much debate on the figure that the Treasury has used for the number of farmers who will be affected. The Central Association of Agricultural Valuers has stated that 73 farmers was a perfectly accurate figure but was entirely uninformative. A farm is made up of not just agricultural land but machinery, livestock, deadstock, corn in the store and many other assets. Has the Treasury looked into the number of farming estates in the past few years that have claimed BPR as well as APR? That would be much more reflective of the working farms to be affected.
The CAAV issued a discussion paper in November, a detailed document taking into account the many different factors regarding the farming business. It acknowledges that it has made certain assumptions, but its conclusion was that the measure would affect 60,000 producing farms over the next 30 years, which is a generational change period. On average, that is 2,000 farms per year, which is 1,500 more than the Treasury thinks. That is why the farming community is fearful of this change.
I will not report the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, from the CLA, but they make stark reading for the rural community. For those farming business owners who can plan for the future, there is definitely mitigating action to be taken, which is welcome, but the risk from April 2026 is that, for those farms that have planned on the basis of APR relief and are relying on their farms to provide for their retirement, there is no time to change so they will suffer greatly. I again ask the Minister, as I did in the Budget debate: please could the Treasury do an impact assessment of these changes and engage with professional bodies within the agricultural sector, such as the CAAV and special agricultural accountancy firms, to provide a broader depth of the figures to the sector? I would also support the suggestion made in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, as a possible solution.
The farming industry welcomes the additional funding announcements this week, but accessing environmental support is complex, not easy, as other Peers have stated. Farmers want a decent price for the products they produce so they can make a living that is above the minimum wage and can have spare funds to invest in their long-term future.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Leicester for bringing forward this important debate. I declare my farming interests, as set out in the register.
The lack of any engagement or consultation with those impacted by the Chancellor’s APR and BPR Budget announcement leads to the conclusion that the Treasury either does not value the opinion of those it has impacted, or that it understood the impact and simply does not care. I am not sure which is worse.
I sense that the Minister is on unfamiliar ground when dealing with the detail of family farms and farming matters generally. I notice that, with one single exception, he is not overwhelmingly supported by his Back-Benchers today. So I hope that today’s debate will help the Minister to understand why farmers and small family businesses the length and breadth of the country are so angry. They are angry because they feel that they have been lied to and deceived by this Labour Government.
The Prime Minister said that he understood farming and promised not to interfere with APR and BPR—and yet he has. The Chancellor said that Labour’s new tax will impact only very few, but this is not true. Both the NFU’s and Defra’s own statistics contradict the Treasury estimates, and I suspect that they have a much better understanding of this matter.
The Secretary of State for Defra has insulted farmers by saying, “Look at the small print; you’ll all be fine”. Well, they have, and it is not fine. There are numerous reasons why removing APR and BPR constitutes a disaster for farming and the business community. Many of these reasons have been articulated in the press by the NFU, the farming community and small businesses across the country, and by noble Lords in this debate.
Clearly, the Government have misunderstood both the scale and impact of reducing APR and BPR and, most importantly, the consequences of this disastrous new tax for working farmers and small businesses. By taxing farmers and small businesses so that they are unable to pass on their farms or businesses to future generations of their family, this Government are striking at the very heart of our rural communities.
Not only will it rapidly accelerate the disintegration of family farms and businesses and the subsequent speeding up of the corporate ownership of our countryside; it puts at risk the very fragile web that holds our rural communities together. The obvious and most widely understood casualties will be reduced measures to mitigate climate change and biodiversity loss, the loss of public access to the countryside and, critically, reduced UK food security. These are really important points—in addition to the numerous small businesses that will simply close or reduce in scale and profitability.
There are other more subtle but equally disruptive outcomes: the unravelling of rural schools; village shops closing; fewer farmers’ markets and less local produce; fewer varieties of heritage crops and livestock; and the loss of key skills such as drystone walling, fencing and hedge laying. Crucially, as has been mentioned many times in this debate, it will impact farmers’ mental health and well-being, which has been a growing area of concern for some time.
If the Minister now understands why these changes have caused so much anguish to so many farmers, can he tell us why there was no consultation in advance of their being announced and explain what additional support the Government can offer to those who are struggling to make sense of them?
Finally, can the Minister give us a proper explanation for this devastating attack on working farmers and small businesses, and not regurgitate the rather tired £22 billion black hole excuse or parrot that there are a few rich people who were getting away with it? Punishing a critical sector of our society and disabling our rural economy deserves a more thorough explanation than this soundbite.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Douglas-Miller. I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, on securing this important debate and on his knowledgeable and thorough introduction. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on her valedictory speech. She will be greatly missed in this Chamber.
Ministers have given reassurances that small farms will be unaffected. Sadly, there is something of a misunderstanding of just what constitutes a small farm. The cost of land has a distorting influence. A small farm of 100 acres could be valued at £1 million but, as your Lordships and farmers will know, you cannot make a living out of 100 acres. The minimum size for a farm to be able to support the farmer is about 240 acres, and even then it would be a struggle. Farmers at the lower end of the size range are capital rich but income poor.
While the legislation was intended to target the rich, who may not be farmers and have used farmland as a tax dodge, the new tax legislation will have a far greater impact. The new threshold for inheritance tax includes both APR and BPR, combining the value of land, machinery, buildings and other assets. Many family farms, even modest operations, could exceed the £1 million threshold in assets, leaving up to 66% of farms facing higher tax bills.
Those following nature-friendly farming principles have found this a bitter pill to swallow when they have faced so many pressures in recent years, including seeing their profits dwindle as suppliers and retailers extract value from the food system. While supermarkets continue to post profits year after year, farmers can be left with less than 1% profit from the food they produce. The Government are allowing farmers 10 years to pay their IHT on an interest-free loan. Banks will not lend for investment while there is a loan against the farm. In many cases, the yearly IHT payment will be more than the income generated from the farm. This will lead to selling off the land. The APR changes will have a significant disruptive effect in the land market. These disruptive effects will affect even tenants, who are not directly affected by the APR.
As the noble Earl, Lord Devon, has said, this is not the only pressure facing farmers and their cash flow. There are the NI changes, the speeding up of the BPS transition, border adjustment taxes on fertiliser, tax changes on pick-ups et cetera. All this is having an effect on the morale of farmers. We have heard little about the impact of these pressures, as it is all being lost in the noise around APR. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich referred to the mental state of farmers.
Unfortunately, in some cases APR has been used by wealthy landowners to avoid inheritance tax. This is the driver for the Government announcing their plans to reform APR. Their view is that it is not fair for a small number of claimants each year to claim such a significant amount of relief, when this money could be better used to fund public services. That may be a reasonable argument for large farmers and landowners, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, but why penalise the small family farm? Food production and biodiversity schemes could suffer as a result. The NFU view, which I share, is that the Government do not understand that family farms are not only small farms. Just because a farm is a valuable asset, it does not mean that those who work it are wealthy. Every penny the Chancellor saves from this introduction will come directly from the next generation having to break up their family farm.
An Institute for Fiscal Studies analysis has said that the policy could be tweaked. For example, farmers passing away in the next seven years will not have had the opportunity to avoid inheritance tax by making lifetime gifts. The policy could therefore be brought in more slowly, or gifts of agricultural property made before a certain future date could be inheritance tax free, regardless of the timing of the death. Other noble Lords have raised this issue.
The Government might also consider raising the threshold for the introduction of APR from £1 million to £3 million—the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, gave a higher figure. My colleague in the other place, Alistair Carmichael—and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester —said:
“Agricultural property relief is not a loophole; it has been a deliberate policy of successive Governments for the past 40 years, designed to avoid the sale and break-up of family farms … These changes will have a ripple effect across the whole rural community”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/11/24; col. 24.]
The current price paid to farmers for food is at rock bottom. Some supermarkets squeeze producers beyond what is feasible. The price paid by consumers bears little relationship to the cost to the farmer of growing the crop or rearing the stock. Despite what the Government might think, very few small farmers own tractors of the size and scale that television viewers see on Jeremy Clarkson’s programme. The media concentration on this television programme has led to a total misrepresentation of the role of the small family farmer.
In addition, the CLA rejects the Government’s claim that this move will not affect family farms. Its modelling highlights how a couple who own an average 350-acre English arable farm would have to spend 99% of their yearly profit over a decade to afford their inheritance tax bill. More starkly, a single farmer with 200 acres would have to pay 136% of their yearly profit to cover the bill.
Outside APR, the plight of farmers is also hit by the unexpected cut to delinked BPS payments. The current payments should have been 15% to 20%, which was 76% of the first basic payment, but that is now down to £7,000. The previous predicted basic payment this year would have paid the rent of a tenant farmer, but it will not do so now. The CLA believes that the announced cap would affect 70,000 farms, which is 75% of utilised agricultural area in the UK. This will be damaging to food security—the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, referred to this.
As we approach Christmas, spare a thought for the farmer who gets up in the dark to feed and tend their stock, all while children are opening their stockings. It is right that the wealthy farmers and landowners should pay inheritance tax, but the effect on the smaller family farm has been misjudged. I ask the Minister and his Treasury colleagues to think again.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests in the register as the owner of a dairy farming business, commercially managed forestry and let agricultural property, and as a shareholder in Agricarbon and John Deere. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Leicester for securing this vital debate on these highly unpopular Budget proposals. It allows the Government to reflect on whether they are wise or appropriate.
I very much enjoyed my noble friend Lady Cumberlege’s valedictory speech, bringing an end to a remarkable 34 years in this House. It is clear that the House has been lucky to have my noble friend as a Member and is very grateful for her dedication to healthcare, and women’s healthcare in particular.
It is widely reported and understood that this was a business-unfriendly Budget, with the rise in employers’ national insurance contributions the biggest hit to business. However, I want to spend my time in this debate addressing inheritance tax reliefs. This was a disastrous Budget for family businesses. The reduction in APR and BPR inheritance tax relief to 50% of the value of estates in excess of £1 million will destroy existing long-term plans for those businesses. According to Oxford Economics, family businesses employ 14 million people; they are already responsible for £225 billion per annum in tax, according to PwC. Given that most of our largest businesses began as family-owned companies, I ask the Minister how this tax can be anything but negative for our economic growth outlook.
Beyond that, this tax is cruel as it falls unexpectedly on those who are now nearing the end of their lives and have no ability to mitigate or plan around it. It also falls on those who die young through accident or illness. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, have already mentioned, what do the Government expect the most elderly and infirm to consider to avoid the inheritance tax burden on the next generation as the tax deadline nears?
In a Written Answer to my question on whether the Government planned
“to keep monthly data on farmer, landowner and family business owner suicides”,
the Government answered that
“the ONS is committed to continuing its quarterly publication of suicide statistics and analysing suicide deaths by occupation using annual data … a more regular presentation of suicide deaths by occupation is not planned”.
Given that the Government have just created an incentive for such individual tragedies, I think this House might feel that they should at least measure its outcome. I ask the Minister to commit that the Government will gather and publish monthly statistics on suicide rates by those potentially impacted by these taxes in the run-up to their introduction on 6 April 2026.
Members of His Majesty’s Government have suggested that this can be avoided by passing assets to the younger generation more than seven years before dying, relying on the potentially exempt transaction rule. Who in this House knows when they are going to die? Should this tax be paid only by the children of those farmers or business owners who have suffered a fatal accident or succumbed to a sudden illness?
The Government have claimed that only 500 farms will be affected in 2026-27—equivalent still to over 10,000 farms in total with this guillotine hanging over them. However, the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers calculates that 75,000 farms will be impacted and the NFU, 75% of commercial farms. I listened with interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, citing 50% of Northern Irish farms also being caught.
The Government have failed to take into account the 14,000 tenant farms, many of which have over £1 million of business property, or the vast number of farms that are in companies or partnerships, which also qualify for BPR only. Can the Minister explain whether this is indeed the case and makes the claim of 500 farms incorrect? It would appear in recent answers to my Written Questions that this claim has been modified to 520 estates claiming APR that will be affected. Could it be that the real answer is that many times as many as this number of farms will be affected, as every organisation well informed on this sector claims?
On tenant farmers, I would add that the loss of 50% APR will incentivise private landlords to dispose of their land rather than let it out. Rental yields are typically less than 2% before tax, making the payment of IHT completely unaffordable. Surely it is not the wish of the Government to restrict the opportunities for those wishing to rent farmland. Around two-thirds of working farmers rent some or all of their farm’s land, according to the NFU.
While family businesses outside farming may be better placed through lower capital intensity to pay this death tax, many, if not most, will be structured as companies, with the tax paid from dividends. The cost on those companies being transferred from one generation to the next will incur a full inheritance tax rate of around 50%, as tax on dividends will also be levied prior to HMRC getting its money.
As my noble friend Lord Leicester also mentioned, family businesses compete against foreign-owned, publicly owned and institutionally owned companies that will not face this death tax. For family-owned companies, investment in new products and services, in more efficient equipment and in expansion becomes crippled by this new cost of doing business that is not borne by their competitors. Markets are fiercely competitive and small cost or technology advantages can mean the difference between thriving and dying. In a post-Budget survey, CBI Economics found that 56% of family businesses planned to reduce investment and 32% to reduce employment. That does not bode well for the competitiveness of family companies.
The figures, explained so well by my noble friend Lord Leicester, show that family farms have no prospect of paying this death tax out of income, which in turn means either taking on debt or selling off assets. Both further cripple those farms by either high annual interest and capital repayments or reduction in scale. On the payment data that my noble friend gave as an example, it is likely that family farms will not have paid off the debt for one inheritance tax bill before another one comes along. This is why 13,000 farmers protested in Whitehall recently and why we saw more than 600 tractors driven in Parliament Square yesterday. This is an attack on a way of life and farmers are in despair.
In answer to an Oral Question on 2 December, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, said that
“the APR changes are not designed to undermine small family farms and I know that both Defra and the Treasury have been meeting with stakeholders to discuss this matter further”.—[Official Report, 2/12/24; col. 912.]
Does this mean that the Government are still consulting on these Budget proposals?
I hope that this debate has explained to the Minister that the reduction of IHT reliefs for agricultural and business assets could lead to a loss of £9.4 billion of economic output, a loss of 125,000 jobs and a net cost to the Treasury of £1.3 billion between 2026-27 and 2029-30, all according to CBI Economics, while bringing misery to many, as it will largely be a tax on unexpected tragedy, if business owners follow the Government’s tax advice. Noble Lords have highlighted so many other negative impacts—on rural communities, land stewardship, food security and nature restoration. That leaves the only remaining justification for this policy to be ideology, or perhaps a mistake. I hope that the Government are big enough to concede that this was a mistake that they will reverse or heavily revise. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for securing today’s debate and congratulate him on his opening speech. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, following her valedictory speech. Throughout her many years in this House the noble Baroness has been an important and influential voice, on the issue of healthcare in particular. I wish her well for the future.
I have listened closely to the words of all noble Lords throughout this debate, and I of course acknowledge the strength of feeling expressed today. I pay tribute to the huge contribution that our farmers make, not only to our economy and to our food security but to our way of life. The Government are deeply committed to supporting them and our rural communities. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich observed, I know that many in the sector are anxious about what the changes announced in the Budget mean for them. In the time I have available, I shall set out some facts and seek to provide some reassurance about the impact of the measures we are introducing.
Let me first, though, remind your Lordships’ House about the economic context in which the Budget decisions were taken. As noble Lords will know, the Government faced an incredibly challenging fiscal position, with a need to both repair the public finances and rebuild our public services. We believe that economic stability is the foundation of economic growth and that stability in the public finances is a core part of that, so ignoring or postponing difficult decisions was simply not an option.
Many noble Lords have spoken in today’s debate about the fragile state of the rural economy, and they are of course right. Problems including poor public transport, a lack of affordable housing and poor digital connectivity have plagued rural communities for years. That is why fixing the foundations of our economy for the long term is so important, so we can invest in the public services and the infrastructure that will benefit the whole of our country.
Among the many difficult decisions that we had to take in the Budget, much of this debate has focused on the reforms that we are making to agricultural property relief and business property relief. I recognise that inheritance tax is an emotive issue. It is an understandable and natural desire for people to want to pass on the assets they worked hard for to the people they love when they die, and the Government recognise the role that these reliefs play in supporting farms and small businesses. Importantly, they will continue to play that role, but the reality is that the full, unlimited exemption, introduced in 1992, has become unsustainable.
The main issue is one of fairness. Under the current system, the 100% relief on business and agricultural assets is heavily skewed towards the wealthiest landowners and business owners. According to the latest data from HMRC, 40% of agricultural property relief is claimed by just 7% of estates making claims. That is just 117 estates claiming £219 million of relief.
It is a similar picture for business property relief. More than 50% of business property relief is claimed by just 4% of estates making claims, which equates to 158 estates claiming £558 million in tax relief. It is neither fair nor sustainable to maintain such a large tax break for such a small number of claimants, given the wider pressures on the public finances.
A secondary issue relates to the purchase of farmland. The reality today is that buying agricultural land is now one of the most well-known ways to shield wealth from inheritance tax. This has artificially inflated the price of farmland, locking younger farmers out of the market. Clearly, this was not the objective of this 100% relief when it was first introduced in 1992.
For the reasons that I have set out, the Government are changing how we target agricultural property relief and business property relief from April 2026. We are doing so in a way that maintains significant tax relief for estates, including farms and businesses, while supporting the public finances in a fair way.
Many different numbers were used in today’s debate, so let me set out some of the facts. Under the new system, individuals will still benefit from 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets. Above this amount, there will be 50% relief. That means that inheritance tax will be paid at a reduced effective rate of up to 20%, rather than the standard 40%.
Up to 520 estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those that also claim business property relief, are expected to be affected as a result of these changes in 2026-27. Therefore, nearly three-quarters of estates making claims in that period will not pay any more tax as a result of this change in the year it is introduced. Similarly, around three-quarters of estates claiming business property relief alone in 2026-27 will not pay any more inheritance tax either.
Indeed, all estates making claims for these reliefs will continue to receive generous support, at a cost of £1.1 billion to the Exchequer in the first year. The reliefs also sit on top of all the other spousal exemption and nil-rate bands. Therefore, a couple with agricultural or business assets will typically be able to pass on up to £3 million-worth of assets without paying any inheritance tax.
The noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, spoke about the longer-term projections for this tax change. However, forecasts for the impact of these changes over a long period are unreliable, as estates will make changes to the way they plan their tax affairs in order to reduce their liabilities. For example, they may change ownership structures or plan for their succession differently.
After these reforms are implemented, the system will remain more generous than it was before 1992, when inheritance tax was applied at a maximum rate of 50%, including on the first £1 million. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said, our reforms will leave farmland
“much more lightly taxed than most other assets”.
Importantly, however, people can also access existing features of the inheritance tax system. Full exemptions for transfers between spouses and civil partners will continue to apply, meaning that any agricultural and business assets left to a spouse or civil partner will be completely tax free.
Any inheritance tax liability on relevant assets can be paid in 10 annual instalments in most circumstances and will be interest free. These payment terms are more generous than in any other part of the tax system. If owners pass on their businesses seven or more years before their death, no inheritance tax will be due. Taper relief will also apply within that time. The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, asked about taking an income in these circumstances; there are several ways in which this would still be possible.
The changes will not be introduced until April 2026, giving farmers time to plan and assess their liabilities. As the changes are implemented, we expect estates to reduce their tax liabilities. For example, individuals may change ownership structures or plan for their succession differently. The costings by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility take full account of this and assume that it will occur.
At this point, I would like to directly address some of the misinformation that has surrounded this issue. Much of this has focused on the data used to determine how many estates will be affected, mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Shephard of Northwold and Lady Foster, and the noble Lords, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, Lord Bilimoria, Lord Rogan, Lord Northbrook, Lord de Clifford and Lord Douglas-Miller. I encourage all noble Lords who have not yet seen it to review the letter that the Chancellor sent to the Treasury Select Committee in the other place setting out the facts in this regard, copies of which are available in the Library.
It is important that we avoid causing unnecessary concern to farmers and farming communities. The data the Government use is based on HMRC’s inheritance tax claims data—that is to say, the actual claims made by estates for agricultural and business property relief. This is the most robust data there is and is endorsed by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility.
Some noble Lords have referred to data published regularly by Defra, data from the Northern Ireland Executive and from other organisations and have used this to claim that the number of estates affected will actually be far higher. However, this data relates to the total value of farms across the country. It is impossible to accurately calculate inheritance tax liability from this data because owning assets over the exemption threshold does not necessarily mean you will pay inheritance tax on those assets. This is because such data does not account for key factors such as who owns the farm or the nature of that ownership, how many people own the farm and how they plan their affairs. It also assumes no succession planning over the coming years.
The noble Lords, Lord Taylor of Holbeach and Lord de Clifford, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked about assessments made of this tax change. The Government set out their modelling at the Budget and more recently the Chancellor provided further details to the Treasury Select Committee, including in her follow-up letter. As is standard practice, we will publish a tax information and impact note in the usual way alongside the draft legislation next year.
My noble friend Lady Mallalieu and the noble Lord, Lord Douglas-Miller, asked what steps the Government have taken to consult on these measures. Alongside routine engagement, the Government received Budget representations from the National Farmers’ Union, the Country Land and Business Association and the Tenant Farmers Association which covered this specific issue. We will continue to work closely with key stakeholders in the industry as we implement this change.
My noble friend Lady Mallalieu, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, the noble Baronesses, Lady Foster and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Douglas-Miller, also raised concerns around mental health among farmers and in rural communities. Mental health is of course an issue that the Government take extremely seriously, which is why we are working to improve mental health services across the country, including through plans to recruit an additional 8,500 mental health workers. Defra also works through its farming and countryside programme with a range of farming charities, including the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution and the Yellow Wellies charity, which have highlighted mental health challenges for farming communities.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, asked if the Government will consider dispensation for farmers above a certain age. The Government remain committed to the changes as set out in the Budget, but clearly individual circumstances will vary. Therefore, any individual who is concerned about their specific tax liability should consult an accountant or financial adviser.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, the noble Lords, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, Lord Londesborough and Lord de Clifford, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, asked about the level of the threshold. The Government’s position remains that our approach gets the balance right between supporting farms and fixing the public finances in a fair way.
Many noble Lords raised the issue of wider support to farmers and rural communities. The changes we are introducing should of course be seen in this wider context. The Budget committed £5 billion to farming over the next two years, including being the biggest Budget for sustainable food production in our history. It also committed £60 million to help farmers affected by the unprecedented wet weather last winter, and we are protecting farms and rural businesses by committing £2.4 billion over the next two years to rebuild crumbling flood defences.
We will also continue to provide existing support for the farming industry in the wider tax system. This includes, for example, the exemption from business rates for agricultural land and buildings, and the ongoing entitlement for vehicles and machinery used in agriculture to use rebated diesel and biofuels.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Lady Cumberlege and Lady Foster, and the noble Lords, Lord Rogan, Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Taylor of Holbeach, spoke about food security. That is an issue we approach with the utmost seriousness. It is why we have committed £5 billion to the farming sector over this year and next to support long-term food security. As the United Kingdom Food Security Report 2024 published yesterday showed, our food security has been resilient in the face of a number of shocks over the last three years.
The Government recognise that a small minority of estates will be affected by these changes, but reform of these reliefs is necessary given the fiscal challenge that confronts us. We must put our economy back on to a stable footing and repair our broken public services. That includes the schools, hospitals and roads which communities across the country, including those in rural areas, rely on every day. We have taken this decision in a way which makes the tax system fairer and more sustainable, and it is set against the backdrop of significant new investment for farming as well as support for small businesses. Again, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today, and in particular the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for securing this debate.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, first I must apologise for not mentioning earlier my interests as laid out in the register. They include land ownership in Norfolk, let land, my own farming interests and managing arguably the most important national nature reserve in the land at Holkham.
This has been an excellent debate, with many excellent points made by noble Lords from all sides. I thank all Peers who have contributed. I started writing down everybody’s name, but it was pointless because everybody’s contribution has been incredibly meaningful, emotional and well researched. There were certain noble Lords who could not participate today, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lord Fuller, and those who were scratched. Other noble Lords were unable to speak on such a controversial topic by virtue of the committees they chair. It is only controversial because this Government made it so by producing such a venal Budget.
I thank noble Lords from the Conservatives, Lib Dems, Cross Benches and the Bishops for taking such an interest in this Bill. It must be very embarrassing that the Government had only one Member of their Back Benches speaking on it, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu—and she was speaking on our side of the argument. It is a great shame, and just demonstrates that this Government do not really seem to care about this issue. I feel sorry for the Minister having to read out that brief, parrot-fashion. He should credit Members of this House with some intelligence; we all spoke in this debate because we know something about it.
Unfortunately, this tin-eared Government have yet again demonstrated their lack of understanding of wealth creation other than through what is arguably their only understanding of it: the short-term and inevitably short-lived medium of taxation. With not a single Cabinet Minister having any real-world business experience of wealth creation, how could they? Before the general election, without exception, every single candidate for their top-100 target seats came from the public sector. Together, they have trumpeted the same old socialist mantra of misconceived wealth redistribution. With this Budget, they have completely missed their target.
The Minister was wise enough not to mention the £22 billion black hole. How we in this House are getting bored with it, as are the public. Last week, I discussed this very matter with the right honourable Jeremy Hunt. He, and we on these Benches, have rubbished that figure, and the OBR has stepped back from it. I hate to have to inform the Minister, but frankly the voters no longer believe it either. As the oldest democracy in the world, we are lucky enough to have a very sophisticated electorate. They can clearly see that the so-called black hole was entirely of Labour’s own making. They created it when they gave their chums in the unions—the train drivers and the junior doctors—huge pay rises without negotiating any change in their terms and conditions.
This Budget was sadly put together with no impact assessment, no consultation with Defra, no idea of how much revenue it would generate, and certainly no consideration whatever for the damage, and in many cases the destruction, it will cause to hundreds, maybe thousands, of small family farms and businesses.
We always hear this Government and their acolytes decrying the far right for rioting and for questioning or criticising the perceived wisdom of the intellectual elite and its progressive policies—and now, increasingly, for thought crime. Let us see it as it is: this is not a Labour Government; this is a far-left Government. History records that the far left has been far crueller and always does far more damage to its subjects, particularly its agrarian population, in its vainglorious pursuit of misplaced ideology. It is straight out of the World Economic Forum’s playbook: “In the future, you will own nothing and be happy”.
Syria
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for producing the Statement for this House.
The previous Conservative Government had called for Assad to go over 10 years ago. There are moments in history when moral clarity is essential and, in refusing to re-engage with a dictator who has brought untold suffering to his own people, this Government made the right choice. We believe that Britain must stand firm against tyranny and in support of freedom, democracy, and the dignity and rights of the individual. The fall of Assad is a moment of profound change, not just for Syria but for the whole region. The announcement of additional funding for humanitarian aid, including support for the White Helmets, underscores this Government’s commitment to the Syrian people, and I welcome it.
I will follow up on a couple of questions that were asked by my right honourable friend the shadow Foreign Secretary in the other place. First, as we have seen, Assad has fled to Russia and claimed asylum. Can the Minister confirm that no asylum claims will be accepted in this country from former members of the Assad regime, many of whom will be associated with human rights abuses?
Secondly, there are concerns about the status of minority faith and ethnic groups under the new regime. Syria is a rich tapestry of faith groups and ethnic groups, and we must ensure that Druze, Alawites, Christians, Kurds and other minority groups must be protected. The Minister’s ministerial colleague the Member of Parliament for Lincoln had conversations with civil society representatives yesterday. Can the Minister update us on which parties these talks were with? Can he also tell the House what assurances the Government are making to these minority groups?
Finally, I am sure that many Syrians will be delighted to return to their country, now that Assad is no longer in charge. On the issue of Syrian resettlement, the Foreign Secretary said that the issue was “premature”. Can the Minister expand on what his right honourable friend meant by that?
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, I welcome the Minister coming to this House to repeat the Statement on Syria. In the past two weeks the changes in Syria have been momentous, and even in the three days since the Statement was given in the other place a lot has happened. As my honourable friend Calum Miller said in the other place, the fall of the Assad regime is momentous for millions of Syrians who have suffered under his brutal rule. The al-Assad dynasty was a family of despots who used chemical weapons against their own people, so its fall is clearly welcome, but there is now potentially a period of great uncertainty and there are a lot of questions for Syria, for the Middle East as a region and for British foreign policy.
As the noble Earl pointed out, the previous Government and His Majesty’s current Government have not had diplomatic relations with Damascus for some time. What are His Majesty’s Government now thinking about beginning to at least have some conversations with Damascus, if not diplomatic relations? We are in a period of flux where it is entirely appropriate for the people of Syria to determine their own future, but there will be consequences for British foreign policy, as the Foreign Secretary said in his Statement, both for the situation in the Middle East and the potential flow of people out of Syria. Are there proposals for some behind-the-scenes conversations with people on the ground in Syria?
Also, what conversations are His Majesty’s Government having with our partners in Turkey, or Türkiye? Because clearly there is significant involvement of the Government of Türkiye in Syria with their concern about the Kurds. That raises a lot of questions about relations between Syria and the wider region that it would be important to understand. There are clearly short-term concerns about instability and minority rights, which we obviously need to stand behind, because although the groups that have toppled the Assad regime have so far said that they are going to look after the minorities, do His Majesty’s Government think that is the case and what support are they hoping to give to minorities in Syria?
There is also an immediate question about aid. Clearly, the £11 million that has just been given to Syria, announced by the Foreign Secretary on Monday, is welcome, but the Foreign Secretary said in his Statement that there are 17 million Syrians in humanitarian need. The quantum that has been given is £11 million; that is about 67 pence per person in need. It does not sound the most generous of offers. Given that we have seen cuts to ODA over recent years, could the Minister tell the House whether there is the opportunity for further funding to go to Syria? At the moment the aid seems to be de minimis.
In the medium to longer term the people of Syria will clearly want justice and it is vital that Assad and his closest allies face justice but, having claimed asylum in Russia, it is quite difficult to see how that can be brought about. Have His Majesty’s Government thought about ways in which those who have perpetrated the worst atrocities in Syria might be brought to justice? What support are His Majesty’s Government planning to offer to assist Syrians in rebuilding and revitalising their own institutions, ideally helping them pave the way to democracy? As I said earlier, this must obviously be done according to their own preferences, because what we clearly should not be doing at this time is saying that we have a blueprint for what people in Syria should be doing. It needs to be led by the Syrians but, as supporters of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, presumably His Majesty’s Government wish to support those in Syria who want to rebuild relations in an appropriate way.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
I thank both noble Lords for their questions.
I start by making the following correction to my intervention to this House last week, during questions on a Statement on Syria. In response to questions from the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, I stated:
“We gave an additional £4 million to the United Nations in October”.—[Official Report, 3/12/24; col. 1108.]
I would like to correct the record to reflect that we gave an additional £3 million funding on 23 October to humanitarian partners providing life-saving emergency assistance and healthcare to the most vulnerable people fleeing from the Lebanon conflict into Syria and the communities that host them. Of the £3 million in funding, £2 million had been allocated to the UN OCHA-led Syria Humanitarian Fund, with £500,000 given to both the International Medical Corps UK and the UNFPA.
I also point out that, as both noble Lords said, these events in Syria are extraordinary. We are monitoring them very closely and are co-ordinating with our international partners and our many Syrian contacts. We reiterate the importance of protecting civilians, including minorities, as the noble Baroness said, and of moving quickly to an inclusive political transition. As the UN Secretary-General said:
“The future of Syria is a matter for Syrians to determine”.
Assad, with support from Russia and Iran, has committed brutal atrocities against his own people for the last 13 years. As the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, said, both the Opposition and the Government made it very clear that we would not tolerate that. The Syrian people suffered too long under his cruel tyranny, and they deserve a brighter future.
We have been at the forefront of the response to this fast-moving situation, speaking regularly to regional and other partners about the situation. As the Foreign Secretary said, he has spoken to the UN Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for Syria and a number of regional counterparts, and my honourable friend Hamish Falconer, the Minister for the Middle East, has also discussed developments in Syria with regional partners and Syrian civil society actors. I am unable to give specific details about that because obviously these circumstances are changing quickly, but the UK special representative for Syria continues to engage with regional partners, including Turkey, which is a vital component to ensuring that we have a fair transition to democracy.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, that the vast majority of Syrians were fleeing the Assad regime. We do not know what will replace it at the moment, so there is no way of judging an asylum claim and whether it is safe for someone to return. We will keep all country guidance relating to asylum claims under constant review so that we can respond to emerging issues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is absolutely right: we have seen how, with Russia’s military support, the Assad regime was able to continue its brutal campaign against the Syrian people for 13 years, and that included horrendous crimes. It comes as no surprise that Putin, himself indicted by the ICC for suspected war crimes, has elected to give sanctuary to Assad. The UK has long condemned Iran’s reckless and destabilising activity, which puts at risk the security and prosperity of the region.
In terms of accountability and justice, UK-funded partners have played a pivotal role in developing a credible evidence base to record atrocities committed in Syria. We continue to provide extensive support to our UK ISF partners and have committed a total of £1.15 million ODA towards accountability and documentation-related programmes in the financial year 2024-25. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that people are held to account for their crimes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also asked about the humanitarian response. On 9 December, the Prime Minister announced an additional £11 million of humanitarian aid for the Syrian people. That is an additional amount. This has helped the UN and NGOs meet the needs of the most vulnerable across the country, including the more than 1 million people estimated to have been displaced by recent events. Of course, on 6 December, we announced an additional £300,000 in funding to the White Helmets, to which she referred, to facilitate humanitarian access, allow the expansion of its existing ambulance system and enable the safe removal of unexploded weapons.
We call on all parties to support humanitarian access, including for humanitarian workers, in all regions of Syria, and we are working closely with humanitarian and other partners to get a fuller picture of the situation, assess the impacts and needs, and determine how best to respond. We are constantly monitoring the situation.
I hope that I have covered most of the points that noble Lords have asked about, but of course we have opportunities for Back-Bench questions.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister a little more about how this £11 million in extra aid will be spent? He mentioned the use of the UN and other NGOs, but I wonder whether there have been any preliminary contacts with HTS and, if not, when these might take place, to discuss how aid should be distributed but also to try to establish a little more about its intentions and assess whether they are entirely benign, which I hope they will be.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Well, the situation is fast moving, and we are keeping it under constant review. HTS is a proscribed organisation in the United Kingdom, having been added as an alias of al-Qaeda in 2017. I say very clearly that we will judge HTS by its actions and continue to monitor closely how it and other parties to this conflict treat all civilians in areas that it controls. The Government do not routinely comment on whether a group is being considered for proscription or deproscription, but I stress that we are keeping the matter under constant review and will be making judgments based on actions, not just on the original position.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, although Governments might learn a lot about not establishing red lines in other countries where we then breach them, which we have done with Putin and, particularly, in Syria with chemical weapons, it is clearly too early to know how Russia will respond to this. We know that it has withdrawn some of its naval fleet, but we do not know what the immediate future holds in Putin’s mind. These are early days—I am glad to hear in the Statement that asylum claims have been suspended, as it were, for the time being—but can the Minister give any guarantee that nobody will be returned to Syria before we are clearer about what they might be going back to, especially if they belong to a minority, and that proper hearings will still be held so that justice is done for some very vulnerable people?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Let me make it clear to the right reverend Prelate that the Home Office has temporarily paused decisions on Syrian asylum claims while we assess the current situation. The vast majority were fleeing the Assad regime, but we do not know what will replace it at the moment, so there is no way of judging an asylum claim and whether it is safe for someone to return. That is why we have paused the decisions. We have not stopped the process; applications are being considered. But we will keep all country guidance relating to asylum claims under constant review so that we can respond to emerging issues.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I hear what the Minister has said about proscription or de-proscription. However, as someone from a Muslim background who has, alas, too much familiarity with the travails of the Middle East over decades, can I urge the Minister, in making those judgments, to disaggregate between terrorism and Islamism? We know that HTS now proclaims to be Islamist rather than belonging to the terrorist family from which it came, but it is profoundly important in making these judgments to be clear that Syria is not going to turn into a secular liberal democracy overnight—it would be the first Muslim country in the Middle East to do so if it did—but will require engagement in the longer term. That engagement must be based not on religious grounds but on clear security grounds.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The important thing to stress, as I said earlier, reflecting the Secretary-General’s comments, is that it is for the Syrians to determine their own Government. Turning to HTS, it is important to repeat that we will judge HTS by its actions and continue to monitor closely how it and other parties in this conflict treat all civilians in all areas under their control. As the US special envoy said, we want an inclusive transition process and that is something that we will be monitoring extremely closely.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, what assessment has been made of the threat that those being kept in the al-Hawl camp in northern Syria might present to the United Kingdom were the camp is to be disbanded? What consideration has been given to discussions with the new authorities and with our allies about the future of that camp?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
To be honest, I have not got a specific answer on that. In terms of speaking to all our allies, we are looking to ensure the protection of all civilians in all parts of Syria. I will inquire in more detail about the current situation and return to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, given that we no longer have an embassy in Damascus—although I feel sure that British embassies in neighbouring countries are being very helpful in this present situation—the main voice and the main channel of communication is the BBC and other brave journalists. Can the Minister comment on the role of the BBC and the relationship that the Government are trying to build on that base?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
We have had many debates in this House about the role of the BBC, and in particular the World Service. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that it can continue to function. The important thing about the BBC is its independence. It is a reliable voice. It is not for me to comment on it. We must ensure that it is able to continue broadcasting that reliable and truthful voice. All our actions in Syria are through NGOs and other civilian groups. We will continue to support them in humanitarian ways and in other ways; it is an inclusive process that we want to ensure for the future of Syria.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I thank the Minister for the Statement. Among regional partners, he identified Turkey. What exchanges are taking place with the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, who is involved in going to Turkey to discuss in Ankara the clashes between US forces in northern Syria and Turkish-backed rebels?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Both the Foreign Secretary and Minister Falconer have been trying to ensure the de-escalation of any potential conflicts. We want to see a process of transition that is inclusive. That is what Secretary of State Blinken is ensuring, that is what his discussions are doing and that is what Minister Falconer is trying to do. We are in a very fast-changing situation, but it needs calm heads to stay above it.
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the tone of the Minister’s Statement in another place and of the Front-Bench spokesman today. I do not envy him the decisions that are coming in the next few days. Will the Minister assure us that, if things go wrong, and HTS turns out to be not as friendly as their first statements appear, we will be ready to pivot to look after that community? A third of the population of Old Damascus is Christian, and there will be Alawites and other Sunnis. It will need real resource from the Government to respond quickly to what might be a completely new challenge. I hope not, but they need to be prepared.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I do not want to be repetitive, but we are monitoring the situation and keeping it under review. We are judging HTS by its actions, and so far we are hopeful for a positive, inclusive, peaceful transition. Reflecting the point of view of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, all our efforts over the last 14 years have been to support civilian groups and we will continue to do that. Protection of civilians is a vital part of our strategy on Syria.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, I am addressing events particularly in the north-east of Syria. There are reliable reports coming out that Turkish-backed militias known as the Syrian National Army are attacking the Syrian Democratic Forces across the region in central Syria and in the north-east autonomous self-governing region known as Rojava. There are reliable reports of Turkish aircraft and drones hitting Kobani and the capital, Qamishli. Does that reflect the Minister’s understanding of what is happening there? Has he seen some of the horrendous social media footage that is emerging from that area? What are the Government doing in diplomatic and humanitarian terms to address this situation? I should, perhaps for transparency, declare that I met with representatives from Rojava in Ankara in 2016.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I have not seen social media, but I think that the important thing is that we act based on the evidence presented to us. We have been focused, in terms of north-east Syria, on the battle against Daesh, and we will continue to focus on protecting the safety and security of all UK citizens, particularly in that area.
As the present situation unfolds in Syria, we are working closely with all partners to monitor the threat, as part of the global coalition against Daesh and other terrorist threats. I do not want to go into any more specific details except to keep repeating that we are working closely with all allies to focus on what needs to be an inclusive transition. At the moment, we are continuing to judge HTS on its actions and not simply on what others are saying.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, approximately five years ago the media made us aware that there are children who are British citizens by descent in north-eastern Syria. It took a while, after meeting with Government Ministers, for their families—their relatives here—to realise that the appropriate jurisdiction was to make them wards under the family court. Decisions were made about whether to bring them to the UK. It is reported today that about 65 British-linked people have already been identified. Can His Majesty’s Government ensure that those who went out there as older teenagers or as adults are not grouped together with children who were born and raised out there but who are British citizens by descent? Their families here need to know they exist in order to exercise the jurisdiction of the High Court here so that decisions can be made about whether they come here. Are His Majesty’s Government making sure that those children are identified, if they are out there?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I repeat the point that I made: it is a focus of our activity, particularly in north-east Syria. The safety and security of the UK and its citizens remain a top priority for the Government. We will do whatever we can to protect UK citizens, but I will not go into the details about how that is achieved. I do not think it would be appropriate at this stage.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I am very glad that His Majesty’s Government have already given £11 million towards humanitarian aid. That is such good news. Secondly, our watchword surely should be that old adage: loose lips sink ships. We have to be extremely careful what we say. The material at the moment is very delicate. I encourage the Minister not only to judge and watch what the new Government are doing but to find ways of communicating a slightly more positive view of engagement. Somehow, in a very clever way, we have to become participants.
Finally, we all are concerned about biological and chemical weapons. What steps are His Majesty’s Government taking, together with all our partners, to work hard with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the convention? If those weapons get into the wrong hands, or the new Government think, “We’d better keep them, in order that we may use them”, that would be pretty dangerous. What steps will the Government take to make sure this is handled delicately and quickly?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The best thing I can do is reflect the noble and right reverend Lord’s sentiments. We need to respond to the actions rather than simply what people have said before. We want to ensure that we focus all our diplomatic efforts in relation to all regional and other partners. We are working through the UN special envoy to ensure that we do so. Also, Minister Falconer is speaking to civil society actors within Syria. The security risks are very clear, but we need to ensure that we react with caution and sensitivity to focus on how we can support the genuine calls for an inclusive transfer. The last 13 years have shown the horrors of what a dictator can do. We now need to focus on supporting the Syrian people in determining their own future. The films that I have seen certainly reflect the jubilation of some people being released from those horrendous prisons. We should understand that.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
What is the Government’s view of the recent Israeli military actions in Syria?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Well, Israel has said that its presence in the buffer zone is defensive, limited and temporary, in response to the evolving security situation in Syria. As we have witnessed over the past year, Israel has legitimate security threats across its northern borders. Nevertheless, I will be clear that Israel’s presence in the buffer zone must not become permanent and I condemn the statements from some Israeli politicians who have already called for that. Israel has said that it remains committed to the principles of the 1974 separation of forces agreement and is committed to supporting the UNDOF peacekeeping force. The UK expects Israel to adhere to these commitments and I will hold it to them.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, it was a bittersweet moment for me when we heard about the fall of President Assad, because my great friend Marie Colvin was a brave and brilliant journalist in Homs whom we now think was targeted by him. Picking up on what my noble friend Lady Hooper—if I may call her that—said, and given everything that has been said, it is important that our journalists, particularly from the BBC, are able to report what is going on there. So can we please confirm support for the BBC World Service, in particular its Arabic service?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think the noble Baroness knows my support for the BBC, including the World Service and its activity, and certainly she is absolutely right to draw attention to Marie’s outrageous death. I have been very keen to work with our allies to focus on media freedom. We are part of the Media Freedom Coalition, working with allies such as Canada. We are determined to ensure that the authentic free voice is heard, and we will do everything we can to ensure that the World Service is able to fulfil its functions in that regard.