House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
May I start by saying it is very good to be here? I wish you, Mr Speaker, and the House staff a happy new year, and I wish the Aviation Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), a happy birthday.
Heidi Alexander
In the Budget, the Government confirmed more than £1 billion of funding to support bus services, an additional £200 million for the city region sustainable transport settlements for eligible mayors, more than £650 million for local transport outside the city regions, a £500 million increase in local highways maintenance, and £485 million in capital funding for Transport for London.
Michael Wheeler
I begin by welcoming the Secretary of State to the Dispatch Box for her first question time. She brings great experience of working to bring transport authorities together. My constituency of Worsley and Eccles suffers from regular serious rush-hour congestion. How can she support transport authorities in urban areas to work with neighbouring authorities to ensure a strategic approach is taken across commuter belts to alleviate congestion?
Heidi Alexander
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words, and I assure him that the Government are committed to improving local transport across individual local authority boundaries. We have provided more than £1 billion in funding to the Greater Manchester combined authority in his area, which takes a strategic approach to managing transport across its region. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has also set out ambitious measures in the recent “English Devolution” White Paper to support more joined-up running of local transport networks, which people rely upon every day.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State to the Dispatch Box, and say happy birthday to the Aviation Minister. Buses in my constituency are not adequate and the situation has been made worse since the £2 fare cap was lifted. Local authorities in Bath want to improve the situation. They want to franchise bus services themselves, but their hands are tied by the Labour West of England combined authority Mayor, who refuses to do so. What should local authorities such as Bath do?
Heidi Alexander
The Government stepped in to ensure that bus fares would not explode at the beginning of this year, when the £2 fare cap that the previous Government legislated for ran out. In the worst-case scenario, costs on some services could have increased by 650%, and it was important that we took that action to ensure such fare rises were avoidable. I advise her local authority to work through any issues with the regional mayor. It is vital that we see transport authorities of all types collaborating to ensure that we have good, high-frequency, high-quality bus services for local people to go about their daily lives.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
May I also welcome the Secretary of State to her place? It is a delight to see her there. I wonder if she might help me. In circumstances where a mayor does not want to embrace the opportunities of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill and fully re-regulate, as in the Tees Valley, will she give some consideration to providing a power in forthcoming legislation for the public to overreach that? Will she consider that option?
Heidi Alexander
A number of options are outlined in the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, which had its Second Reading in the other place yesterday, including franchising options, enhanced local bus partnerships and municipal ownership of bus companies. While my hon. Friend’s suggestion is not currently in the Bill, I gently point out to him that there would have to be an authority to let contracts, including with private providers. While I am happy to explore options, we need to think through the practicalities of suggestions such as his.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Cullompton and Wellington railway stations were two of the most advanced of all the programmes in the restoring your railway fund. The existing local transport authorities have already invested in getting us to the stage of a full business case, with a high benefit-cost ratio of 3.67. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this programme is in no way disadvantaged compared with those transport authorities in urban areas that have mayors?
Heidi Alexander
We consider business cases for rail enhancements fairly, and no undue advantage would be given to the areas that the hon. Gentleman suggested. I was fortunate in my first couple of weeks in this job to visit the opening of the Northumberland line, which provides services up to Ashington. I know what an invaluable difference the improved connectivity on the rail network can provide. I would be happy to talk to him about his schemes.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
The Department for Transport is working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to consider options for the UK’s access to a navigation system of this type, which lapsed following Brexit. This work is ongoing, and no decision has been made at this time.
Graham Leadbitter
I also welcome the Secretary of State to her new role, and I look forward to working across party boundaries where possible. EGNOS is a satellite enhancement system for GPS. Prior to Brexit, Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd, which is headquartered in my constituency, had been working with National Air Traffic Services on developing the use of the system, and invested a lot of time and effort. It would increase mapping accuracy and, vitally, enable planes flying lifeline air services to land in a broader range of circumstances, improving service and reliability. As the Minister said, that work has stalled since Brexit, but the Government can re-engage with the programme should they choose, as it is open to non-EU members. Will the Minister commit to doing that?
Mike Kane
I am grateful to the hon. Member for putting this on my radar. [Interruption.] Too early? [Laughter.]
Mike Kane
It is an important issue. We are considering the costs and benefits of all options, and it is very good particularly for regional airports. We are working with the EU to identify areas where we can strengthen co-operation for mutual benefit, but it is still too early to discuss that specific area in detail. I hope to come back to the House at a later time with a more considered view.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
I assure the hon. Member that this Government treat road safety with the utmost seriousness. We are committed to reducing the number of those killed and seriously injured on our roads. My Department is developing our road safety strategy, and will set out further details in due course.
Olly Glover
I join others in welcoming the Secretary of State to her place. Bikeability is the world’s largest road safety programme. Recent data from the Bikeability Trust showed that in areas with higher levels of training for children, the number of people killed or seriously injured on the roads decreased. Does the Minister agree that Bikeability training is an essential life skill that everyone should have access to, and will she commit to joining me on a visit to a local Oxfordshire school to see the scheme in action?
Lilian Greenwood
A total of 1.6 million people have participated in Active Travel England’s training programmes, including a record half a million children receiving cycle training last year. I am a keen cyclist and, having been knocked off my bike in the last couple of years, I understand how important it is to feel confident about cycling safely. I would be happy to join the hon. Member to see some of that work in action.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to her place. A couple of years ago, some children in my constituency started a campaign about a really dangerous stretch of road where cars speed and there is no pedestrian crossing. Tragically, a few months ago, one of those children lost her grandmother to a car crash on that very stretch of road. This is devastating for families and communities. What steps are the Government taking to make our roads safer?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case. Every single death on our roads is tragic, which is precisely why we will bring forward further measures with the new road safety strategy—the first in more than a decade—which will consider how to prevent such appalling tragedies, including in her constituency.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
As police and crime commissioner for Lancashire, I invested significant amounts of money in increasing the resources available to target drink and drug drivers, which is a key plank in improving road safety. It has become easier for police to target drug drivers over recent years, in particular through the advancement of technology, but while arrest rates have improved, charge rates are still lagging behind; it takes months for drug drivers, compared with weeks for drink drivers. D.tec International is a Fylde company that provides all 43 police forces with DrugWipe kits. It would like to use technology that is used in other European countries to improve charge rates through the use of roadside saliva testing. Will the Minister meet me and D.tec International to look at how this technology could improve the speed with which we can get drug drivers banned and off our roads?
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise concerns about the impact of drug driving. Those affected by an impairment drug were involved in 13% of fatalities last year. Just before Christmas, I went out with Jo Shiner, one of the leading police officers responsible for roads policing, and saw the work that is happening and heard about prosecutions, which the hon. Gentleman has raised. I would be very happy to meet him to discuss the matter further.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
St Helens Road in my constituency has regrettably become the site of numerous serious car crashes, and local residents have raised their grave concerns with me about both speeding and dangerous driving. How is the Minister working with local leaders in particular to drive improvements to road safety?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is right to raise the concerns of his constituents. Local authorities have a vital role to play; they are responsible for introducing road safety measures appropriate to their areas. Of course, the Department is responsible for legislation and the guidance to help them to do so. I continue to engage with local authorities to ensure we are providing them with the support they need to make our roads safer.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
The Government are determined to help local authorities in England to tackle the highways maintenance backlog that is the result of a decade of under-investment by the previous Government. We are making an immediate start by providing an extra £500 million next year—an increase of nearly 50% compared with the current financial year.
John Lamont
The A1 is a vital road link for the Scottish Borders and Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom, and Labour’s decision to scrap much-needed improvements will harm the local economy and stop businesses investing in jobs. The local Labour MP, the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), has said he was “disappointed and frustrated” by the decision of his Labour colleagues. What do the Labour Government have against car drivers and truck users on roads in rural Scotland?
Heidi Alexander
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have nothing against car drivers and truck users. We appreciate the long-standing local desire for dualling the A1 from Morpeth to Ellingham, but I am sorry to say that in the assessment we carried out post the general election, it represented poor value for money. There have been several delays to the development consent order decision and the contractors were decommissioned more than two years ago. In that time, scheme costs have risen significantly, making the scheme even less affordable and further worsening the value for money. Having said that, I recognise that there are safety issues on the existing route, which we will need to look at carefully, as we would with any other part of the network. However, that alone does not warrant the dualling scheme.
Luke Murphy
I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to her place. Potholes represent a serious issue in Basingstoke, with many constituents telling me of damaged vehicles and even physical injuries. The AA, which is based in Basingstoke, highlights inconsistent standards across the country, with some potholes left unaddressed for longer than others. The Pothole Partnership urges UK-wide standards and permanent repairs over temporary fixes. I welcome the Government’s additional investment to tackle this issue, but will the Secretary of State consider ensuring that councils adopt common standards so that communities such as Basingstoke no longer face dangerous, crumbling roads?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the damage that potholes can cause for all road users. We have committed record money to fixing this issue and to enabling councils to get on with this work. All local authorities should have their own standards of road maintenance service and inspection in line with local needs and priorities. However, I do want to update the Department’s guidance to local authorities on how best to look after their highways networks and ensure best practice is followed, and so that there are common minimum standards so that all road users know what they can expect.
Warinder Juss
I also welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to her place. Many of my constituents in Wolverhampton West complain not only about the number of potholes in our roads but about the standard of repairs, with some potholes reappearing shortly after they have been repaired. While the £1.6 billion of funding for councils is very welcome, will she please confirm what other steps the Government are taking to ensure that our roads are always well maintained to avoid the risks of injury to people and damage to vehicles?
Heidi Alexander
We agree that local authorities should not just patch potholes, but focus on long-term preventive programmes for repairing and maintaining all parts of the highway network, including footpaths, pavements and bridges. We will require local authorities to follow best practice to get the full funding uplift, and we will update the guidance document “Well-managed Highway Infrastructure: A Code of Practice” to support local authorities in that and to emphasise the importance of proactive preventive measures.
Jen Craft
Potholes plague the streets of Thurrock and are a daily reminder of 14 years of Conservative neglect. Stifford Clays, where my own tentative attempts to learn to drive took place, is particularly bad, but the effects are felt throughout my constituency. I am pleased that the Secretary of State is tackling this issue, with £4 million committed for Thurrock specifically. Will she tell me how much motorists in Thurrock could save under Labour’s plans?
Heidi Alexander
Our broken roads have long been a national embarrassment, and a proper fund to fix our roads has long been overdue. In answer to my hon. Friend’s specific question, RAC data shows that the average cost of pothole-related damage to vehicles is about £500, with severe repairs often costing much more. The Government’s extra funding for local highways maintenance next year could therefore save individual motorists in Thurrock hundreds of pounds, if not more.
Emma Foody
Local residents tell me of their frustration at the epidemic level of potholes across my constituency after 14 years of failure to grasp the problem. Motorists are all too often the ones who will pay the price. Does the Secretary of State agree that local councils like Northumberland, North Tyneside and Newcastle in my constituency will benefit from proper long-term funding to allow them to plan works and carry out repairs?
Heidi Alexander
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. We need to get the basics right as a country, and fixing our roads is the first step to getting our economy firing on all cylinders. We did see a decade of decline and under-investment under the previous Conservative Government. The additional £500 million that we have allocated, if it were all used to fill potholes, would fill another 7 million potholes every year, smashing our manifesto commitment to provide funding for an extra 1 million.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Whether on Silverdale Road, Rodmill Drive, Quebec Close or Ceylon Place, potholes litter our roads in Eastbourne after years of neglect by the Conservative county council. Indeed, the Mirzas at my local garage have replaced my tyre a number of times, and I thank them for it. We also have a ridiculous situation where potholes right next to each other are not sorted out at the same time. Will the Secretary of State urge East Sussex county council to stop that wasteful practice and ensure that Eastbourne benefits from its fair share of the nearly £300 million granted to the south-east to tackle potholes?
Heidi Alexander
I have been clear that local transport authorities should use the money in a way that provides excellent value for money for the taxpayer, and the situation that the hon. Member described does concern me. We have waited a long time for this level of investment to come forward, and I am keen to see local authorities such as his cracking on with the job and making sure that motorists—all road users, for that matter—have safe, smooth roads that they can travel on.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The roads in Wokingham, like everywhere else in the country, have deteriorated in the last few years. We need to stop potholes, not just fix them, and that means regularly resurfacing roads. The unfunded backlog of resurfacing left by the Conservatives in Wokingham is about £16 million and getting bigger; nationally, it is £14 billion. When will the Minister’s Department deliver proper funding for Wokingham’s roads?
Heidi Alexander
I disagree slightly with the hon. Gentleman, because I think a £500 million uplift is proper funding—it represents, on average, a 40% increase, and it takes the overall amount of funding up to £1.8 billion. However, I do agree with his substantive point. Some of this money should be used for proactive preventative road resurfacing, because in some cases that will provide the best value for money for the taxpayer.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Hundreds of local authority roads across the country include half-joint bridges built in the 1960s and 1970s that are now dangerously unsafe. They include the Brigsteer Road and Underbarrow Road bridges leading out of Kendal, which have been closed for the last six months, causing great inconvenience to the local community. They were built with Government funding 50 or 60 years ago, but local councils are unable to replace them with the funds available to them now. Will the Secretary of State meet representatives of Westmorland and Furness council as a matter of urgency, so that the bridges can be reopened and our communities can be reconnected quickly?
Heidi Alexander
I will ask my colleague the Minister for the Future of Roads to have that meeting with the council. However, the additional money that we have provided, and the individual allocations that were announced before Christmas, can be used not just for road maintenance, but for bridges and pavements.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to her post, and look forward to helping her to do an excellent job.
As we can see following the last few days of flooding, changing weather patterns are damaging our roads and increasing potholes. The last Government allocated an additional £8 billion for road improvements, paid for by the cancellation of the northern leg of HS2, yet all we have seen from Labour is a commitment of £1.8 billion for this financial year. Will the Secretary of State commit to matching the additional £8 billion for road maintenance?
Heidi Alexander
We are more than matching the commitments made by the previous Government. Let me say gently to the hon. Gentleman that his commitment in respect of resurfacing roads falls into exactly the same category as the promise to provide 40 new hospitals, and a range of other commitments that proved not to be worth the paper they were written on. They were fantasy figures, unlike the Labour party’s promise to deliver change. An additional £500 million is coming into our highways maintenance budgets, so that people across the country can see that change delivered to their local areas.
Jerome Mayhew
I do not know about you, Mr Speaker, but I am not sure whether that was a commitment to match the £8 billion, or whether the Secretary of State considered it to be a fantasy commitment. However, it is not just the £8 billion investment that seems to have gone missing. As soon as they were in power, the Labour Government cancelled the A27 bypass, the Stonehenge tunnel, improvements to the A47 in Great Yarmouth, the A1 from Morpeth to Ellingham, junction 8 of the M27 at Southampton, and other projects. That is £3.3 billion axed from works to help motorists. What have they done with the money? Has Labour prioritised pay rises for unions over improving roads and helping motorists?
Heidi Alexander
The truth of the matter is that when this Government came to office, we inherited a raft of half-baked, unfunded schemes that we are having to work through to provide a sensible pipeline of infrastructure improvements for our country. I will take no lessons from the hon. Gentleman about investment in our national infrastructure.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
I am delighted to confirm that, as part of the £1.6 billion investment in highways maintenance that the Government announced before Christmas, we will clamp down on disruptive works by doubling fixed penalty notices for utility companies that fail to comply with rules and extending charges for works that overrun into weekends.
Lewis Cocking
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Drivers in my constituency are sick to death of the endless road closures and temporary traffic lights when no works are taking place. Will the Minister demand that utility companies do everything in their power to get roads open as quickly as possible, particularly when they have dug them up under the emergency procedure?
Lilian Greenwood
Absolutely. There can be legitimate reasons why works are sometimes left unoccupied—for example, when they are waiting for materials to cure or gas to vent—but I take the hon. Member’s point, particularly where utilities are using emergency procedures unnecessarily. We have examined Street Manager data and spoken to industry representatives and found no evidence of misuse. None the less, given the number of urgent works—which are, of course, not unrelated to the appalling state of our roads left by the previous Government—we will see what more can be done to ensure that these works are managed and communicated to road users properly.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
Roadworks plague my constituency. A significant issue is that utility companies dig up the roads without requiring council permission, and they often leave these sites incomplete while different teams carry out their work, causing chaos and congestion in the process. We frequently face the absurd situation where there are roadworks on diversion routes for roadworks. Does the Minister agree that we need to require utility companies to co-ordinate with councils to properly plan this maintenance work and complete their projects in a timely manner, in order to avoid congestion?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is proving a great champion for road users in his constituency. The simple answer to his question is yes. Local authorities already have a legal duty to co-ordinate all works on their network, and utility companies have a duty to co-operate, and we will ensure that they do so.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
We are working with industry to deliver a transport network that puts passengers and their needs at its heart. The new aviation accessibility task and finish group, for example, brings together industry and consumer advocates with first-hand experience to improve accessibility in air travel. The Government will take advantage of the benefits of a unified rail network to deliver a more reliable and consistent customer experience for everyone with accessibility needs, and our buses Bill will make bus travel more accessible and inclusive, including by extending the requirements for relevant bus staff to undertake disability training.
Sarah Owen
I thank the Minister for his response. Leagrave station in Luton was one of a number granted Access for All funding by the previous Government for long-overdue lifts. However, Network Rail now says that this money was never allocated and that it only qualifies for a business case, despite a feasibility study already being agreed and completed. Those who can make the nearly 2 million journeys from Leagrave station, including myself, are left with a crumbling footbridge that is not accessible for many. Will the Minister offer assurances that Access for All funding to Leagrave station will be honoured, and will he meet me and the Bedfordshire Rail Access Network to establish the quickest path to having lifts at Leagrave station?
Simon Lightwood
My hon. Friend is a formidable advocate for this, having raised it numerous times. The Rail Minister is carefully considering the decisions made by the previous Government in relation to the Access for All programme. My hon. Friend will be aware that Leagrave was one of 50 stations across Britain selected by the previous Government for further consideration of whether they could be made step-free between the entrance and all platforms. We will shortly update the House on our approach to Access for All, but let me assure her that we are committed to improving the accessibility of the rail network, recognising the social and economic benefits that that brings.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Like the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), I have stations in my constituency—in Hedge End and Swanwick—that were allocated money by the previous Government for accessibility lifts. Unlike her rail company, mine did accept that that money was allocated. Within the first week of this Government taking over, that was scrapped, and the Rail Minister wrote to me without any clear plan for when this Government will make an announcement on what will happen with the Access for All scheme. The Minister has just said that it will happen shortly. Can he be more clear for my constituents, who have been waiting for a very long time, so that disabled people and people with wheelchairs and pushchairs in my constituency can make the journeys they need to make? When will this Government make an announcement on Access for All?
Simon Lightwood
I can assure the hon. Member that as soon as I am in a position to do so, I will give him more information on the Access for All programme.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Two of my friends, Ruth and Janet, are wheelchair users—one of them as a result of an accident just outside this place 25 years ago. They cannot travel together on our buses, as there is only ever one wheelchair space. They often book assistance at train stations, only for it not to turn up, leaving them stranded. Their handling on planes has led to not only bruising and pain, but loss of dignity and sometimes missed flights when assistance does not come in time. They are now reluctant to go on holiday if it means flying. Will the Secretary of State meet them and set up consultations with disabled passengers up and down the country, so that our public transport can meet their needs in every region? Will she require local authorities taking over bus services to consult disabled passengers and set minimum standards for delivery?
Simon Lightwood
We want a transport system for everyone, in which accessibility is designed as standard across the network so that we can make it easier for people to get on and off services, and build a safe and more secure network, particularly for women and girls. It is the Government’s ambition for disabled people to have equal access to transport, recognising the needs of people with visible and less visible conditions, and I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Leuchars train station in my constituency serves St Andrews and is well used by residents, students and tourists, but its wheelchair access is completely unacceptable. It feels as though we fall through the gaps between the Scottish Government and the UK Government on Access for All. Can the Minister confirm whether the Access for All review is looking at ensuring that those in the devolved nations do not miss out?
Simon Lightwood
I can assure the hon. Lady that I will raise this issue with the Rail Minister. I am quite confident that he has had these discussions with the devolved Governments.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
The SAF mandate, which is one of the first pioneering policies of its kind, came into force on 1 January 2025 to build domestic demand for SAF. We are also growing UK supply through the advanced fuels fund, and we are committed to introducing a revenue certainty mechanism in the King’s Speech to encourage investment in UK SAF production.
Gregor Poynton
I thank the Minister for his response. This UK Government are indeed working at pace to position the UK as a global leader in the rapidly growing SAF industry, which is vital for decarbonising aviation and our aviation industries, and for growing our economy. Will he commit in the forthcoming sustainable aviation fuel Bill to bringing forward the timeline for the revenue certainty mechanism to the end of this year or perhaps early 2026? Accelerating that measure, which has wide support, will give investors the confidence they need to back the 10 potential SAF facilities across the UK, including in Grangemouth, which is near my constituency.
Mike Kane
I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a huge campaigner for Grangemouth. We have committed to bringing forward the revenue certainty mechanism. We have already legislated for a 2% fuel mix in the SAF mandate, which came into force on 1 January this year, and we look forward to the Bill coming before the House when parliamentary time allows.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answer. I know that he has a deep interest in Northern Ireland, so may I ask a similar question? Northern Ireland wants to provide the necessary aviation fuels and has the ability to do so. What progress has he made in his discussions with the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that we can be part of the future of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is always better together?
Mike Kane
The hon. Member is a doughty champion of air travel and SAF in Northern Ireland. Through the advanced fuels fund, we have 13 projects and we are currently investing well over £100 million across the UK to see what comes forward in the market, and I hope that Northern Ireland will be integral to that process.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
May I, too, wish the Minister a very happy birthday?
Estimates suggest that the SAF mandate provisions and the revenue certainty mechanism will still leave a shortfall, with a family of four facing over £300 extra to fly on holiday by 2040. That is a clear concern for consumers, as well as the airline industry. Net zero should not come at an additional cost to consumers or undermine freedoms—in this case, the freedom to fly. The test must surely be how to defossilise, decarbonise and allow people to do the same at the same cost. What steps is the Minister taking in conjunction with the Treasury to close the financial gap between incentives in the mandate and the actual increased cost of switching to SAF for the end consumer?
Mike Kane
I think the good will ended with “happy birthday.”
I remind the shadow Minister that a little over 12 months ago, in one of his better videos, the then Prime Minister came out into Downing Street, looked at the sky and lauded the policy he wanted when we saw Virgin Atlantic’s 100% SAF trip across the Atlantic. This was the previous Government’s policy but, because of the sclerotic nature of that Government, we are only now getting on with implementing both the SAF mandate and the revenue support mechanism. As the shadow Minister knows, a regular review point is baked into the legislation so that we can revisit targets, if required.
Greg Smith
Of course, there is always another way. Much of the debate so far on SAF has been about fuels made from feedstocks and waste products. Unlike fuels that require feedstock, whose input costs will only ever go up, the industrial process that creates power-to-liquid synthetic aviation fuel will actually see its production costs reduce, with some predicting cost parity between the production of these synthetic fuels and the extraction and production of fossil fuels within a decade. Does the Minister agree that synthetics offer a much better long-term solution, and will he reprioritise the Government’s approach to SAF away from transitional solutions and towards synthetics?
Mike Kane
The hon. Gentleman runs his car on synthetic fuel, so I know his passion. There are many ways to get to SAF. The SAF mandate is supported by industry, and there is a real opportunity to establish a plethora of production. We can create thousands of new well-paid jobs while protecting the pound in the holidaymaker’s pocket.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
The Department continues to work closely with the rail industry to minimise the disruption to passengers on the great western main line during the new station’s construction and operation. Our priority is to mitigate the impact on passengers, as far as possible, by investing £30 million for service continuity during periods of disruption.
Max Wilkinson
The Secretary of State’s constituents will also be affected. Compensation comes in many forms. It may be in the form of better wi-fi on trains to improve the service for business users. It may be in the form of more rolling stock to end the bizarre practice of running half-length trains out of Paddington at peak times. And it may be in the form of an investigation into how we can reduce the ridiculous turnaround times at Gloucester station that delay Cheltenham passengers so much. I hope the Minister will confirm that all these things are being looked into for passengers in my constituency and the Secretary of State’s constituency.
Simon Lightwood
The Rail Minister has met MPs from both sides of the House to discuss this issue and has attended an industry programme board to ensure that passenger interests are considered and that disruption is minimised for passengers, both during and after construction.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
2025 is an exciting year for Derby, partly because of the progress on Great British Railways, which will be headquartered in Derby, and rightly so. Can we also make this the year that the British public fall in love again with rail travel, by giving GBR a strict timetable to simplify complicated ticketing and fares and to implement digital pay-as-you-go, as well as automatic compensation?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not sure that fits the original question. We have probably strayed too far.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
Transport is central to this Government’s plans for rebuilding Britain and growing our economy. We are committed to investing in the rail capacity needed to support that growth. This means improving performance and timetables to make the best use of the capacity we have, but it also means investing in new and improved infrastructure, such as High Speed 2, the trans-Pennine route upgrade and East West Rail.
Charlotte Cane
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer and welcome her to her place. Ely Junction is a major bottleneck in our rail network and the Ely area capacity enhancement scheme is designed to improve that. If the scheme goes ahead, it could deliver over a quarter of a million extra rail passenger journeys and take 98,000 lorry journeys off the road every year. It will also help the midlands and the north grow their economies, because it will improve freight transport to and from ports, the midlands and the north. To add to all those benefits, the business case stacks up: every pound invested will deliver nearly £5 of benefits. Will the Minister—
Mr Speaker
Order. The question is far too long— I think the hon. Lady needs to secure an Adjournment debate on the subject. The Secretary of State can grasp the sense of the question.
Heidi Alexander
I understand how passionately the hon. Lady feels about the scheme, and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood) responded to her written parliamentary question on the subject at the end of November. Projects like this one, in areas like hers, have the potential to contribute to the Government’s plans to deliver economic growth. She will know that the spending review is coming up, so a decision on the scheme and any potential timetable will be subject to the outcome of that review.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to her place and I look forward to working with her.
The original vision for HS2 was to link London with the midlands and the north, and to address the growing capacity challenge on the west coast main line with a whole new rail line. The last Government panicked and mothballed much of the project because of cost overruns on phase 1, thus incurring yet further costs. I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to get a grip on the phase 1 cost overruns, but do the Government plan to deliver a rail solution linking phase 1, north of Birmingham, to the rest of the country, thus delivering the Government’s vision to drive growth for the whole country?
Heidi Alexander
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her election as Chair of the Transport Committee. She will be formidable and I look forward to working with her.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend raises the question of the mess we inherited from the Conservative Government on HS2 and rail connectivity in the north. When we entered Government in July, we found a rag-bag collection of half- baked, unfunded spending commitments for rail schemes up and down the country. The previous Government drew up their Network North plans on the back of a napkin. As part of the spending review, we have started the hard work of identifying a realistic pipeline of schemes that is affordable and will deliver better connectivity in partnership with local leaders.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State to her new position. My party knows her well from her hard work on London’s transport network. We look forward to continuing the constructive relationship we had with her then and with her predecessor in this House.
May I take this opportunity to express my sadness at the passing of my Liberal Democrat transport colleague, Baroness Jenny Randerson? Jenny was a force of nature, intelligent, kind, hard-working and principled, with a mischievous wit and love of life. I learned a huge amount from her in the few months we worked together, and will miss her deeply.
Improving transport links to Wales was an issue close to Baroness Randerson’s heart, and one she regularly pressed in the other House. Will the Secretary of State review the Tories’ decision to class HS2 as an England and Wales project, thus depriving Wales of billions of pounds of Barnett formula funding, and will she commit to a high-speed rail link from Birmingham to Crewe to ensure that mid and north Wales can at least share the benefits of HS2?
Heidi Alexander
May I extend my condolences and those of the Government to the family of Baroness Randerson? I know she was a deeply loved and highly respected colleague to many.
On the hon. Gentleman’s substantive question, I have already met Ken Skates, the Welsh Minister for Transport, and I am working closely with the Secretary of State for Wales to ensure that we bring public transport improvements to Wales, which I hope will be Baroness Randerson’s lasting legacy.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
South Western Railway has been working closely with Network Rail and the local authority to provide a viable scheme that will result in the installation of new lifts at the station. To establish the likely cost of the scheme and assess affordability, detailed design works are under way and are expected to be finalised in 2025.
Tom Hayes
I thank the Minister for that very helpful answer. The people of Pokesdown are certainly very keen for their lift, which they have been waiting a long time for. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, train services between Bournemouth and London Waterloo took the historically fastest time of 90 minutes. Will the Minister meet me and South Western Railway to discuss whether we can restore that fast time, as well as to discuss Pokesdown?
Simon Lightwood
There are no current plans to introduce an express service between Bournemouth and London, but I will keep my hon. Friend updated on the future plans regarding South Western Railway, which will become the first operator to be taken back into public ownership in May.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The residents of Wareham, just along the way from Bournemouth, have been waiting more than 20 years for electronic gates—
Vikki Slade
It is a very niche question, and I want to ask about the next railway line along from Bournemouth.
Mr Speaker
In which case, it does not count. Thank you for that clarification. Let us go to topical questions.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
Transport is at the heart of this Government’s plan for change. Since I joined the Department more than a month ago, we have introduced the Bus Services Bill, which will give transport authorities across the country the tools to take back control of local services. We are bringing clarity and confidence to our automotive industry, with a consultation on how we will restore the 2030 phase-out date for new petrol and diesel cars. We have also confirmed the first three train operators that will be brought under public control later this year.
We have delivered record funding to protect vital bus routes and keep fairs capped, and we smashed our manifesto target with a £1.6 billion investment to repair 7 million more potholes on Britain’s broken roads. I am determined that our transport system delivers reliable, accessible journeys for all; enables the construction of millions of new homes; supports the jobs and industries of the future; and enables rising living standards for everyone in every part of Britain.
Ben Obese-Jecty
On those new bus routes, within the last hour, Stagecoach East has issued a statement about the delayed new tiger bus routes, citing the decision by Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority to retender the routes, inconsistencies in the award letter, concerns over the legality of the operation and the increased cost due to the Government’s national insurance increase as reasons for the delay until at least May. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that bus services in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough are not being managed effectively by the Labour mayor?
Heidi Alexander
I am happy to speak further with the hon. Gentleman about his concerns regarding local bus services. I know how critical bus services are for young people wanting to get to school, people wanting to get to work and older people wanting to access vital lifeline services. I am happy to meet him to talk in more detail about his local concerns.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of those roads to her constituents. I am working closely with National Highways and holding it to account for those parts of the road network, as well as working with local authorities to ensure that roads are reliable, well maintained and available.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I was appalled to discover this morning that I have known the Secretary of State for the thick end of two decades. We have had various exchanges in various other fora, but this is our first exchange across the Dispatch Box in this House. I therefore warmly congratulate her on her appointment and welcome her to her place.
The Government promised to deliver more reliable rail services, but over Christmas, what did we see? Chaos, cancellation and delays. The train drivers, having accepted the Government’s no-strings pay deal, chose to turn down overtime shifts, leaving passengers stranded and left in the cold. The Government’s no-strings agreement was supposed to bring stability to the railways, but it did the exact opposite, causing major disruption. Will the Secretary of State admit that the pay deal that they thought would improve reliability in fact only made services worse?
Heidi Alexander
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I remember those days on the London Councils transport and environment committee. I hope he does not mind my saying that both he and I have a little bit more grey hair since then, which is not necessarily helped by this new job.
On the substance of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I must vehemently disagree with him. The reality is that this Government acted when the previous one refused to do so, to put an end to the industrial action that was blighting our railways. We had a two-year national rail strike that ground down everyone who travelled or worked on the railways, at a cost of £850 million in lost revenue. He might take a lesson from the former Conservative Rail Minister, the former Member for Bexhill and Battle—
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to the Secretary of State gently that I had wanted to welcome her today, but I have to get through a lot of Members. We are on topicals, which are short and punchy. I call the shadow Secretary of State to give us a good example.
Gareth Bacon
I note the Secretary of State’s answer, but, in the real world, we know that the Government’s union paymasters will keep pushing for more. Labour’s plans to scrap the minimum service levels will give the unions more power to hold the railways hostage. Does the Secretary of State accept that the Christmas chaos will not be a one-off, and will in fact be the start of an ongoing decline in reliability?
Heidi Alexander
We have had decades of chaos on the railways, and railways that simply did not work for people. What is needed is a fundamental reset with the trade unions to deliver improvements for passenger services.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Grahame Morris
I know. Will the Secretary of State facilitate a meeting with the Rail Minister to put in place an urgent action plan and address the issues of staff shortages?
Mr Speaker
I know you could go on, but I am sure the Minister can answer that.
Heidi Alexander
I, along with the Rail Minister, will be meeting the management of Northern Rail before the end of this month.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Last week, the Government ramped up bus fares by 50%. The previous Government commissioned a full impact assessment, which was completed last year, on the abolition of the £2 bus fare cap. In November, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood) promised the House that he would release the report, but nothing has appeared. I ask the Secretary of State, what is her Minister hiding and when will the report be released?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I can assure him that the report will be released in due course.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Simon Lightwood
We know how important local bus services are to communities. Our reforms of the bus sector, combined with £1 billion of investment, will ensure that local leaders have the necessary tools to ensure that bus services truly reflect the needs of passengers.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Member is right to raise concerns about these appalling practices that are being used to rip off learner drivers. To help with this, we announced a call for evidence on the current rules and processes, and we will be working hard to eliminate the bots and make sure that learner drivers get a proper deal.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
Under the previous Government, bus services in rural areas were decimated. The number of bus journeys in the Derbyshire Dales declined by 55% between 2010 and 2023. What steps is the Minister taking to stop further cuts to bus services in rural areas like the Derbyshire Dales.
Simon Lightwood
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. A total of £1 billion was announced in the Budget for bus services, which will be available to his local transport authority to invest in areas, including rural areas, to ensure that bus services are accessible, regular and affordable.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Simon Lightwood
The hon. Member will be aware that close to £100 million was announced in the recent Budget. We will work closely with Active Travel England to ensure that that money is put to good effect across the country.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
The nationalisation of ScotRail has been another SNP transport fiasco. The Scottish Government’s flagship £25 million scheme to boost the amount of freight transported by rail failed to achieve growth. Their mismanagement of ScotRail and their own budget has led to a double-whammy price hike for passengers, with the return of peak fares at the same time as price rises. Does the Secretary of State agree that, at a time when we need better trains to boost growth and reduce emissions, the SNP has instead consigned Scotland to a spiral of decline and let my constituents down?
Heidi Alexander
I agree. We will not make the same mistakes when we take train operating companies into public ownership. We will do it properly. It is a massive undertaking, but we will make our railways a system for the whole country to be proud of.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
Changes made during the pandemic crippled airport duty-free shopping. I will get the hon. Member a more detailed letter on the matter.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
York’s advanced digital and advanced rail cluster can really boost our economy with the innovations that it is bringing, as well as providing 5,500 jobs in York. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how we can bring it into her strategy for developing the rail industry?
Heidi Alexander
I will. I know that my hon. Friend represents the proud railway city of York, as I represent the proud railway town of Swindon. I look forward to having that meeting with her.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
In South Shields, not only is our public transport expensive, we have to suffer constant metro delays, tunnel closures and replacement bus breakdowns. This Christmas, our roads were completely cut off. Will my right hon. Friend please meet me to discuss these long-standing ongoing issues?
Heidi Alexander
I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend. I have already met a number of Members of Parliament in the Gateshead area about some of the recent problems with the flyover, and met the Mayor for the region.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
When HS2 was cancelled, the last Government set aside £1 billion for Teesside to protect our iconic transporter bridge, deliver a new train station for Teesside Park, upgrade the train station at Thornaby, and much more. We are six months in now. Can the Secretary of State tell me whether we will get the money, or is the Labour party pulling the plug on investment in Teesside?
Heidi Alexander
We are six months in. The Conservative party had 14 years. Those promises are worth nothing without a plan to deliver.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
In Hastings, Rye and the villages, we have some of the worst potholes in the country, so I welcome the record £21 million awarded to east Sussex to fill potholes. Will the Secretary of State join me in calling on Conservative-run East Sussex county council to fill the potholes, and ensure that Hastings and Rye gets its fair share of that funding?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for her local area, and I fully endorse her efforts to get money to fix the broken roads in her constituency.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
In Hale and Badshot Lea, in the northernmost parts of my constituency, many residents can only get into Farnham town centre using the bus service. There is concern, given the increased amount of building, and future building under the new Government’s plans, that bus services will not be adequate. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the plans for north Farnham, and Badshot Lea and Hale?
Simon Lightwood
Buses are of course the most commonly used mode of public transport in Britain, and the lifeblood of our communities. I will be more than happy to meet the hon. Member.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
While welcoming rail renationalisation, may I ask what can be done to expedite investment in crucial rail infrastructure developments, such as the Haughley junction in my constituency, taking traffic off the A14 and possibly facilitating Bury St Edmunds to London trains? Was the previous Prime Minister’s promise to redeploy funds from the cancelled HS2 realistic?
Heidi Alexander
We spend about £2 billion a year on rail enhancement projects. We will be looking carefully through the spending review at all proposals that get freight off the roads and increase the availability of passenger services.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
I am delighted to see that you are proudly wearing the newly formed Royal Army Medical Service tie, Mr Speaker.
In Solihull West and Shirley, the new year has been welcomed by increases in bus fares and reductions in services. In places such as Cheswick Green, people are faced with choosing between either more expensive and difficult journeys or not being able to get to work, the shops or college. Given the Government’s stated ambitions, what assessment has the Minister made of the economic impact of the policy?
Simon Lightwood
Conservative Members had no plans or funding put aside to continue with the bus fare cap beyond 2024. We have secured £151 million to ensure that buses remain affordable for many. In some areas, without that intervention fares could have risen by as much as 80%.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to her place. In my first public meeting after my election, residents in Knebworth called for more fast train services. We got some, but there has been poor reliability. Will she meet me to discuss those issues?
Heidi Alexander
Yes, I think I will have a busy diary coming up.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
We have an anomalous situation in Spelthorne whereby someone can get six London red buses on an Oyster card, but they cannot get the train out to the stations at the end of the line. Major employers, such as BP and Shepperton Studios, are sending buses up the line to bring down those people who cannot use an Oyster card. As the Secretary of State will own South Western Railway and is brilliant with Transport for London, could she please get Spelthorne into the Oyster zone?
Heidi Alexander
We are exploring how we can extend pay-as-you-go to other stations in the south-east. I must admit that my mental map is not good enough to identify every station yet, but we share that ambition to make it easier for people to use the railways across the south-east region.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
This weekend, grassroots campaigners in Newquay will meet to oppose the privatisation of car park charge enforcement in Newquay and Cornwall more widely. Will the Secretary of State and colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government meet me to discuss how councils can retain more of that profit locally, instead of sending it up-country to often unscrupulous and usurious operators?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the concern, and I would be happy to meet him to discuss the issues further.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The residents of Wareham, just along from Bournemouth, have been trying to get electronic gates for 20 years. Network Rail’s latest excuse is that it is for the Office of Rail and Road, and the Office of Rail and Road says that it is for Network Rail. Will the Secretary of State meet me so that we can bang heads together and get this resolved once and for all?
Heidi Alexander
I will certainly ask the Rail Minister to take that meeting.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Pavement parking is a massive issue in many of our towns and cities, particularly for people faced with sight loss and for parents trying to push buggies. All of us here benefit from the pavement parking ban in London, but given that it is over four years since the consultation closed, is it time to give towns and cities across England the power to enforce a pavement parking ban if they so wish?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this problem. We will publish a formal response to the consultation, which the previous Government shamefully failed to act on. We will announce next steps for pavement parking policy in England in due course.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Upgrading Ely junction would deliver more passenger services to King’s Lynn in my constituency, boost freight and unlock benefits of £5 for every £1 invested. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether that is a priority in the Department’s bid for the spending review?
Heidi Alexander
We are working on a whole range of schemes in respect of the spending review, and I will provide the hon. Gentleman with more information as soon as I have it.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
Last year, Derbyshire was judged to be the worst county in the country for potholes, so one would think that the county council would welcome the record £76 million investment into our roads. Can the Minister assure me that that money will make a real difference to our roads and pave the way for a better Britain?
Public Finances: Borrowing Costs
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if she will make a statement on the growing pressure of borrowing costs on the public finances.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
I am always grateful to see Conservative Members welcome me to the House.
Financial markets are always evolving, as the shadow Chancellor knows, so there is a long-standing convention that the Government do not comment on specific financial market movements, and I will not break that convention today. Financial market movements, including changes in Government bond or gilt yields, which represent the Government’s borrowing costs, are determined by a wide range of international and domestic factors. It is normal for the price and yields of gilts to vary when there are wider movements in global financial markets, including in response to economic data.
In recent months, moves in financial markets have been largely driven by data and global geopolitical events, which is to be expected as markets adjust to new information. UK gilt markets continue to function in an orderly way. Underlying demand for the UK’s debt remains strong, with a generally well-diversified investor base. The Debt Management Office’s gilt sales operations continue to see strong demand. The latest auction, held yesterday, received three times as many bids as the amount on offer.
The Chancellor has commissioned from the Office for Budget Responsibility an updated economic and fiscal forecast for 26 March incorporating the latest data. Only the OBR’s forecast can accurately predict the effect on the public finances of any changes in financial markets or the economy, and I will not pre-empt that forecast. There should be no doubt of the Government’s commitment to economic stability and sound public finances. That is why meeting the fiscal rules is non-negotiable.
May I end by saying that I am pleased that the shadow Chancellor is holding this Government to account on our stewardship of the economy? It is important that he does so. He will remember when his party crashed the economy with unfunded tax cuts, unrealistic public spending plans and a clear disregard for the consequences on family finances. Families across the country are still paying the price for the Conservatives’ disastrous performance on the economy through higher mortgages and bills. If there was one clear reason why the Conservative party suffered such an historic defeat at the last general election, it was their performance on the economy. That is presumably why the shadow Chancellor himself admitted in December that the lack of trust in the Conservative party’s management of the economy has left a “deep and painful scar” in the pockets of every person across Britain.
Let me tell the House what has changed. In our first six months, this Labour Government have exposed the £22 billion black hole in the public finances. Not only have we exposed it, but we have dealt with it: the Chancellor’s autumn Budget protects working people, wipes the slate clean of the mess the Conservative party left the country in, and invests in our NHS and schools. We have given the independent Office for Budget Responsibility enhanced powers of oversight, in law, so that we never again get into the situation where that lot left the country: a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. We have set tough new fiscal rules that are non-negotiable, with a budget settlement for public services that they must all live within. We have kick-started growth in this country—this Government’s No. 1 mission —by unlocking investment and bringing forward reforms, such as those to planning and in the Mansion House speech.
May I say to the shadow Chancellor that that work stands in stark contrast to the negligent and shameful horror of a circus performance that the Conservative party in government unleashed on this country only a few years ago? Until he can come to the House with an apology for the British people, I will not take any lectures from the Conservative party about how to run the economy.
Mel Stride
The performance we have just seen was a slightly anxious and breathless one, which leads me to the question: where is the Chancellor? It is a bitter regret that at this difficult time and given these serious issues, she herself is nowhere to be seen.
In the last 48 hours, borrowing costs have reached a 27-year high, and it is the Chancellor’s decisions that have led us here. Before the election, the right hon. Lady promised that Labour would get debt falling, would not fiddle the figures, would not raise taxes and would grow the economy, but the economy is now flatlining. Survey after survey is showing that business confidence has simply evaporated, and at the Budget, the Chancellor hiked up taxes, increased borrowing by an average of £32 billion a year across the forecast, and conveniently adjusted her fiscal rules to allow her to do so.
Higher debt and lower growth are understandably now causing real concerns among the public, among businesses and in the markets, and despite what the Chief Secretary has said about international factors, the premium on our borrowing costs compared with German bonds recently hit its highest level since 1990. With those rising costs, regrettably, the Government may now be on course to breach their fiscal rules. The Chancellor has committed to no further tax rises, so does the right hon. Gentleman stand by her commitment not to increase taxes even further? If so, does that mean that the public should expect cuts to public service spending if the OBR judges that her fiscal headroom has evaporated?
There are media reports that the Chancellor will make an emergency intervention to soothe markets, but with no confirmation that such a statement will occur in this House. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that any such statement will be made first to Members in this House? Rates on Government bonds ultimately feed through to the broader credit market, so what estimates has the Treasury made of how recent market movements will impact mortgage costs and lending across the economy?
I will make one final point, Mr Speaker. Every pound that we spend on debt interest is money that we cannot spend on the public’s priorities. The Government’s decision to let rip on borrowing means that their own tax rises will end up being swallowed up by higher borrowing costs, at no benefit to the British people. Far from this Government laying the foundations for a stronger economy, the Chancellor is squandering the endeavours of millions of hard-working people up and down our country, who are now having to pay the price for yet another socialist Government taxing and spending their way into trouble. Does the right hon. Gentleman not now accept that it is time to change course?
Darren Jones
I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman enjoyed my performance—I have not even had my first cup of coffee yet this morning. Let me answer some of his questions. [Interruption.] Conservative Members might like to listen, if the questions are so important to them.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the fiscal rules. As I said in my statement, those rules are non-negotiable. As the Chancellor set out at the Budget, we have two fiscal rules: first, that day-to-day spending should be met by tax receipts, and secondly, that debt should be falling as a share of the economy.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the debt burden that this country has. Maybe we should reflect a little on why we have so much debt—[Interruption.] From pre-pandemic, Mr Speaker. Let us look at the burden of debt inherited by this Government from the Conservatives. From 2010 onwards, why did the last Government have to borrow so much money every single month, not just to invest but to pay the day-to-day bills? Because of an absolute failure to get growth into the economy. They could not make the numbers add up. They stacked up the country’s credit card and left it to the Labour party to deal with, and we are going to deal with it. That is why those fiscal rules are non-negotiable, and it is why public spending will be within the numbers set out at the Budget.
We are starting the spending review now, and it will conclude in June. Public services will have to live within their means—the Chancellor has been very clear about that. That is why with this Government, you get economic stability and absolute clarity on public spending. That is why the British people trust this party and booted that lot out of office.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
We all know that fiscal rules and certainty are vital for the markets and the good stewardship of the public finances, so will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury explain what process he will be going through as he conducts the spending review, and what notice he will give to Departments about extra cuts that they may have to make in order to meet the fiscal rules? In addition, when the Chancellor comes in front of the House for the OBR forecast in March, will she be making a fiscal statement at that point?
Darren Jones
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her question. As the House knows, we have started the second phase of the spending review, to set public sector budgets from 2026-27 onwards. The Chancellor confirmed in a written ministerial statement before the House rose for Christmas that there will be a forecast from the OBR and a statement on 26 March. As I said in my response, that will be the next time the OBR will give a view about the UK economy and the levels of funding for public services. Between the OBR forecast in March and the conclusion of the spending review in June, the House will be updated in the normal way.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I recognise that the Chancellor has a very difficult job. She inherited an economy on its knees, following the Conservatives’ mismanagement of the economy, from their terrible trade deal—[Interruption.] That extends from their terrible trade deal with Europe, which is holding back businesses in Wokingham, to soaring inflation, stagnant growth and the Liz Truss mini-Budget, which hit so many mortgage holders across the country.
However, the Government seem to be repeating some of the same mistakes. Last night, the Treasury issued a statement saying that
“meeting the fiscal rules is non-negotiable”.
Will the Chief Secretary reassure this House that protecting the NHS and care is also non-negotiable, and will he rule out any cuts to those services as the Government try to balance the books? Will he work to repair our ties with Europe and cut trade-related red tape, especially in the face of Donald Trump and his oligarch allies such as Elon Musk?
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Member for his question. He will note from the Prime Minister’s plan for change that the NHS is the subject of one of this Government’s key commitments, with commitments to get the elective waiting list down and to invest in the national health service so that we can do so. He will have heard that from the Chancellor at the Budget in the autumn, and he will see that it is a continued commitment from this Government. We can do that because of our commitment to the fiscal rules and because of our investment to grow the economy, which is the only route to long-term, sustainable public financing.
The hon. Member was very rudely groaned at by Conservative Members, but when it comes to their performance on the economy, it is not they who should be groaning, but the British people who should be groaning at them for what they did to their family finances.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
US bond rates are rising as well as those in the UK, with higher than expected inflation and interest rates. I note that Conservative Members have not mentioned that; perhaps they have not looked. The best way to make our debt sustainable is to invest to get growth growing, and to get expected inflation down by investing in clean energy. Does the Minister agree that our plans to invest in growth and in lower-price, cleaner energy is exactly the way to make our debt sustainable?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend knows very well that this Government’s approach has been about stability, investment and reform: the stability we have brought following the chaos of the years under the Conservative party, as has been recognised by the British people and by the markets; the investment we have been unlocking, from our global investment summit all the way through to the work we have been doing in the Budget and since; and the reforms we are bringing forward—for example, planning reform—to make sure we can deliver infrastructure better in this country and unlock the investment that private capital has wanted to put forward in the UK for many years, but could not because of the chaos from the Conservatives when they were last in government.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On 6 November, the Chancellor said:
“We have now set the envelope for spending for this Parliament, and we are not going to be coming back with more tax increases or, indeed, with more borrowing.”
I am sure, because the Chancellor is an honourable lady, that she will not be opening that envelope, putting her sticky fingers inside and coming out with more borrowing or tax increases. Will the Minister give an absolute assurance of no more tax increases or borrowing?
Darren Jones
I can absolutely assure the Father of the House that we are working through this spending review on the basis of the envelope set at the Budget. Public services will have to operate within the means that we are providing to them. The OBR forecast will come in March, which will give us the latest set of information, and we will work to that with Departments. This is why we have set up organisations such as the Office for Value for Money, why we have set tough productivity and efficiency targets for Departments and why we are investing in, for example, technology to improve the productivity of the public services we provide. Public services must live within their means, as set out in the Budget, and that is an absolute guarantee from this Government.
Torsten Bell (Swansea West) (Lab)
I thank the Chief Secretary for his response. I have just sat through Transport questions, or some of them, during which I repeatedly heard calls for more spending from Conservative Members, but they oppose every single tax rise to pay for that spending. Does the Chief Secretary agree that one of the lessons from global developments in recent days is that we must pay for day-to-day public spending through tax rises, however tough that is?
Darren Jones
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We have to pay day-to-day bills with the income we generate day to day. The lesson that we learned from the Opposition was about what they were happy to do, but this Government are not. They were happy to announce plans and programmes to make promises to the British people, even though they knew they did not have the money to pay for it. That will never happen under this Labour Government.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
When the Chancellor set the envelope for spending for this Parliament, and said to the Treasury Committee on 6 November that she would not come back for more tax increases or more borrowing, that was based on her assumptions about the cost of borrowing. Those are manifestly in significant doubt, to look at it in the most charitable way. I have sat in the Chief Secretary’s position, and I know he will want to equivocate and push decisions to the next OBR assessment and the next fiscal event, but the truth is surely this: this Government have to cut spending, increase taxes or borrow more. If the cost of borrowing is increasing, that moment will come sooner. Which of those choices is he inclined to make, and when will he tell the British people honestly what this Government have done?
Darren Jones
I have been clear to the House, as has the Chancellor, that the fiscal rules are non-negotiable. Public services will have to live within their means. We set the Budget in the autumn last year, and we have the OBR forecasts coming in March. Those are the numbers that Departments are working to in the spending review, and those are the numbers that we will hold public services to when we conclude the spending review in June.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
We thought we knew the dire economic situation when the general election was called, but on entering government, we found the real consequences of the previous Tory Government’s addiction to unfunded spending announcements. The people of Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West are paying the consequences for the Truss-Kwarteng economic crash. With the imminent entry into the White House of a President also committed to significant unfunded tax cuts, the economic stability of the UK becomes even more important. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this Government are absolutely committed to fiscal responsibility and rising living standards, and that the plan for growth will deliver both?
Darren Jones
I thank the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee for her question. She will know that our first commitment in the Labour party manifesto at the last election was to fiscal responsibility. It is the bedrock of this Government and the bedrock of every decision we take. As the Prime Minister set out in his plan for change, the reason people will know the difference that a Labour Government make is that they will have more money in their pockets by the end of this Parliament than when it started.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
In yesterday’s extraordinary emergency statement from the Treasury to try to calm the markets, it paid tribute to the fact that the Government inherited the second-lowest debt in the G7. Is the reason the Government Front Bench is so empty today and the Chancellor has fled to China that she has realised that her Budget means she now is the arsonist?
Darren Jones
I must say I am rather surprised by the inflammatory language of the former Chair of the Treasury Committee, which is clearly no reflection of reality. The Chancellor is going on her trip to China. It has been well documented for many weeks, and it is an important visit for trade and investment in the UK economy. May I say that there was no emergency statement or emergency intervention? Those are make-believe words being propagated by Opposition Members. The Treasury responded to requests from journalists about headroom, as we might do in the normal way. There is no need for any emergency intervention, and there has not been one.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
One would think, from listening to Opposition Members, that they had not crashed our economy and presided over high taxes, high debts and falling living standards, which affect my constituents and, I expect, some of theirs, too. [Interruption.] That is the Tory cycle. Will the Minister confirm that the route out of that is growth, and that remains our No. 1 mission?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is right. May I offer some probably unwelcome advice to Opposition Members? The sooner they stop groaning and stop laughing about their performance when they were last in government, and the sooner they apologise for it, the sooner the British people might start listening to them again.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Public services are at breaking point after the previous Government’s mishandling of the economy and budgets locally. However, does the Minister recognise that scaling back investment in vital public services risks even more devastating consequences for our local communities?
Darren Jones
At the autumn Budget, the Chancellor invested in frontline public services, because we recognise that people rely on them, but also because functioning public services are an important route to growth in the economy. If people are sick and cannot get to work, they need to be able to see a doctor in a timely fashion, so that they can get back to work. That is the priority of this Government, as well as investing in modernising our public services, so that they are fit for the future.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
My constituents suffered real hardship as a result of the disastrous mini-Budget pursued by the Conservative party. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that in order to improve living standards for my constituents, we must stick to our fiscal rules, maintain fiscal discipline and invest in our public services?
Darren Jones
I very much agree. That is why fiscal stability and economic responsibility are at the heart of this Labour Government and the Chancellor’s agenda. Members on the Opposition Benches may want to pay attention to that.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
There is no point beating around the bush: the Chancellor has just lost over £9.9 billion of headroom, and stands on the cusp of breaking her own fiscal rules. She said last year that she would not come back for more tax rises. Will the Chief Secretary be honest and admit, just as the former Bank of England rate setter Martin Weale said today, that this leaves only the option of more austerity? Will he level with people about when and where the next round of cuts will fall?
Darren Jones
As I said, the fiscal rules are non-negotiable. The only reliable sources on future financing will be the OBR forecast on 26 March, the conclusion of the spending review in June, and the Budget, which the Chancellor will present in the autumn. The hon. Gentleman mentioned austerity, but I remind him that this Labour Government have given the Scottish Parliament the largest real-terms increase in funding since devolution. He should be grateful for that.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
This Labour Government have been in power for six months, and we are having to deal with 14 years of Conservative chaos. Does the Chief Secretary agree that the Government’s plan for change, which aims to provide a stable economy and raise living standards in every part of the United Kingdom, and has economic growth as the No. 1 mission, is the right approach to ensure that the United Kingdom can weather the global uncertainty that we face?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let me set out the difference that the British people will experience. At the end of 14 years of Conservative Government, they had higher mortgages, higher bills, a higher cost of living and public services on their knees. At the end of this Labour Government, pointing towards the next general election, as set out in the Prime Minister’s plan for change, they will have more money in their pocket, public services will be functioning again, and they will be proud once again of their Government, and of the British economy.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Having listened very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s responses, I believe that he is making a more significant statement than many of his colleagues might realise. By underlining that there will not be any tax or borrowing increases, he is, in effect, saying that austerity is back, because there is no way that the public finances can be remedied by another Budget of wishful thinking that pretends that increased borrowing and spending will produce growth. That is once again being proved by a Labour Government to be a false way of leading the economy.
Darren Jones
I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for thinking that I am making such substantive interventions, and for his continued support in that respect. This is not austerity, as he will know full well. Austerity was ideological cuts to public financing and the size of the state. It was 3% cuts, irrespective of what that meant for public services or for people across the country. That is far from what the Chancellor unveiled in her autumn Budget. That was the absolute opposite of austerity; we increased financing for frontline public services, and will continue to do so.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Will the Chief Secretary outline the steps that this Government have already taken to fix the fiscal foundations and put this country on a stronger footing for growth?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend asks an important question. Why did we have to take that action? Why was this Government’s first Bill about fiscal responsibility? It was because of the mess that Conservative Members left this country in. That is why we have given the Office for Budget Responsibility stronger, independent powers of oversight in statute—something that the shadow Chancellor presumably welcomed, given his comments criticising Liz Truss and her Budget when he was Chair of the Treasury Committee. We brought that change forward, which the Conservative party failed to do. That is why we have set fiscal rules that are non-negotiable, why public services must live within their means, and why the Government’s absolute focus is on securing growth, investment, reform and long-term sustainability for public finances.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Is the Chief Secretary aware that the last two months’ GDP figures, for September and October, are both down? Is he aware that sterling is falling—in fact, almost collapsing? Confidence is falling and investors are fleeing. The only things going up are inflation, wasteful public spending and the cost of debt. Be under no illusion: we are heading towards a financial crisis. Will he ask the Chancellor to return from her ridiculous trip to China, to reverse course, and to cut daft spending and wasteful regulations, so that we can create some growth?
Darren Jones
I think the question was whether I was going to demand that the Chancellor come back from her trade trip to China. I will not, no.
Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)
Does the Chief Secretary agree that there is an irony in the Conservatives raising concerns about the cost of borrowing, when they oversaw debt rising from 64.7% of GDP to more than 96% of GDP and left a £22 billion unfunded black hole in public finances—and now continue to oppose the tough decisions that we are making on tax and spend to fix their mess?
Darren Jones
That is exactly why our fiscal rules are non-negotiable. While the Conservatives borrowed to pay the bills every month because they did not have enough money to pay for all their promises, this Government are investing in the future of our country, whether through reforming public services or investing in infrastructure and opportunities for growth. That is exactly the right approach to the economy; it is what our fiscal rules demand, and what we will be held to.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Next has said that it will increase prices by 1%, directly because of the increases to national insurance contributions, and has warned of slowing growth. With business confidence plummeting, gilts at a 26-year high and growth stagnating, do the Government still maintain that they have an iron grip on public finances, or will they admit that their Budget has done exactly what the Conservatives warned: increase costs, increase prices and reduce growth?
Darren Jones
The question was whether the Government have an iron grip on public finances; the answer is yes.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras ha myttin da, Mr Speaker. Does the Chief Secretary agree that the only way that we can wrest the economy out of the clutches of the Conservatives’ doom loop is to go for growth? The Government’s new industrial strategy will be a core foundation underpinning that growth.
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our industrial strategy, through which we will invest alongside businesses and industries of the future, and our infrastructure strategy, which sets out how we will get Britain building again, are two examples of the Government playing their part by bringing economic and political stability. By, for example, reforming the planning system, we will unlock billions of pounds of private sector investment in UK plc—something that did not happen under the previous Government.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I completely sympathise with the Chief Secretary about the incredible brass neck of the official Opposition. He talks about kick-starting growth, but can he give us any evidence that growth has been kick-started? Does he not realise that the only way to kick-start growth in the near future is to re-engage with Europe?
Darren Jones
The hon. Gentleman will know that this Government’s approach to stimulating growth in the economy is about stability, investment and reform—the political and economic stability the Chancellor has brought to this country; the investment from private sector partners, as well as from the state, where appropriate; and the reform of policy areas such as the planning system, or the financial services reform that the Chancellor set out in her Mansion House speech. He is also right, of course, that we need to improve our trading relationship with countries around the world, which is why the Chancellor is going to China today, and why we have begun negotiations with our friends in the European Union on how we can improve our relationship on a whole host of issues, including trade, energy, defence and security.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Does the Chief Secretary agree that the Conservatives, having added gutter politics to their fantasy economics and unfunded spending commitments, can no longer call themselves the party of decency in public life, and of sound money?
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is deeply disappointing that the Chancellor is not here to answer questions in the House on such an important topic, so I shall have to ask my question to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury instead. It is quite a simple one. Will he stand by the Chancellor’s comment that she will not come back with more tax increases?
Darren Jones
I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Member, but I will answer the question none the less. She asked me whether I stand by the Chancellor’s statements, and the answer is yes.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
I want us to get serious for a minute here. [Interruption.] Many of my constituents in North East Derbyshire, who will have just heard the guffawing from the Opposition, have been really struggling with the cost of living crisis. They voted the Government in, and we are committed to restoring the foundations of our economy. Will the Minister assure me that we are doing everything we can to deliver on that promise?
Darren Jones
It is absolutely right that the Labour Government are bringing fiscal and economic stability back to this country, because we know that when you play fast and loose with the nation’s finances, you play fast and loose with family finances. That is what voters in every constituency experienced when the Conservatives were last in government. They will not experience that under this Labour Government.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
We are looking at higher interest rates, lower growth and a higher cost of borrowing to the Government; as my hon. and right hon. Friends have said, we are grateful to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for being so honest with the House. It is clear that if he sticks to his word, there will not be any more borrowing, or any more tax rises. Given the numbers, that leaves only one option: cuts in public services. I wonder whether his colleagues behind him on the Government Benches realise that reality. What word other than “austerity” will he use to describe it?
Darren Jones
As I have said, it seems that the Conservative party is proud of its record on austerity. We do not support austerity, which was blind ideological cuts to public services—3% cuts—irrespective of the outcome for the people who rely on public services. The Chancellor increased investment in public services at the Budget in the autumn, and we will continue to increase investment in them, because we need to get them back on their feet, and they are an important foundation for economic growth. I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman recognises my statements, and says that they are honest, because of course they are. I look forward to coming back to the House in future months and years to show him the progress that the Government are making.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a relief for me and my constituents in Doncaster Central that we finally have a Labour Government providing economic stability and investing in the industry of the future. [Interruption.] It is all right for Conservative Members to chunter, but after the mess they made, a period of silence on their part is warranted. Will my right hon. Friend lay out the action that he will take to ensure that all regions of the country, including places like Doncaster and South Yorkshire, benefit from growth?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is right to point out that the Government are in the service of working people. What does that mean? It means that people’s lives—the money they have in their pocket, and the ability to pay the bills, get a roof over their head and seek opportunity—are at the very heart of what it means to be in the Labour party and in this Labour Government. Conservative Members might not have suffered from higher mortgage bills or worried about the cost of living during their supermarket shop each month, but people across the country did, and they suffered as a consequence of the Conservatives’ behaviour. I welcome my hon. Friend’s comment that they should have a period of silence while they learn the lessons.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I think that I heard the Chief Secretary say that the Chancellor has not gone to China. Will he confirm first that she is still planning to go? Secondly, if she has not gone to China yet, why is she not here? Lots of people would like to hear from her. Thirdly, has the Chancellor talked to the Governor of the Bank of England about market turbulence at any point in the last seven days?
Darren Jones
The Chancellor is going to China, as has been well documented. Again, I am sorry that it disappoints the hon. Member that I am here. I refer him and his colleagues to the urgent question, which is about a statement on borrowing costs and public finances. He will know that I am the Minister for public finances, which is why I am here answering his questions.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirm that the Government’s No. 1 mission is still growth? That is the only way that we can break out of the Tory inheritance of low growth, high borrowing, high taxes and squeezed living standards for people in my constituency in Livingston, and across the UK.
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. His constituents will know from their family finances that they cannot just put the bills on the credit card every month without having a plan for how to pay it off. That is not a sustainable way to manage household finances, and it is the same for the country. One of the reasons why we have such a mess left to us by the Conservative party is that it did just that—borrow money every month to pay for the day-to-day bills, and stack up the promises. That is why in the end there were so many promises and not enough pounds to pay for them. That is not a way to run the economy or family finances. That is why fiscal responsibility is at the heart of the approach taken by the Chancellor and the Government. We will never play fast and loose with the nation’s finances, as the Conservative party did.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
According to media reports today, the former Member of Parliament for South West Norfolk is issuing cease and desist letters to those who have accused her of crashing the economy—[Interruption.] I hope I will not get one; Members will be conscious that I am being very careful with my wording. I wonder whether the Chief Secretary might wish to take advantage of parliamentary privilege to compare and contrast the impact of her disastrous mini-Budget with what is being discussed today.
Darren Jones
You will correctly tell me, Mr Speaker, that it would not be right for me to comment on legal proceedings, but I am happy to say that one of the huge lessons for the country, for the British voting public and perhaps, one day, for the Conservative party is that the actions that the Conservative party took were not just reckless and negligent, but had a direct impact on public finances in every single constituency. There was a direct connection: it was Conservative Ministers’ hubris, ego and lack of focus on working people that ruined the lives of people across the country. I say that today and I will say it every day, because the British people must never forget the recklessness of the Conservative party.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement—
Luke Murphy
I am sorry, Mr Speaker. During these exchanges on the urgent question alone, we have heard chuntering from Opposition Members about the cut in the winter fuel payment. We have heard them oppose the tax increases that have been introduced to pay for public spending, and we have heard them urge the Government to call off talks with economic partners including China. Is it any wonder that the GDP-to- debt ratio rose by a full 30 percentage points under the Conservative Government?
Darren Jones
It might have been legitimate for the Conservatives to say that their economic policy was to borrow for day-to-day costs—as they did. That could be a decision that they took. What is not forgivable is the fact that they reached a point at which they were making promises to the British people that they knew they did not have the money to pay for, and that is where the £22 billion black hole came from. They should be ashamed of their record on the economy, and they should apologise to the British people.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
When will the Chief Secretary take responsibility for the actions of his own Government? We had a general election, and that is when the public held the previous Government to account. They gave their verdict, and the Labour party is in power now. What the public want is accountability for this Government’s reckless decisions: the national insurance increases are an attack on jobs; there has been an attack on the farming community; and business confidence is at an all-time low.
Darren Jones
The right hon. Gentleman may not wish to reflect on his party’s performance in government, but I am afraid he has to. Although this is a new Government—we have been in office for six months—the reality is that we are having to clear up the mess that the last Government left us. That is why we have to talk about it, and explain to the country why the actions taken by the Conservative party not only affected family finances, but decimated the British economy and pushed public services on to their knees. We are taking responsibility for clearing up their mess, and that is why we will keep talking about it.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
A key ingredient of economic growth has to be responsible government. People in Stevenage and across the country are still paying the price for 14 years of irresponsible government—the terrible decisions, the mini-Budget—and now we have a party in opposition that still does not get it. Opposition Members responded to this party’s Budget by saying that they accepted the improvement in public services, but they would not say how they would pay for it. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that this Administration will be committed to responsible government for the rest of the parliamentary term?
Darren Jones
Yes, I can. There is no denying that the economic inheritance that we were given by the Conservative party makes life very difficult for us: it means that we have to take difficult decisions. The fiscal rules are non-negotiable and public services have to live within their means because that is that the bedrock of any approach in government. Is that going to be easy for us? No, it is not, but it is part of our responsibility in clearing up the mess left by the Conservatives, and from that we can build for the future, as is set out in the Prime Minister’s plan for change.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The issue here is spending. Will the Chief Secretary confirm that the Labour manifesto said that a Labour Government would increase spending by £9.5 billion a year, and the Treasury Red Book is increasing that to £76 billion? Is that not the issue?
Darren Jones
One of the issues was that the Conservative party made a whole list of unfunded spending commitments. They promised hospitals and train stations, they had unsettled pay disputes with public sector workers— I could go on and on. That is why the Chancellor took the decision at the Budget to wipe the slate clean, to deal with the mess that we inherited and then to bring forward the manifesto commitments that we set out at the election. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to see more detail about our public spending plans, he is very welcome to come to my statement in June.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
Conservative Members talk about economic stability, but they seem to have forgotten that they were swapping out Chancellors every five minutes. Does the Chief Secretary agree that it is this Government who are restoring stability to our economy?
Darren Jones
Restoring economic and political stability is important. When the markets observed the behaviour of the Conservative party in government, it is no wonder they did not want to invest in the UK, and that is why the market crashed, to the detriment of working people across the country. It is very clear that under this Labour Government, not only do we have stable leadership; we have a stable set of policies in our plan for change and fiscal responsibility as the bedrock for the Chancellor’s action. That is a country people can believe in, trust in and invest in, unlike the country that was left to us by the Conservative party.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Every Labour Government leave office with unemployment higher and the economy in a worse condition than they inherited, but I think this Labour Government are taking the record for doing that the fastest—within just six months, we see borrowing costs spiralling out of control, GDP growth tanking and the bosses of some of the biggest recruitment firms in the UK warning of job postings plummeting and that a recession is just around the corner. I look forward to seeing how the Chancellor spins this period of employment on her CV in the future. If the Government breach their own fiddled fiscal rules so ingloriously and so quickly, who on the Treasury Bench is going to update their CV and take responsibility?
Darren Jones
The fiscal rules are non-negotiable, and they will be met.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the reckless ideological austerity measures taken by the Conservative party in government have directly led to my constituents being significantly worse off and made it harder for them to get on in Darlington? Can he outline the impact that the new Office for Value for Money will have on the huge inefficiencies and waste that the last Government presided over?
Darren Jones
The Office for Value for Money is an important part of our spending review process, as we undertake for the first time in 17 years a zero-based review of every single pound of public spending. We should focus on that for a moment: not once under the last Conservative Government was there a zero-based review. Not once did they go line by line through every pound of taxpayers’ money and public spending to check it was being spent in the people’s interests. Not once did they think that was a responsible thing to do. That is the first thing we are doing in government.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
At the back end of last year, borrowing figures were the second highest monthly figures on record. That was in no small part driven by the Chancellor’s decision to give inflation-busting pay rises to unions. Given that we have more union pay negotiations this year, should my constituents be braced for the Government giving into those union demands, at risk to taxpayers?
Darren Jones
I think the hon. Member might want to ask his constituents whether they appreciated their doctors and nurses being on strike for so long or whether they wanted them to be able to see their patients. He may want to ask his constituents whether they were grateful to have the trains not working for so many months because the train drivers were on strike. He may want to ask his constituents how pleased they were with the performance of their public services over the last 14 years of government. I think I know the answer they would give him. That is going to change under this Labour Government.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
On the economy, as with so much else, does my right hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members should sip from the elixir of personal responsibility and that the two words we most need to hear from them are, “We apologise”?
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Stuart, I need no advice from you. I think you are on the Panel of Chairs, and I need to see some better behaviour if you are going to stay on it.
Darren Jones
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is important, when you are paid by the House, to act responsibly; I agree with you.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) makes a really important point, and Conservative Members who have their head in their hands may wish to listen to him. It will be important for the Conservatives to apologise for their behaviour before the British people start listening to them again, but for as long as they wish to grunt and groan and claim that everything was wonderful, the better for us, so long may it continue.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I have heard that the Minister is the future, but all he wants to talk about is the past. The fact of the matter is that, today, borrowing costs are up, business confidence is down and growth is going nowhere. Is it not time to admit that this lefty economic experiment is not working? It is time to cut taxes and cut spending.
Darren Jones
I did not realise that the hon. Member knew my mum and that I am apparently the future. It is very kind of him to say so; very few have that in their thoughts. He talks about lefty experiments. Fiscal responsibility is not a lefty ideology. Economic responsibility is not a lefty ideological and political experiment; it is what the British people expect. One of the reasons why the Conservatives had such a historic defeat at the last election is that they lost all control and all sense when it came to the public finances. For a party that is supposedly the best-performing in western democracy, and which has had great leaders in the past, is it not a great shame what the Conservative party has become? Given its performance over 14 years and its descent into disinformation, I feel very sorry for Opposition Members.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I hope that the Minister can quickly turn this situation around for my constituents and the country, and I wish him all the best in doing so. Given the challenges of business confidence and the markets, I had hoped that he would come to the House this morning with a plan that lays out the scope of the problem and the solution to fix it. Instead, he has spoken more about the Conservative party, rather than Labour’s plan for the economy. Is that because the Chancellor is not here today? When will she come back?
Darren Jones
I am very happy to set out the Government’s plan, as I have done repeatedly today. The hon. Member will have seen in the Chancellor’s Budget last autumn a clear plan to wipe the slate clean, to deal with the mess that we inherited, to protect working people, and to invest in our public services. He will have seen it in the Prime Minister’s plan for change, which sets out the direction of this Government over the years ahead. We will put more money in working people’s pockets across the country, get our public services back on their feet and make sure that this country is in a strong position. The hon. Member will know that the Government are working through our spending review, which I run as the responsible Minister. I have already confirmed that we will come back in June to confirm the spending plans for Departments, which will have to live within their means and in line with the fiscal rules in the years ahead. I cannot think what more he would want.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I hope that people who are standing were here at the beginning.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Within the last week, has the Chancellor spoken to the Governor of the Bank of England about the impact of soaring borrowing costs?
Darren Jones
The Chancellor meets the Governor of the Bank of England on a regular basis and will continue to do so.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
It has been widely reported that the Chancellor now faces a choice between raising taxes or cutting public spending if she is to stay within her non-negotiable fiscal rules. Given reports that she will now conduct group meetings with Ministers, rather than the less combative approach of one-to-one meetings conducted by the right hon. Gentleman, to discuss departmental cuts, it sounds as if Government spending is being dictated by the Ministers with the sharpest elbows. Can he reassure the House that there will not be any departmental cuts?
Darren Jones
I am pleased that the hon. Member can afford the subscription to Bloomberg News; I cannot, unfortunately, so I could not read the article to which he refers. He inadvertently asks me a question about the process of the spending review. [Interruption.] That was the question. We are embedding mission-led government, which is what the Prime Minister set out in his missions in his plan for change. That requires Departments to work together to make sure that they are absolutely focused on the delivery of the plan for change priorities, which is why the spending review is being done on a multilateral basis in a new way. I will be giving a speech on this issue in a couple of weeks’ time, and I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman gets an invitation.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for all his answers this morning. The UK’s public debt has risen sharply over the decades. At the moment, it is reaching levels not seen in the post-world war two era, meaning that a large proportion of our expenditure is focused on paying back, as opposed to public spending. I always try to be constructive, as the Minister knows. Nowhere will the impact—on health and education, for example—be greater than in Northern Ireland. I have a very specific question for the Minister: what discussions has he had with Departments, and particularly the Finance Department, at the Northern Ireland Assembly?
Darren Jones
I lead for the Treasury on inter-ministerial relationships with Finance Ministers in the devolved Governments. I regularly meet my counterparts, and I will meet them in Wales in the coming weeks to talk about our spending plans for the future.
Business of the House
(1 day, 9 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 give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
The business for the week commencing 13 January includes:
Monday 13 January—General debate on hospice and palliative care, followed by a general debate on the impact of food and diet on obesity. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 14 January—Remaining stages of the Renters’ Rights Bill.
Wednesday 15 January—Remaining stages of the Non- Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill.
Thursday 16 January—Motion to approve the draft Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024, followed by a debate on a motion on the performance of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee (in unallotted time).
Friday 17 January—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 20 January will include:
Monday 20 January—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 21 January—Remaining stages of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill.
Jesse Norman
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I start by wishing you a very happy new year? I hope that all colleagues in the Chamber had a zestful and restful Christmas. I also pay tribute to those members of the House Service who were honoured in the recent honours list.
The new year is always a time for new starts and fresh beginnings; a time when people step back, look at themselves in the mirror, pinch an inch or two, and perhaps make a few resolutions—lay off the pies, resist the siren call of the cheeseboard, spend less on self-indulgences and more on things that matter, take themselves in hand, and perhaps try to manage things a bit better. The Government might consider adopting these new year’s resolutions for themselves. After all, by any standards, their first six months in office have been pretty catastrophic. They have had six happy months blaming everyone else; now they need to take responsibility and lead.
We have seen how the Budget continues to have devastating effects, both on key sectors and more widely. Just a few weeks ago the National Institute of Economic and Social Research warned that the UK economy did not grow at all in the fourth quarter of last year. High street retailers have reported their worst sales decline since covid, both offline and online. Business confidence is at a four-year low. Employment continues to fall, and job vacancies are at their lowest for three years.
Only this week we saw that long-term interest rates in the gilts market, as very well highlighted by the shadow Chancellor in this morning’s urgent question, have risen to their highest level since 1998, 27 years ago—that was before some Members of this House were born—reflecting severe investor worry about Labour’s spending plans and about increased UK vulnerability to increases in the national debt. The Government cannot blame that on the past. It is a straight judgment on their own credibility, and it is costing this country dearly every day.
The problem is not just that the Government have damaged key parts of the economy with their Budget decisions; it is that the long-term effect of those decisions is so counterproductive. The CBI has calculated that the Government’s raid on inheritance tax will cost £1.25 billion more than it raises. The Chancellor has said:
“I’m really clear, I’m not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes.”
Last month, she specifically ruled out an emergency Budget in the spring.
The effect of these rising interest rates is to reduce fiscal headroom and make new tax rises or spending cuts very possible—indeed, some would say almost inevitable. We must wait to see whether that means emergency tax rises or an unexpected fiscal event in the spring, with a detailed investigation by the Office for Budget Responsibility. That also raises the question: how can the Government plan a spending review at all if they are not in control of the public finances? The damage will not be just to the Chancellor’s own reputation; it will damage the pockets of every person in every household in this country.
As we think about the new year, what resolutions should the House encourage the Government to adopt? I suggest three. First, stop taking politically driven measures that actively hurt the economy. Stop punishing the retail and hospitality sectors, which give so many young people their first jobs. Stop attacking farmers and the rural economy. Stop the madness of the Employment Rights Bill, which will make it harder than ever to start and build a business. We should be celebrating and rewarding drive, energy, aspiration and entrepreneurship, not undermining them.
Secondly, come clean to the people of this country about the Government’s own uncertainty, conflicts and incompetence. We have had endless announcements about new commissions and initiatives, each testimony to Labour’s hopeless lack of planning before the election. We had a delayed autumn Budget and this year we will have a spending review that, if it is not derailed by fiscal events, could easily last until June or July, building up to a full year of stasis and stagnation since the general election.
A final resolution might be to show us some leadership. The Prime Minister pointed out, and rightly so, that in 2010 the incoming Government inherited public finances in desperate need of repair. He said
“we cannot tax our way to prosperity or spend our way to better public services.”
Those are refreshingly honest, cross-party recognitions of the difficulty of government, but when it comes to action, what have we seen? Dither, delay and divisive policy making. Reform of social care is a huge issue for millions of people across this country and could lift huge burdens from the NHS, yet this week we learned that, despite all Labour’s promises of change, it has been kicked into the long grass.
In closing, this Government were elected to own key issues and to address them, not to avoid the hard problems, parrot the usual political lines, blame other people and play nice to their friends in the unions. They need to stop blaming others, get on and show the country they can lead.
Lucy Powell
May I, too, wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the whole House a very happy new year? I send all our sympathies to the residents of Los Angeles who are being hit by wildfires—the situation unfolding there is very concerning indeed.
May I also take this opportunity to congratulate a fellow northerner, Luke Littler, on winning the world darts championship? He might support the wrong football team, but he has been a great role model and is making darts a very compelling sport.
It is the new year, but I am afraid it is the same old Tories. Their decision to try to vote down the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill yesterday was another huge misjudgment. They seem to have learned nothing and are incapable of accepting they got things wrong or having what it takes to rebuild trust. The victims of grooming gangs need politicians to hear their voices, to act without fear or favour, and to take all necessary steps to root out and bring justice to perpetrators and enablers, whoever they are. They do not need pathetic and blatant political bandwagon jumping.
If Conservative Members were really interested in the victims and justice, their leader would have met with victims, but she has not. When she was Children’s Minister or the Women and Equalities Minister, she could have acted or spoken about the subject in the Chamber, but she did not. If this was really about addressing the root causes and making sure our institutions, culture and laws are fit for purpose, the Conservatives would have started implementing the recommendations of the Jay report, but they did not. Their wrecking tactics last night showed that they would rather play politics instead of supporting measures to safeguard children. I find it quite depressing to watch the official Opposition chase the spectre of Reform. These are very serious issues that require serious attention, with victims and their learnings at the centre.
Yet again, the shadow Leader of the House raises the economy but, as ever, I will take no lectures from him. After all, he admitted that we inherited a “struggling” economy with “anaemic” growth. Our commitment to economic stability, sound public finances and meeting the fiscal rules is non-negotiable, as we have just heard from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We are borrowing only for investment and we will see net debt fall. As the right hon. Gentleman knows well, the cost of debt fluctuates, often because of global markets. That is in stark contrast to the chaos we saw under his Government, when Liz Truss’s kamikaze Budget directly and immediately led to the gilt market crashing, needing the Bank of England to intervene to buy up Government bonds. She might want us to cease and desist, but we will not cease and desist from telling the truth that they crashed the economy.
When we talk about fixing the foundations of our economy, we are talking about tackling the fundamental and huge structural problems we face: years of low growth; very low productivity; chronically low investment; poor connectivity; a labour market with high levels of sickness; a health service on its knees; low skills; and an overreliance on record levels of immigration, which, in turn, puts more pressure on the housing crisis.
There are no quick fixes, but that is why the decisions we have taken, such as those in the Budget, are different and represent our vision of sustainable, shared growth. That begins with investment in health, investment in education and skills, and investment in the jobs of the future. It begins with providing a pay rise for the lowest paid, investment in transport and connectivity, and decent homes for people to live in.
Our approach is fundamentally different from that of the Conservative party, which is based on short-term, deregulatory, trickle-down economics. Opposition Members cannot have it both ways. We would have had cuts now —huge cuts to health and education—if they had been in government. They cannot have the benefits of the Budget without the measures it took to achieve them. Their agenda saw living standards fall for the first time in decades, with stagnant growth, poor productivity, high waiting lists and sickness rates and, perhaps most telling of all, in their last year of office net migration at nearly 1 million. We recognise that it will take time and we are beginning to turn the oil tanker around.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
In 1984, the global Sikh community suffered catastrophic collective trauma when the then Indian Government ordered the storming of the Golden Temple complex in Amritsar, which led to devastating destruction and bloodshed, with thousands of innocent people losing their lives. Thirty years later, to our shock, new documents exposed that the Thatcher Government had helped their Indian counterpart by providing advice prior to that military operation. In its pursuit for the truth and transparency, the British Sikh community duly launched a campaign for an independent inquiry to establish the extent of that involvement. While previous Conservative Governments have tried to brush the issue under the carpet, Sikhs expected the new Labour Government to establish that promised independent inquiry. When will that be initiated?
Lucy Powell
I know that this matter is of great importance to the Sikh community across the UK, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise it today and to continue to do so on behalf of the Sikh community and others. We need to get to the bottom of what happened, and I will ensure that the Ministers responsible are in touch with him to discuss the matter further.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I wish you a happy new year, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Community pharmacies are fundamental to our healthcare system, providing essential advice and services while alleviating pressure on the NHS. We simply cannot do without them. Indeed, we are all now encouraged to “Think Pharmacy First” for some medical conditions. However, it is hard to understand how that is possible if pharmacies are facing closure because the NHS is not covering the cost of the medications they dispense.
The contract between the NHS and pharmacies has simply failed to keep up with the rising costs of many medicines. The result is that many pharmacists are operating out of their own pocket, taking huge losses year after year. The outcome feels inevitable. We have seen 1,200 pharmacies close since 2015, including nearly 500 in the past year alone. When the Company Chemists’ Association reports average shortfalls of £60,000 per pharmacy per annum, can we really be surprised?
We are warned by the National Pharmacy Association of pharmacy deserts, where many rural and deprived areas risk having no immediate access at all. This can only spell a health inequality crisis, which will be felt more intensely by those who already struggle the most. This needs to be fixed. We must avoid even more pharmacy closures up and down the country.
Pharmacies are vital not just to the communities they serve, but to the NHS as a whole. Will the Leader of the House grant Government time for a debate on how our pharmacies can be better supported for long-term viability and sustainability?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this important matter. Indeed, it was raised in stark terms at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday by one of her colleagues. What she describes happening in our community pharmacies as well as in other parts of the broader healthcare sector is a crisis. We are dealing with difficult circumstances that we inherited followed 14 years of under-investment, industrial action and other problems in the health service. She will know that this Government are committed to extra investment. That is why the Budget, which many Conservative Members have opposed, allocated record levels of investment to our national health service. Part of that is about ensuring that we have early intervention services in the community, and our community pharmacies are central to that drive. That is why the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will continue to support our pharmacies and help turn around the terrible situation they face.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
A recent report stated that there was an increased risk to life at Doncaster’s hospitals if a fire were to occur. There is also a risk of electrical failure due to the age and condition of the infrastructure. Despite much fanfare and promise, the previous Government did nothing to improve the condition of Doncaster royal infirmary. Added to that, we have one of the biggest repair backlogs in the country. Can the Leader of the House ensure that a Health Minister meets me and other Doncaster MPs urgently to ensure that our constituents have access to safe secondary care?
Lucy Powell
Yet again, my hon. Friend raises the important matter of Doncaster royal infirmary in her constituency. I know that she is doing great work to highlight the problems that it faces. She will be aware that the so-called new hospital programme—the previous Government’s capital investment programme—was a work of fiction. The programme did not have the funds our hospitals needed, but I will ensure that she gets a meeting with a Minister, because the circumstances that she describes are unacceptable.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Happy new year to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to everyone.
In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, the Backbench Business Committee has organised debates in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 14 January on railway services in the south-west; on Thursday 16 January on Government support for the marine renewables industry; on Tuesday 21 January on the provision of auditory verbal therapy; and on Thursday 23 January on the United Nations International Day of Education, followed by a debate on the innovation in the field of rare retinal disease. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, on Tuesday 28 January, there will be a debate on road safety for young drivers.
The Leader of the House has announced the debate on the performance of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. She will know that that debate was frozen out before Christmas, because the Government put on a succession of statements and there was insufficient time for it to take place. She has said that it now has an allocated day, but will she arrange for it to be given protected time so that that debate can take place in full?
We have a heavily subscribed request for a debate on Holocaust Memorial Day, which takes place on 27 January. Obviously, the Leader of the House has not announced the dates for debates during that period, but it would be helpful for all Members if she could indicate whether she will allow a debate either on the 27th or on one of the two relevant Thursdays. This will be the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, and sadly many of the survivors will not live to see another significant memorial day, so I hope that she will be able to facilitate a debate.
Yesterday, our allies in the United Arab Emirates announced that 19 entities and individuals have been proscribed and put on their watchlist for terrorist links across the world. Sadly, eight of those entities exist in the UK, where they operate freely and are not proscribed. Could we have a statement from a Minister early next week on what action the Government will take following the actions of the United Arab Emirates, to ensure that these Islamist terrorist groups, which are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, are proscribed in the UK and are not allowed to operate freely?
Lucy Powell
I will pick up on a couple of the Backbench Business issues. I put on record my thanks to the Chair of the Committee; it is great that he announces some of those debates.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency debate next week, which I am pleased we have found further time for, will come after a statutory instrument debate that will be limited to 90 minutes. As things stand, I am confident that the debate will get enough time. Should the situation change, I will of course look into ensuring that it has sufficient time on that date.
On a Holocaust Memorial Day debate, while I am unable to confirm the date of 27 January for the hon. Gentleman right now, I recognise the importance of the issue and how time sensitive it is, this year of all years. If he bears with me, I am sure we can continue to have that conversation outside the Chamber.
On the issue of the United Arab Emirates proscribing individuals, he knows that we are close allies and work very closely with that country. I will ensure that there is a ministerial response on the matter and on the subsequent action that the Government are taking regarding those individuals.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
A very happy new year to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The listed places of worship grant scheme permits VAT to be refunded on repairs to some of our oldest church buildings, as well as other religious buildings. Since its introduction under the last Labour Government, the scheme has helped with the restoration of thousands of buildings across the country. It is vital that the scheme does not come to an end on 31 March, as it would make it near-impossible for many buildings and parishes to restore their spaces. Can we have a Government statement on the future of the listed places of worship grant scheme?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important matter, which I know is of wide interest in this House; it has been raised many times over the years that I have been a Member of Parliament. I understand the concern about the imminent deadline, so I will ensure that either she has a discussion with a Minister or a Minister comes to the House and explains the future of the policy to everybody.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
This week, temperatures are plummeting across the country. In the west midlands, we are expecting it to reach minus 6° this evening. Will the right hon. Lady assure the House that all constituents who have been forced to apply for pension credit in the hope that they are eligible for the winter fuel payment will receive the payments in good time? They are faced with an awful decision about how to afford to heat their home.
Lucy Powell
I recognise the issue the right hon. Member raises. Of course, temperatures are very cold at the moment right across the country. She will know that, in addition to the support that is there for pensioners—the increased state pension this year; the record increase in applications for pension credit, which are being processed at pace; the £150 warm home discount; and the extra money being distributed by councils to many pensioners, which in some cases is £200 and above—people will be eligible for the cold weather payments over this cold period. She can be assured that pensioners who are eligible are getting the support they need in this cold weather.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
The Government have said that by June, they intend to ratify the agreement on biodiversity beyond national jurisdictions, more commonly known as the global oceans treaty. They have also said quite correctly, and highly unusually, that before they do so, they intend to take steps to put in place the measures to implement the agreement. That will require primary legislation. Can the Leader of the House tell us when such legislation may be brought forward and what form it might take?
Lucy Powell
I am well aware of this issue and the legislative time that would be required. The Government are completely committed to ratifying the BBNJ agreement, and work is already under way to implement provisions in the agreement before we can ratify it. My hon. Friend will be aware that we have a heavy legislative agenda—one of the most ambitious of any incoming Government. The legislation about the treaty will come forward in due course.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Young cancer patients are subject to a three-month qualifying period before they can even apply for disability living allowance or personal independence payments, on top of a 20-week delay for the processing of disability benefits. Children have often died before the benefits have been awarded, due to bureaucratic inertia by the Department for Work and Pensions. Hugh’s law, proposed by Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis, would seek to remove the three-month qualifying period for DLA and calls for day 1 financial support. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate on the merits of Hugh’s law?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Member for raising the plight of young people who have cancer and face difficult challenges in their lives. He raised an important issue about the timely awarding of disability living allowance and other benefits, and described Hugh’s law. I will ensure that he gets a full ministerial reply and, if that is not sufficient, I will ensure that we make some time for it.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
Residents living in the Brockhill development in my constituency have been fighting developers for nearly two decades to have roads and land parcels adopted and for fit-for-purpose estate management. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time to discuss how we can hold developers to account on their promises during the planning process, so that residents do not have to spend 20 years fighting for what they have paid for?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise those issues, and that is why the Government are bringing forward a major piece of legislation, the planning and infrastructure Bill, which will make sure that developers play their role in ensuring that we have the local services and infrastructure that is needed to sit alongside the kind of developments he describes.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Does the Leader of the House plan to set aside some Government time for us to discuss the enormous changes to local government announced in a statement just before Christmas? That forced a lot of councils to come up with plans at very short notice. There has been limited opportunity for any kind of democratic engagement from our constituents. It seems to me that we ought to spend some time in this Chamber debating the implications of potentially cancelling a series of local elections? Will she spare that time?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Lady raises an important point. As was set out in that statement, our White Paper contains major reforms to deliver on the devolution agenda and put power back into communities, which we said we would do. There have been knock-on consequences, but I assure her that we will consider postponing elections only where doing so would help to deliver reorganisation and devolution in the most ambitious possible timeframe. She makes a good case for a general debate to discuss those issues more broadly, and I am sure that such a debate would be well attended.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
The year 2025 is a jubilee year, which is a motivation for many Christian organisations and others to campaign to cancel the debts of global south countries and tackle the root causes of the endless debt crisis. More than 3.3 billion people live in countries where more is spent on servicing debt than on health and education combined, so might we have a debate in Government time on debt relief for low-income and debt-distressed countries?
Lucy Powell
Jubilee 2025 is a great campaign. The hon. Gentleman may wish to raise those issues with the Foreign Secretary and his team at Foreign Office questions next week. The matter would make an excellent Backbench Business debate, and I know that the Backbench Business Committee has granted debates on it before. While I am at it, I encourage colleagues to apply to the Backbench Business Committee for debates.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
In Fylde, it feels as if our green belt is under attack from all directions and not in a co-ordinated way. The Morgan and Morecambe wind farm cabling corridors and substations are coming in at St Anne’s on the coast and cabling all the way through Fylde to Penwortham; solar farm applications are being made left, right and centre; and our housing target has just been doubled with pretty much nowhere to put housing other than on the green belt. May we have a debate in Government time to discuss the demands placed on the green belt and our countryside by different Government Departments, which result not just in lost farmland and countryside, but in flooding, congestion and other dangers? If we are to preserve our countryside, the Government must tackle those issues in a co-ordinated way.
Lucy Powell
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the green belt is, and remains, protected. The Government plan to unlock what we describe as “grey belt” —not particularly good-quality green belt—and we want a policy of “brownfield first” in planning decisions. He raises the issue of different aspects, including energy supply, infrastructure and transport, all coming together. Our planning and infrastructure Bill, which we will soon introduce to the House, will consider all those issues in the round, and I am sure that he will take part in those debates.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
On 31 December, we marked the 95th anniversary of the Glen cinema disaster—one of the UK’s worst disasters—which took place in my constituency. Seventy-one children, the youngest of whom was only four, lost their life in a crowd crush caused by a smoking canister of nitrate film. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the legacy of those lost lives lies in the UK’s fire and building safety regulations? Next time she sees a lit emergency exit sign, will she pause to remember the children of the Glen cinema?
Lucy Powell
I am sure that the whole House will take a moment, 95 years on, to remember all those who were killed in the Glen cinema tragedy, as my hon. Friend reminds us on behalf of her constituents. She will be aware that things have moved on, and in recent years we have learned the lessons and ensured that our public places are safe. Although Martyn’s law, which is going through the other place at the moment, is focused on terrorism, it will also support action against fire and other hazards in our public spaces.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Last week, my constituent Jordan Maclachlan from Ardnamurchan was killed while serving as a medic in Ukraine. Jordan volunteered to go to Ukraine at the start of the war, and his family have said that by serving on the frontline,
“Jordan always believed that he was making a difference”.
Will the Leader of the House join me, not just in sending our deepest condolences to Jordan’s heartbroken family and friends, but in saying that we in this House also believe that in his work as a Ukrainian army medic, Jordan did make a difference? Does she also agree that it is now incumbent on all of us who believe in democracy and the rule of law that we keep Jordan’s memory alive by ensuring that aggressors such as Putin will not win?
Lucy Powell
I also express our deepest condolences to Jordan’s family and friends. I know that consular officials are in touch and supporting his family. While I would not want to encourage people to go to Ukraine in that way, I absolutely share this Government’s commitment to ensuring that Ukraine wins in this war against Putin’s illegal aggression. We will do whatever it takes to support Ukrainians in that endeavour.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I have tabled an early-day motion calling for Disclosure and Barring Service checks for all Members of both Houses.
[That this House believes that all Parliamentarians should be subject to a Disclosure and Barring Service check when they take their place in the House of Commons or House of Lords.]
That would make us all feel safer in the corridors of power, but more importantly, would give the institutions we visit—such as care homes and schools—much greater confidence in who they are letting through their doors. My submission to the Modernisation Committee also makes that proposal. Would the Leader of the House support such a proposal?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, and for writing to me and to the Modernisation Committee about it. I absolutely understand her motivation —to ensure that the House of Commons and, indeed, the wider Parliament is a safe place for people to work, and that our constituents and others can feel safe in their interactions with us. That is why over recent years, we have developed more robust systems around those issues, and we are looking further at them. However, I say gently to my hon. Friend that we need to strike a balance that ensures we can also represent our constituents freely and openly.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
This week, Scottish Labour announced that it will abstain to allow the SNP Government’s Budget to pass through the Scottish Parliament. This is now typical of Scottish Labour, sitting on the fence and not standing up to the SNP in Scotland. Does the Leader of the House agree that there should be a statement on the UK Government’s priorities for Scotland, considering that her party promised change but is now endorsing the same old SNP tactics?
Lucy Powell
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation. Scottish Labour and the Labour party have done more than most to stand up to the failures of the Scottish Government, of which there are many. That is why we have returned a record number of Labour MPs in Scotland who won seats directly from the Scottish National party. The Scottish National party and the Government there now have a huge amount of extra money thanks to this Government’s Budget. They have the powers to get that money to the frontline, and we want to see the lives of people in Scotland improved, but we believe that that will be done better when people vote for Scottish Labour in the future.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will know that throughout the pandemic, the Conservative Government excluded nearly 4 million self-employed and other workers from financial support. Lives were lost and livelihoods ruined, and many of those workers remain struggling. Will my right hon. Friend please make time for a debate, so that we can yet again look to right the wrongs of the previous Government?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend raises a very good point about those who were excluded and those who were left in great difficulty as a result of the pandemic, which was a huge shock to the economy at the time. Treasury questions are coming up in a couple of weeks; my hon. Friend might want to raise that issue then.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) mentioned the subject of devolution. In Gloucestershire, we stand on the cusp of a democratic outrage: the county council leadership has suggested that districts are backing it in cancelling this year’s elections, and backing a single unitary authority for the whole of Gloucestershire. Having spoken to other districts, that is not the case, and I know that Labour Members from Gloucestershire share my concerns. I add my weight to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire’s call: that, if county councils persist in this kind of democratic outrage, we must have time to debate that in this House. I hope the Leader of the House agrees.
Lucy Powell
I hear what the hon. Member says. To reiterate what I said earlier, the Minister for Local Government has set out some very clear criteria that must be met in relation to any requests for postponing elections, and one of the things he will be looking for is support across the area for that decision. However, I will certainly listen to requests for a broader debate on this issue.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
A few years ago, my cousin John took his own life. It is something that, as a family, I can say here and now, we will never ever get over. There are Johns out there today—many Johns—contemplating their future; January is a particularly tough month for many people. Will the Leader of the House join me in raising awareness about mental health so that people know it is actually a strength of character to speak up and speak out and talk about their feelings? Will she also recognise the amazing organisations out there that welcome people through their doors every day to a safe space and environment, such as the Jackson Hope Foundation in my constituency of Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. I am really sorry to hear of the death of my hon. Friend’s cousin John from mental health issues. He is absolutely right to raise this, especially at this time of year when we have dark nights and cold weather. It is after Christmas, and many people do not feel as optimistic at the start of the new year as the rest of us. He is absolutely right that speaking up, sharing and being open about these things is one of the best ways in which we can tackle the blight of mental health.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
A constituent of mine, Maria Culley, has long been campaigning for a comprehensive regulatory framework for nannies, such as mandatory background checks, standardised training, ongoing professional development and the inclusion of other standards, all to ensure that every nanny in the UK is held to a high standard, while protecting families with the security of knowing that their children are safe and in capable hands. I have been asking for a meeting with the children and families Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby)—for some time. Could the Leader of the House push that meeting along, so that I and my constituent Maria can meet the Minister to discuss this campaign?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Member raises a really important issue about ensuring that all those looking after our children are operating to the highest standards, and doing so safely and with strong levels of accountability. I would gently say to him that that is often not the message that comes from those on his Front Bench about these issues, and we are often asked to do the opposite when it comes to the early years sector. Our Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which passed its Second Reading yesterday, will look at some of these issues, and I will certainly ask for a Minister to give him a full response about the nanny sector.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
This week, we have spent a lot of time talking about Elon Musk and his concern about violence against, and the sexual abuse of, women. I am aware of an ongoing case in which a woman continues to be stalked by a man who has already been convicted of stalking her, and who has set up an X account in her name and is posting pornography. However, Elon Musk’s company refuses to provide the IP account address needed to increase the level of sanction against the man. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate to discuss what Mr Musk and his company can do to ensure that those guilty of harming women are properly prosecuted?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend raises a very concerning case, and it is not an isolated one. That is why this Government are taking real steps against stalking, with our stalking prevention orders being strengthened. She will know that we have a debate this afternoon on ending violence against women and girls. She raises a particular issue about the responsibility of social media companies. Unfortunately, the previous Government did not include some of those in the Online Safety Act 2023, as they watered it down at the last minute. However, I will ensure that she gets a proper reply from a Minister about what powers the Government and the police have to take action in this case, and we will look at what needs to be strengthened further.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I need you all to work with me. If your questions are fast and the answers are just as fast, I will be able to get everyone in, otherwise not everyone will be able to get in.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Two days before Christmas, the Government pulled the plug on the community ownership fund. This is a devastating blow to organisations, charities and community groups across the country, such as Much Marcle community shop, Pencombe parish council, which wanted to buy the local pub, and the local disability charity ECHO for Extra Choices in Herefordshire. They are all in my constituency, and all have fantastic projects that now have no prospect of Government funding. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to come to the House to answer questions from Members about why the Government pulled the rug out from under projects such as those, and how they will support community projects to serve their communities?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue, which I know is of concern to other Members across the House. She is right that we have taken the very difficult decision, due to the challenging economic situation and the inheritance we were left by the previous Government, to end this particular fund. However, we do remain committed to the community sector and community empowerment, and we will deliver on our manifesto commitment to replace the community right to bid with a strengthened right to buy assets of community value. I will ensure that further updates are given to the House in due course.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Deeplish community centre in Rochdale has just celebrated 35 years of providing pre-school clubs, holiday playgroups and elderly lunch clubs, as well as jobs and training for people in the heart of Rochdale. The key thing is that it proudly retains its Sure Start status, as it did under the last Labour Government, and it is the family hub that helped rebuild the nearby Deeplish primary school, which I had the pleasure of welcoming to Westminster last year. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Sohail Ahmad and all those who have built this fantastic community device over the last few years?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those involved with the Deeplish community centre in his constituency on celebrating its 35th birthday. He is a fellow Greater Manchester MP, and we are both well aware of the really good work that the Mayor, Andy Burnham, has been doing there to ensure we have early years provision. We have maintained the Sure Start model to some degree to ensure that everybody gets the very best start in life.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I am sure the Leader of the House will be celebrating with the people of the Falkland Islands tomorrow as they gather for a public holiday to commemorate Margaret Thatcher Day. She was the Prime Minister who went there 42 years ago tomorrow, 10 January, following the liberation of the islands. Self-determination was of course what she fought for for the Falkland Islanders. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Government make an urgent statement confirming the same principle of self-determination for all British citizens of all British territories, including the British Indian Ocean Territory and the right of self- determination for the Chagos Islanders?
Lucy Powell
I perhaps will not celebrate Margaret Thatcher Day in quite the way the hon. Member wants me to, but on behalf of the Government I absolutely make clear our commitment to the Falkland Islands. I remember very well the passionate defence that the Prime Minister made of that at this Dispatch Box in recent weeks, and of his family’s involvement in the Falklands war. He raises the Chagos issue, and he will be aware that his own Government began those negotiations. I think there were 11 rounds of negotiations about the future of the air base there under his Government’s watch, so it is very much something we inherited and that was in train at the time.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Museum of Scottish Railways in my constituency, at the site of the Bo’ness and Kinneil railway and operated by the Scottish Railway Preservation Society, is Scotland’s largest railway museum. It is playing a key part in the celebrations marking 200 years of modern railways, in recognition of its importance in preserving heritage and attracting over 60,000 visitors every year. Will the Leader of the House grant time for a debate on supporting and celebrating heritage railways?
Lucy Powell
Heritage railways such as Bo’ness and Kinneil often get mentioned in these sessions, and I join my hon. Friend in thanking them for the brilliant work they do and thanking the volunteers they rely on for makings sure that heritage railways, which are so valued, continue to flourish.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Small retailers, restaurants and pubs add huge vibrancy, colour and character to the Great British high street, but the Budget posed an existential crisis to many of them, with the increases to national insurance and the slashing of small business rates relief. Will the right hon. Lady grant a debate on how we can better protect the future of the Great British high street and the many jobs it provides?
Lucy Powell
As the Member of Parliament with the highest number of pubs in their constituency, I strongly echo the hon. Member’s support for the hospitality sector and the vital role it plays in keeping our high streets, town centres and city centres vibrant, with all the employment, joy and everything else that they bring. It has been a tough few years for the hospitality sector—we all recognise that. We had to take some difficult decisions in the Budget to make sure that our health service and education service would not face cuts. In the long run, our hospitality sector will benefit from all the investment we are putting in to make sure it has a healthy and highly skilled workforce.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
Just before Christmas, I was fortunate to attend the latest passing-out parade for graduates of the Firebreak scheme at Stanground fire station in my constituency of North West Cambridgeshire. That intensive five-day intervention programme provides a positive alternative learning environment and is aimed at young people aged 10 to 18 who are struggling with the mainstream education environment. Participants leave with certificates in cardiopulmonary resuscitation, basic lifesaving and all sorts. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Paul Clarke, the children and young people lead, and the community fire safety group at Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service? Will she consider a debate on how supporting such interventions can help young people get back on the right track by re-engaging with and thriving in their education?
Lucy Powell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the community fire safety group at Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service. The alternative provision that he highlights is crucial in helping children who might otherwise be taken out of school, or perhaps have nowhere else to go, to get the support they need so that they can flourish in life.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I share the concerns of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) about the closure of the community ownership fund. East Neuk community in my constituency made a 50-page application, with the support of the Development Trusts Association Scotland, but was told to wait until after the Budget. I heard the Leader of the House’s response to the hon. Member, but may we have a debate in Government time so that community assets in Scotland and other parts of the UK do not suffer?
Lucy Powell
I hear that more than one Member— I know there have been others this week—is interested in the future of the community ownership fund. As I said to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), this Government are committed to the principle of community ownership and to making it easier for communities to take ownership of assets. I hear their calls. There are oral questions to the Department coming up next week. If the answers are not satisfactorily resolved, I will certainly look at a debate.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Many of my constituents are rightly concerned about animal welfare. I join them in wanting to see more action in that area, whether that is an end to trail hunting, the phasing out of animal testing or abolishing the use of snare traps. I welcome the Government’s pledge to introduce a range of measures in support of animal welfare. Will the Leader of the House give us some indication of the likely timescales for reform?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising these issues. She will be aware that in our manifesto, we made a number of commitments to animal welfare issues, of which some will require legislation and some will not. We have a packed legislative programme for this Session, but we are committed to bringing forward legislation in this space where necessary to improve animal welfare standards in this country.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Tara and Keith in my constituency have written to me about the appalling one-hour delays on First Bus’s 22 bus service. Lessons are being missed and a gentleman in my constituency missed a serious operation because of the appalling service. Will the Leader of the House arrange time to debate public transport in Somerset, including the need to reopen Wellington station on the same route as the 22 bus service?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear of the delays that Tara and Keith have suffered from poor bus services in the hon. Member’s constituency. Obviously in Greater Manchester we have suddenly got great buses, but apart from us, I think that people can recognise the situation he describes, especially in our rural communities. That is why we have brought forward the bus service reform Bill, which is currently in the House of Lords, and it is why we are putting extra investment into buses—so that local communities such as his, can have a reliable and affordable bus service.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
The number of survivors of historical abuse at Medomsley detention centre is decreasing. Victims are seeking justice for the serious and widespread abuse that took place between 1961 and 1987. Will the Leader of the House help me secure a meeting with the Home Secretary to discuss how the survivors, as well as the families of those who are no longer with us, can finally achieve full justice?
Lucy Powell
I will help my hon. Friend to secure a meeting with either the Home Secretary or the relevant Minister to discuss this historical abuse case.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Some 160,000 people live in residential park homes in England. However, when they come to sell their property, they are required to pay 10% of the sale price to the site owner. Although local authorities are responsible for the site licence, they often do not have the specific knowledge necessary, made worse by the fact that they do not have to have a named park home officer. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate how we can give park home owners more rights over their properties and fix some of these issues?
Lucy Powell
This is not something I am aware of; I have not come across a park home in my constituency, but the hon. Member raises an important point. It would make an extremely good application for an Adjournment debate, but in the meantime, I will ensure he gets a full ministerial response about park homes.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Over the Christmas recess, I was lucky enough to visit South East Harlow Sports and Youth Association, a fantastic grassroots organisation that supports young people in my community to get access to sport and thrive. Can we have a debate in Government time on how we can support such grassroots youth organisations to ensure they survive and thrive and support young people in our communities?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating South East Harlow Sports and Youth Association for the great work it does. He is right to raise the vital role of grassroots sport facilities. That is why this Government have set aside budgets for them to continue and flourish. He might want to raise this issue with the Secretary of State in questions next week.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder services in Oxfordshire are in crisis. There are no adult specialised commissioned services available and waiting lists have been closed. Those lucky enough to have a diagnosis and treatment cannot get medication, because of shortages. In one case, a constituent was unable to continue their care, having turned 18 and been kicked out of paediatric services. Will the Leader of the House make time to discuss ADHD services nationwide in this House?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Member for raising ADHD services and the broader issue of special educational needs and disabilities provision in this country, which is raised regularly in this session and in many other ways on the Floor of the House. He will know that we are not getting the outcomes we need, and families and children are not getting the support they need in this area, even though costs go up and up. We set aside £1 billion extra in the Budget to support special educational needs, but he is right that we need to look at these services and ensure that they are fit for purpose and that we are providing support and getting the outcomes we need.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Last month, I worked with Aylesbury town council to convene some of the businesses that are so central to our community. They raised concerns about antisocial behaviour, and the data backs up those concerns: in the past year, more than 750 incidents were recorded in the constituency. Does the Leader of the House agree that we must not only tackle this challenge in our town centres but promote positive, respectful behaviour? Will she make space for a debate on this issue?
Lucy Powell
Antisocial behaviour chips away at communities’ sense of confidence and pride, and makes people feel at risk in their own communities. Our new respect orders will begin to tackle this issue, and the crime and policing Bill, through which we can discuss this issue further, will be introduced to the House very shortly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I again thank the Leader of the House for all her answers. In Bangladesh in 2024, over 400 attacks were carried out in places belonging to Hindus and other religious minorities, including some 25 temples. These attacks have had an impact on some 20,000 people across 47 districts, and resulted in the death of at least 60 Hindus. There were reports of rape and mob lynchings, including the very brutal killing of an 18-year-old in the presence of police and military personnel. Furthermore, Chinmoy Krishna Das, a Hindu clergyman, was arbitrarily arrested for raising issues about the treatment of religious minorities and their leaders in Bangladesh. Will the Leader of the House urge the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to raise these alarming violations of freedom of religion or belief with the Bangladeshi Government?
Lucy Powell
As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises an important matter. We have been very clear in our discussions with the interim Government in Bangladesh about the importance of political consensus and stability, and the need for national reconciliation in the country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have 20 Members left, all on the Government Benches. If you work together, you will all get in. It is up to you.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s announcement that Yorkshire and the Humber is getting £123 million to repair potholes. Since the announcement, many of my constituents in Leeds South West and Morley have been in touch about key roads in the constituency—Cross Peel Street, the Tingley roundabout and Asquith Avenue. I have mentioned this three times in the House already. Will the Leader of the House grant an urgent debate on the need to help these local authorities spend this money quickly, so that all our residents feel the benefit?
Lucy Powell
That avenue in my hon. Friend’s constituency is becoming famous in Parliament. He is right that fixing potholes is a priority for this Government. That is why we have announced record levels of investment. The equivalent of an extra 7 million potholes could be filled just this year, if councils spend that money quickly and well.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
One year and one day ago, the Prime Minister visited my constituency to see the flood damage. Over the past weeks, properties in my constituency have once again been ruined by flooding. When the Prime Minister came a year ago, he met Jacob. Jacob spent the last year fixing up his house. It was finished last month, and now it is ruined again. Can the Leader of the House assure me that this Government will do everything they can to protect my community, including with some of the £2.4 billion of flood defence money?
Lucy Powell
I am really sorry to hear that Jacob has yet again been affected by flooding. As my hon. Friend will be aware, flooding incidents are becoming more extreme and occurring more often. The flood defences that we inherited were pretty shocking, but we are turning that around. We have the flood resilience taskforce and extra money going in, but I will ensure that this House is kept updated about our plans on flooding, as it has been this week.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Rugby union is the national sport of Cornwall and is integral to many of our local communities. Having spoken to several rugby clubs across and associated with Cornwall over recent months, including Camborne rugby club, and Redruth rugby club, which is celebrating its 150th anniversary, I know that there is deep and widespread unease at the current governance of English rugby. Several grassroots community rugby clubs are reportedly on the financial brink. This issue is not restricted to Cornwall—clubs all over the country report the same issues. Will the Leader of the House grant Government time to debate this important issue?
Lucy Powell
As ever, my hon. Friend raises important issues for his constituents in Cornwall. I am sorry to hear of what is happening with rugby in his constituency. He might want to raise that next week at Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions, but if he does not get a good reply, I will make sure that the Minister gets back to him.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
A recent London Councils report highlighted major issues in the capital with special educational needs provision, workforce capacity and inclusion. In the light of that, I welcome the new Government’s significant financial commitment to SEND. However, this year, Conservative Hillingdon council is proposing a £7 million cut to schools in my constituency, due to its own failure to manage the local SEND system. That will devastate SEND inclusion in local mainstream schools. Can we have a debate in the House to discuss SEND provision, and will my right hon. Friend relay my concerns to the Department concerned?
Lucy Powell
I will relay my hon. Friend’s concerns about what Hillingdon council is proposing for special educational needs and support for schools. This Government have allocated an extra £1 billion for special educational needs. We have also allocated significant extra money for local councils. There really is no excuse for Hillingdon council to behave in this way.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Earlier this school year, the Friary school, a secondary school in my constituency, held a school-wide referendum, which included parents and the wider community, on lowering the voting age to 16. I am proud to say that this will be the topic for the Litchfield schools speaking competition, thanks to the sponsorship of Arthur Price and the Rotary Club of St Chad. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending the organiser of that referendum, head girl Emma Mackenzie, and agree that it is high time that we followed Emma’s lead and had a debate on the topic in this place?
Lucy Powell
I congratulate Emma, and all those involved at the school, on highlighting these issues. As my hon. Friend is aware, votes at 16 is a Government manifesto commitment. We will bring forward legislation to make that a reality when parliamentary time allows—likely in a future Session. I am sure that he will want to report that back to his school.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
With the recent poor weather, too many of my constituents have had sleepless nights watching river gauges, fearing a repeat of last year’s flooding. Could the Leader of the House assure me that we are doing everything we can to combat flooding, and update me on our progress?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue. Flooding is affecting many more constituencies and communities, and is doing so more often, as we see the effects of climate change on this country. We have a Government-wide approach to tackling climate change, but also we are taking steps to make sure that our communities have flood resilience and flood support. I will ensure that the House is kept up to date on developments.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
Wherever I go in my constituency, local residents raise with me the poor standard of the local bus service. One resident in Livingston Village told me that the elderly and people with children are forced to walk a long way, or pay for a taxi, to get to hospital appointments. Adambrae has lost its bus, and in Addiewell, Stoneyburn and Longridge, my constituents have to take multiple buses to get to the hospital. Unfortunately, this is not unique to my constituency, as statistics show that local bus services in Scotland have collapsed by 44% since the SNP took charge. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on the importance of local bus services to our constituents? Perhaps the SNP Government in Scotland can learn something from the UK Government about protecting our bus services.
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in saying how important local bus services are. That is why this Government are taking steps to ensure better bus services here in England. The Scottish Government will receive almost £48 billion in the next financial year. They really should use that to support local services such as buses in his constituency.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to crack down on waste incinerators. In my constituency, I have campaigned for 16 years against the Sinfin waste treatment centre, which failed initial testing in 2017 and has never been put into operational use. But the project continues, and over £150 million has been wasted. It is clear that this incinerator needs to be stopped. Where there are legitimate local, environmental and financial concerns, as there are in Sinfin, we need to take the tough decisions. Will my right hon. Friend allow time for a debate on the management of incinerator projects?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I think it is his first business question, and I welcome him. This Government will back only those new waste incinerator projects that meet strict new conditions. This issue is raised with me a lot, so I encourage him to work with Members from across the House—many other Members have raised the issue—and get a Backbench Business debate on waste incinerators.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
We are seeing an alarming increase in heavily pregnant women and families with complex medical needs being shipped in, sometimes in the middle of the night, to our asylum hotel. Our area was abandoned by the previous Government, and we have one of the worst hospitals in the country, yet the previous Government put an asylum hotel in one of our most deprived wards. Can we have a debate in Government time about the support we can give to our NHS workers who are working through this appalling legacy?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear of the situation in my hon. Friend’s constituency. He will know that we inherited an asylum system that broke under exceptional strain. We are committed to ending the use of asylum hotels, but that will take time while we tackle the small boats, which we are doing; we have also put record levels of funding into the national health service. However, he is absolutely right to raise this issue. If we do not get on top of the illegal and net migration figures, which are incredibly high, this will continue to put pressure on our national health service.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Prostate cancer costs the NHS around £93 million a year, but more than a third of those costs are avoidable through early diagnosis. Prostate cancer remains the only major cancer in the UK without a national screening programme. I understand that requesting screening can be a real obstacle to some men, so I give heartfelt thanks to my constituent Steve, who is fighting prostate cancer, and who opened up to me about the importance of helping men to get a diagnosis early. Will the Leader of the House allocate time for a debate on the targeted screening programme that is urgently needed to address the gap and improve outcomes for vulnerable groups?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. What an important issue my hon. Friend raises. As she may be aware, the UK national screening committee is undertaking an evidence-led review into prostate cancer screening, which is due to be completed soon. I will ensure that she and the House are updated as soon as that happens.
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
Parents in my constituency are deeply worried about the prevalence of ketamine in our communities, and staff at my local hospital tell me that an increasing number of young people are presenting with serious harm caused by the drug, including life-lasting bladder damage. Use of ketamine by young people in the UK is estimated to have tripled since 2016, so I was pleased this week to read that the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention has sought advice on upgrading ketamine from a category C to a category B drug. Will the Leader of the House join me in condemning criminals who peddle drugs such as ketamine to children, and grant a debate on the important issue of tackling drug use in young people?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. Many of us are seeing the dangerous impact of the rise in ketamine use across our constituency and in young people. My hon. Friend mentioned the actions that Ministers have taken; we will do whatever it takes to clamp down on the growth in ketamine use.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Criss Connor, who sadly died over the Christmas break? Criss was a long-standing member of Labour, a former borough and county councillor and an honorary alderman of Basingstoke. Criss will be remembered for not only his service to our community, but his kindness, passion and steadfast belief in fairness and justice. My thoughts are with his wife, Angela, his family and friends, and all who knew him. Will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate to enable hon. Members across this House to pay tribute to dedicated public servants such as Criss?
Lucy Powell
What a beautiful tribute to Criss and all the work he did. I am sure that Criss’s family and friends will have listened to my hon. Friend’s words with great comfort. Councillors up and down this country do an enormously valuable job for our country and our communities, and I am sure a debate on such a subject would be very well attended.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the young women across the country who took part in the CyberFirst girls competition, and especially the winners in the Scotland section, Charlotte, Jess, Sania and Aoife of Hyndland secondary school in my constituency? Does she agree that it is increasingly important that girls are encouraged to pursue an interest and, perhaps, a career in cyber security?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. What a fantastic achievement for Hyndland secondary school. I join my hon. Friend in saying that young girls should get into computing and cyber-security. Let us not forget that Ada Lovelace wrote the world’s first computer program.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I have a large Sikh population in my constituency and have received many letters from constituents expressing concerns over transnational repression and political interference by the Indian Government, creating risks to safety and security for Sikhs not only travelling to India, but in this country. They have referred to the mysterious, sudden death of Avtar Singh Khanda in Birmingham in June 2023, days before the assassination of the Sikh leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada. Will the Leader of the House ensure that UK Ministers make representations to their Indian counterparts on the need to respect and comply with the rule of law and the UK’s sovereignty, for the safety and security of Sikhs in this country?
Lucy Powell
I know that my hon. Friend’s question will be welcomed by the Sikh community across the UK. He raises very important issues relating to transnational aggression, and I will certainly ensure that Ministers have heard what he has said and that the House is updated in due course.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
Around 153,000 people in the UK are living with Parkinson’s, including many of my constituents who have told me about the difficulties they face in accessing treatment. I welcome the plan set out by the Health Secretary on health reforms and investment, but may we have a specific debate on the challenges faced by those with Parkinson’s in the UK?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in saying that we want a society where every person with a disease such as Parkinson’s receives the high-quality care that they need and that they can afford. That is why we are taking steps to reform and invest in our social care sector. It will take some time and will not be easy to do, but I will ensure that this House is updated at every stage.
Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)
I recently met two special educational needs teachers in my constituency who are two of the thousands of teachers across Scotland who are owed millions of pounds in overpaid taxes. Unfortunately, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the 16 local authorities affected are at gridlock. Will the Leader of the House consider granting time for a debate so that we can help to overcome this intolerable situation for our valuable public sector workers?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. This is the right place for my hon. Friend to raise such an issue with me. I will ensure that Ministers look into the matter for her and get back to her with a full response.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
With the new year comes the new year’s honours list. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating my friend and constituent Barry Hyde on being awarded the British empire medal for his exceptional voluntary contribution to our community in Rossendale and Darwen? Barry, and thousands of volunteers like him, are at the heart of our community. Will my right hon. Friend agree to a general debate on the value of the voluntary sector to our society?
Lucy Powell
I will absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating Barry Hyde on all his work. We hear time and again in business questions about the crucial role that our community volunteers play in making our constituencies great places to live and work.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Will the Minister join me in congratulating my constituent Audrey Mutongi-Darko, founder of the No. 1 Befriending Agency? It was announced in the new year’s honours list that she is to receive the British empire medal for services to tackling loneliness and isolation in older people in Scotland. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate to discuss how this Government can do more to help vulnerable older people and to tackle loneliness and social isolation?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Audrey on her great achievement. Yet again we are hearing of the amazing work that our constituents do day in, day out to support others and to ensure that they can access the care and support they need. I will certainly consider a debate on the issue.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
A number of my constituents have grave concerns about homes being repurposed into houses in multiple occupation without any requirement for planning permission. Currently, planning permission is not needed for homes in Bolton with six or fewer bedrooms, yet I know of three houses in Horwich that are being redeveloped into six-bedroom homes without any oversight, with concerns raised about parking and antisocial behaviour. Will the Leader of the House therefore make Government time available for a debate on this important issue, to ensure that there is a level playing field across the country on planning requirements for HMOs?
Lucy Powell
We can all recognise the real issues that occur when unregulated HMOs take hold in communities and the challenges they bring to community cohesion and in poor housing standards. I just announced that the Renters’ Rights Bill will be back in the Chamber next week, and that will be a great opportunity for my hon. Friend to raise those issues.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will know that I am frequently contacted by constituents from some of the most rural parts of my constituency urging the Government to move swiftly with the manifesto commitment to extend the ban on trail hunting, which is a blight on rural communities and encourages antisocial behaviour. May I echo that in the strongest possible terms and urge the Government to move on with that landmark legislation?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising those issues. He will be aware that we have the most ambitious plans in a generation to improve animal welfare, and I have absolutely heard his call to look at that when parliamentary time allows.
Point of Order
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition said:
“The Labour party has adopted the APPG definition of ‘Islamophobia’. The same APPG report said that talking about sex groomers was an example of Islamophobia.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 839.]
That is an inaccurate description of the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims’ definition of Islamophobia. Its definition cites the example of using the symbols and images associated with classic Islamophobia to characterise Muslims as sex groomers. Can the Leader of the Opposition return to the Chamber to correct the record and confirm whether she agrees that characterising Muslims as sex groomers is indeed an example of Islamophobia?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. As he will know, the Chair is not responsible for the Leader of the Opposition’s comments in the Chamber, but he has succeeded in putting his point on the record, and no doubt that statement has been heard.
Violence against Women and Girls
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of tackling violence against women and girls.
As things stand today, the scale of violence against women in this country is intolerable and a national emergency, so I welcome the opportunity for the House to unite and debate it. Tackling violence against women and girls in all its forms is a top priority for the Government and central to our wider mission to make the country’s streets safer.
Let me be clear from the start that I condemn the threats against the Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), in the strongest possible terms. They are abhorrent and demonstrate all too clearly how some men view women’s place in the world. I know that so many right hon. and hon. Members have experienced that kind of hateful misogyny online—threats and abuse levelled at us just for doing our job—but we will continue to speak out; we will not be silenced. I am sure that the House will join me in offering my friend every support. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
The Government were elected on a landmark pledge to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade, rightly putting the issue at the forefront of the political agenda after years of neglect, and where women have been let down by the system. It is an ambitious target, but it is absolutely right that we are ambitious when it comes to the safety of women and girls.
In this country, it is estimated that a woman is killed by a man every three days, on average, yet that rarely makes the headlines. Their deaths have become normalised and I think we, as a society, have become desensitised. That is nothing short of a national scandal. Every woman lost is a daughter, a mother and a friend with her life brutally cut short. They are not statistics to me, and nor are they to the Government; their lives matter and we are determined to act. We will use every tool at our disposal to target perpetrators, protect victims and address the causes of this appalling abuse and violence. We will go further than ever before to transform how we work together across Government, public services, the private sector and charities, and our efforts will be underpinned by a new strategy to combat violence against women and girls that we will publish later this year.
As a first principle, prevention will always be better than cure, so if we are to tackle these crimes we must start by tackling their root causes. Education will be fundamental to our approach. We need a culture shift where abusive, harassing and discriminatory behaviour is called out for exactly what it is, where women are at last respected and championed and where every woman can be safe wherever they are, whether at work, at school, online, in the street or in their own homes.
Women make up over 50% of society, but the mission shared by those of us in the Chamber cannot be achieved by halves or by women speaking only to women; everyone needs to play their part. Men must be part of the conversation and part of the solution, and I am clear that there are many great male role models out there—many of them in this Chamber We need to understand why boys and young men are being drawn down the rabbit hole of toxic masculinity that so often fuels these crimes. Critically, how can we step in, support them and steer them away from that?
No one agency can solve this alone. It will mean working across the House and across society with schools, parents, police and the judiciary—everyone—if we are to make a difference for the next generation of women. That is the approach the Government will take.
Secondly, we must ensure that our legal system is able to respond effectively to these crimes so that women are protected and perpetrators are swiftly brought to justice.
Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I understand that there may be some difficulties with the criminal law in relation to people being followed. In the event that they have been actively harassed and threatened, there is a potential crime in the threat, but there may be a gap in the criminal law for those who are simply followed, with that not being part of a continuing course of conduct. Will the Minister commit to looking into that, please?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We will happily look at that. We have already done some incredible work on stalking and harassment, but we will look to go further wherever possible.
Let us look at the offence of rape. As it stands, about 60% of adult rape complainants, despite bravely coming forward, eventually withdraw from the criminal justice process. That means too many offenders are getting away with their crimes and too many victims are being left without the justice they deserve. Often that is because the agony of a long wait for justice is much more than they can bear. It is a sad fact that some victims, and particularly those of sexual offences, are waiting almost three years for their case to come to trial. Some decide not to pursue their cases at all, feeling, quite understandably, that they need to focus on their own mental health and move on with their lives.
I once spoke to a victim who told me that she had been raped and her case had taken years to come to trial. She told me something that I will never forget: that the experience had made her want to die. That anyone should feel that way about our justice system is unconscionable. The Government are determined to do better. Justice must be swifter. We will work with the judiciary to fast-track rape cases through the courts so that victims like her are not left in limbo.
There is no escaping the Government’s bleak inheritance of a criminal court system under the most intense pressure. Nowhere is that more evident than in the Crown court, where the outstanding caseload stands at over 73,000—a record high. We have taken decisive action to drive the caseload down, funding an extra 2,000 sitting days, which will see courts sit for a total of 108,500 days this financial year—the highest level in almost a decade. We are also extending magistrates court sentencing powers from six months to 12 months for a single triable either- way offence, which we expect will free up about 2,000 sitting days and allow judges to deal with the most serious cases.
But if victims are to see justice done more swiftly, we cannot simply do more of the same; we have to go further. It will take once-in-a-generation reform. That is why the Lord Chancellor has commissioned Sir Brian Leveson, one of the country’s top legal minds, to carry out an independent review of the criminal courts. Sir Brian will consider the merits of longer-term reform during the first phase of the review. That could include consideration of an entirely new type of court entirely, intermediate courts, in which cases too serious to be heard by a magistrate alone could be heard by a judge flanked by magistrates. The second phase of the review will consider how our courts can operate more efficiently, and the timeliness of processes. Sir Brian will report his findings later this year, and I am sure that Members will await them with interest.
As a third principle, we must ensure that the criminal law is equipped to deal with the evolving range of threats that women face today. I am sure the House agrees that sexually explicit deepfake images are particularly appalling, and shares my concern about the fact that this kind of abuse is on the rise. Artificial intelligence technology now means that perpetrators can, at the click of a button, turn innocent images from a person’s social media account into pornographic material—images that can then be shared with millions online, in milliseconds. It is not funny. It is not banter. It is a gross violation of a woman’s privacy and autonomy which causes untold harm, and it is disturbing to hear that a third of women report falling victim to intimate image abuse. It cannot continue unchecked.
Our laws must protect victims and punish those responsible. That is why the Government made a clear manifesto commitment to ban the creation of these vile images, and it is why we are committed to tackling the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes by introducing a new criminal offence in the policing and crime Bill.
However, we are going further. While it is already a criminal offence to share, or threaten to share, an intimate image without consent, it is, quite bizarrely, an offence to take an image without consent only in certain circumstances. So-called up-skirting is an offence, while taking photos down someone’s blouse or setting up cameras in a changing room is not. As I am sure the House will agree, that makes little sense, so as I explained earlier this week, the Government will introduce new offences for the taking of intimate images without consent and the installation of equipment with intent to enable the taking of an intimate image without consent. We are sending the clear message that this appalling, misogynistic behaviour will not be tolerated and that predators who violate women’s trust in this way will face the consequences, which could mean up to two years in custody, depending on the perpetrator’s intent.
As women, Madam Deputy Speaker, we should not have to watch our friends’ drinks while they go to the bathroom. We should not have to worry about being spiked by a needle, or a vape. The Government will therefore introduce a new criminal offence covering spiking, and will work hand in hand with police and business leaders to crack down on this behaviour so that women can enjoy a night out without fear and victims are empowered to come forward, knowing that they will be taken seriously.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s announcement just before Christmas that spiking will become a specific offence. Will the Minister join me in commending the campaigning work of my constituent Dawn Dines and the organisation Stamp Out Spiking, and will she commit herself to working with Stamp Out Spiking and other organisations to ensure that the new law and other issues related to spiking are embedded in the knowledge of, in particular, police forces around the country?
Alex Davies-Jones
I will take every opportunity to commend Dawn Dines and the work of Stamp Out Spiking. Both the Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), and I have met Dawn Dines many times. We will, of course, be working with every single agency to ensure that we crack down on this abhorrent crime.
In November, we announced pilots of domestic abuse protection notices and domestic abuse protection orders with Greater Manchester police, in three London boroughs and with the British Transport police; North Wales police and Cleveland police will come on board early this year. Domestic abuse protection orders will impose tough restrictions on abusers and keep victims safe, making it a legal requirement for perpetrators to inform the police of any change of name or address, with the option to impose electronic tagging to keep tabs on offenders. They will also enable assessments for behaviour change programmes to be ordered to prevent the cycle of abuse from being repeated. We need to stop this behaviour.
Fourthly, we must ensure that victims are given the right support, wherever they are in the justice process. We need them to be empowered to come forward in the first place, whether to make a report or just to obtain the help that they need to rebuild their lives. Every woman should know that she is seen, heard and taken seriously—that is the kind of justice system to which we should aspire—but sadly that is not always the case, especially for those who have endured rape or other sexual offences. We are determined to improve women’s confidence in the justice system by ensuring that it focuses on perpetrators rather than pointing the finger of blame at victims. No one who has been burgled has been told, “Maybe you gave the wrong signals, and he thought you wanted to be burgled.” No one who has had their wallet stolen has been asked, “What were you wearing at the time?” For far too long, the way in which survivors of rape and sexual offences have been treated has been unacceptable, and this Government are determined to stamp out those harmful, misogynistic stereotypes. They are a threat to justice, and a threat to women in all aspects of our society.
My colleague the Lord Chancellor has announced the introduction of independent legal advisers who will offer free legal advice to victims of adult rape at any point from report to trial, helping them to understand their rights in relation to, for example, the use of personal information, such as counselling details or medical records, to which access can be gained during an investigation. As will have been said in the House before, such demands have sometimes gone too far, causing unnecessary upset to victims, compounding their trauma and, on occasion, resulting in their dropping out of a case altogether. Requests of that kind should be made only when they are relevant, necessary and proportionate to the case. The advisers will not undermine the right to a fair trial or prevent evidence from coming to light; they will simply help victims to understand and, if necessary, take steps to protect the rights that they already have.
More broadly, the Government will ensure that all victims know their rights and that those rights are upheld, and that they are supported as they go through the justice process, not retraumatised when their day in court finally arrives. The victims code helps victims to understand what they can expect from the criminal justice system, and sets out the minimum level of service that they should receive. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 has the potential to improve awareness of and compliance with the victims code by ensuring that the victims know about their rights under the code, and it sets out a new compliance framework to ensure that agencies will be held accountable for delivering those rights. The Act also places a duty on local commissioners in England to collaborate in the commissioning of support services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and serious violence. We will soon consult on a revised victims code and the duty to collaborate guidance, and we will ensure that the right data and systems are is in place to monitor compliance with the new code. The Government have also pledged to increase the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner so that there is more accountability when victims’ needs are not being met.
Let me emphasise that while women may suffer these horrific crimes more often, I am well aware that many men are affected by domestic abuse and sexual violence. They too deserve every protection and support, and these measures will of course apply equally to them. Let me also take a moment to thank victim support organisations. I am sure the House will agree that they are vital to the justice process: without them, many victims would struggle to see their cases through, which means that many more perpetrators would get away with their crimes.
As I have said, this Government inherited a criminal justice system under immense pressure, and a black hole in the nation’s finances. While we have had to make difficult decisions to deliver the justice that victims deserve, through the courts and across the system as a whole, I am pleased that we have been able to protect dedicated VAWG victims spending in the Department by maintaining the 2024-25 funding levels, which have been ringfenced for sexual violence and domestic abuse support next year. We want to ensure that help is available to survivors of these awful crimes as they seek to rebuild their lives. That includes funding for independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic abuse advisers, and is in addition to the core funding that the Department provides for police and crime commissioners to allocate at their discretion on the basis of their assessment of local need.
As I have also said, the answer to these appalling crimes does not lie with a single Government Department or agency. It demands a united effort across Departments, across the system and across society. We must all commit ourselves to ambitious change, and I know that everyone here today shares that view. I look forward to hearing from Members in all parts of the House, and to a productive debate that will move this important conversation forward as we collectively say, “Enough is enough.” Violence against women and girls can have no place in our society, and every woman and girl deserves to live her life free from violence, abuse and harassment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Minister and my Sussex neighbour, Mims Davies.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called in this important debate to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I welcome this general debate being called by the Government on such a topical issue as we return to the Chamber in the new year. It is important that there is a significant focus on women and girls being heard in every single community. I agree with the Minister: enough is enough. That is one of the most magnificent campaigns the Home Office could have come up with, and I applaud all those who work in the Department on this important issue and who are focused on protecting women and girls in every nation, region and community.
I heard people being congratulated in business questions on their awards in the new year honours. One of those was Nicole Jacobs, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, who I had the pleasure of working with, and I know that Ministers will enjoy working with her.
Let us all agree in the Chamber this afternoon and say clearly that we do not accept any abuse directed at us as Members of Parliament, Ministers and people speaking up for women and girls, such as that we have seen in recent days. There are women and girls in our communities who want to know that we are here and are focused on keeping them safe. When it comes to domestic abuse or any kind of criminality aimed at women and girls in our community, criminality is criminality, wherever it is found. Domestic abuse, wherever it is, must continue to be tackled. It cannot remain untackled; it must always be uncovered. I welcome the measures that the Minister outlined in her speech and the strategy, in terms of education, support and the pursuit of justice, particularly in respect of deepfakes and intimate images.
I appreciate the focus on halving violence against women and girls, but that is not enough. Let us focus on pure eradication—that is one thing that those from all parts of the House can agree on. We can equally agree on how wonderful Dawn Dines is. She has led the Stamp Out Spiking campaign and brought such energy to it. In my brief time working in the Department, I wanted to see a focus on an updated spiking law, so let us celebrate with Dawn when that comes through.
We very much welcome the protection orders that have been brought forward. On behalf of my party, I want to thank and applaud all the charities, groups and networks that support survivors and victims, so that there is always someone to turn to. I would like to reiterate that: there is always someone to turn to, so please speak out. All too often, people feel that they will not be heard. Sadly, there is a leap from rhetoric to intimidation and then potentially to violence when it comes into the political arena. We need to ensure that that does not seep down into what victims feel might happen to them if they come forward and speak out.
Our men and young boys are key, as the Minister said. This is a partnership. Everything in life and in the community is a partnership. I have the honour of co-chairing the all-party parliamentary group on men and boys’ issues, and I ask the Minister to update the House on the men and boys ambassador and the ministerial work being done on this.
It is the duty of any Government to keep their citizens safe, and I am proud of the work of the outgoing Conservative Government. We did our utmost to fulfil that job. In the face of the pandemic and the war on our continent, we focused on ensuring that our constituents felt safer and that our commitment to this never wavered. Progress is best made when a Government build on the foundations of the previous one; perhaps this fixing of the foundations is one area that we can agree on. It was therefore a little bit disappointing to see in the Labour manifesto—some of us did read it—that
“For too long, violence against women and girls has been ignored.”
I do not think that is the case, but let us not have 50% of it ignored; let us have the whole lot eradicated. Let us ensure that the voices and the asks of the women and girls in our communities are listened to.
In the last 24 hours there has been a vote on victims of grooming gangs, which was very difficult. We need to set the record straight on why the Opposition are strongly focused on getting agreement that no stone should be left unturned on this issue. The previous Government accepted 18 of the 20 recommendations in the important Jay review, and it is disappointing that the legislation could not be agreed on before the change of Government, although it was put forward in the wash-up—a techie term, for people watching. Ultimately, we wanted to tackle the issue, and my party is again determined to work with the Government to get this moving.
The last Conservative Home Secretary to focus on grooming gangs was my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), who rightly set up the taskforce that led to 500 further arrests and over 4,000 more victims protected. In all the hubbub of the last day or two, what is important is that the questions of victims and survivors are answered on the recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse.
The taskforce set up under the Conservative Government worked with 43 forces in England and Wales on supporting investigations into child sexual exploitation and grooming. It is right to give our police officers on the frontline the support they need to tackle this scandal. The Minister rightly talked about justice, but it must start with coming forward to the police. I completely agree with her: the crucial step of coming forward and saying what has happened is the bravest and hardest thing imaginable for a young child or woman who knows that the people around them should have been protecting them. We need to ensure that the police are there for them.
As a vital next step, let us all agree to collect the data on ethnicity. Let us not shy away from this. Let us get it and share it. This is at the heart of the matter. People feel that political correctness should not hold us back. To protect all victims from sexual abuse and abhorrent crimes, no stone should be unturned. This is further and wider than what IICSA investigated, which is why my party believes that a further-reaching inquiry is urgently needed. There was nothing in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) said, nobody in the Chamber should feel that they cannot raise on the Floor of the House, without fear or favour, something that is happening in their constituency. That is what we come here to do.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
No one should ever feel afraid of raising any issue in this Chamber with me or anybody else. To reiterate, the ethnicity data is collected. It was published for the first time in November, and I am not entirely sure why the Opposition keep insisting that it has not been published. To be honest, the data that had started to be collected under their Government is not good enough, and we will be working to improve it, but ethnicity data is collected and published.
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for coming to the Dispatch Box to give that undertaking to the House. Our friend Sajid Javid and others were keen to ensure that that was out there. I am sure that will reassure the House.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I want to go a bit further on that data. Does the hon. Member accept that in the 2022 police report on child sexual exploitation, where there were more than two perpetrators, the ethnicity data pointed to 76% of the perpetrators being white, 9% being black and 9% being Asian?
Mims Davies
I thank the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee; hers is a welcome voice for women and girls. I agree with her: we are keen to look at the data. What has been underscored this week, however, is that some people feel that we have not got to the broadest extent of the issue. That is why some people feel disappointed.
Let me broaden our discussion of VAWG. Significant measures were introduced by the former Conservative Government, including a rapid increase in the number of police officers and the introduction of the all-important law enforcement tool that they need in communities to listen to victims and act on their behalf. New legislation was introduced—crucial legislation that the Government are rightly building on—in the form of the Conservatives’ landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which was passed to recognise the more insidious forms of abuse that blight victims’ lives, often before they realise it themselves. Lady Theresa May and others have campaigned against those insidious forms of abuse, which can also lead to gateway crimes in other areas.
On VAWG specifically, a further domestic abuse plan was launched in 2021, with over half the commitments completed by the previous Conservative Government. Many people will remember that, crucially, it brought young children and family members into the purview of domestic abuse. Other strategies included spending £6.6 million on delivering interventions to improve our understanding of what works in preventing violence against women and girls; ensuring the consistency of support services through the introduction of the national commissioning standards of the victims funding strategy, to which the Minister alluded; and launching the VAWG support and specialist services fund, with £8.3 million to support victims who face barriers to coming forward.
The Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 brought in a new duty for employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of employees. From my time at the Department of Work and Pensions, I know that talking to people about what is going on in their world and bringing it forward to their employer is often a gateway for people to be able to move to safety. We delivered £150 million of funding for the safer streets fund and the safety of women at night fund, with a range of projects helping to improve public safety. Sussex’s police and crime commissioner Katie Bourne and others will know about that.
Importantly, we have the national domestic abuse helpline, other helplines on revenge porn and the Suzy Lamplugh Trust national stalking helpline, and I welcome the Minister’s comments on that. Through the important flexible support fund, we provided a further £2 million to remove the additional barriers that domestic abuse victims face when leaving their abusers, which can be costly. Domestic abuse is in every corner of our country and at every economic level. People perceive that only certain women and certain families can be affected by this matter, which often stops those who are in fear coming forward.
I know that Labour Members like to conclude that we did nothing for 14 years, but let me quickly remind them that we won four elections. We did not do nothing on women and girls; we made a real and tangible difference in tackling violence against women and girls. I am sure that we all agree this afternoon that there is always more to be done in every nation, region and community.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very effective speech and showing that this is a process, not an event. Governments have been working hard on this issue for many years, and this year marks 10 years since the introduction of the coercive control offence, which I was very proud to take through as a Minister in the Serious Crime Act 2015. That is the kind of change that Governments have built on and worked on, and we are all on the same page on this issue.
Mims Davies
I thank my right hon. Friend for her work. We in this House will go wherever this issue takes us in every community. What is crucial is that victims and, equally, perpetrators know that VAWG will be tackled and that we will act in uniformity where we can.
Rightly, the Minister mentioned that we banned upskirting and ended the so-called rough sex defence. We introduced the offence of non-fatal strangulation and, through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, ended the automatic halfway release for serious violent and sexual offenders. From my time at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, I remember that we extended the “positions of trust” focus on sports coaches and faith leaders. The Minister rightly talked about the courts process and the feeling of justice; what would be the point of letting people out halfway through their sentence?
I remind the House that, sadly, the Labour party did not always support us, but now it is in government. Women’s charities have continued to express concerns about the Government’s early release scheme, including Women’s Aid back in October. Following the first wave of releases last month, we have seen our long-standing concerns come to fruition. On behalf of Women’s Aid, I ask Ministers to reiterate the importance of tackling this matter. On the early release of perpetrators, the issue is not necessarily finance but the mental health of their victims.
In this afternoon’s debate we need to think about the women and girls—our constituents—growing up in our communities and families. We will continue to have a thoughtful examination of the facts, find a way forward to tackle this set of horrendous crimes, and give women and girls the confidence to come forward and have it tackled.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I thank the Government for providing time for this incredibly important debate. The debate is timely, but unfortunately it is always timely to discuss violence against women and girls, given the issues that we face. I thank the Minister for her opening remarks, and for showing the dedication that she has throughout her working life as an MP to making our spaces—online, in person, at home or at work—safer for all of us.
Why are we here to discuss violence against women and girls? It is because we live in a country where 97% of recorded rapes go unpunished. That is an improvement on the 98% that went unpunished just a few years ago. If they do get processed, it takes years for victims to fight through the backlogs for justice, as we have heard.
We know that over 80 women were killed by men last year. The true figure is probably much more, because at least 11 cases of women’s murders are still to be solved. As the Minister rightly said, a woman is killed every three days at the hands of a man.
The revenge porn helpline deals with 9,000 cases every year, and the number is increasing. We are increasingly seeing men and boys become victims of sextortion, but the victims of revenge porn and non-consensual intimate image abuse are predominantly women, and the problem is only going to get worse with new AI technology and nudification apps.
One in three women has been sexually assaulted, so the chances are that we will know women and girls—see them, work with them and cross paths with them every single day—who have been victims. Given the level of under-reporting in this country, we can assume that they have probably been sexually assaulted multiple times.
We live in a world in which Iraq has lowered the age of consent for girls to nine years old. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, women and girls describe their bodies as being an extension of a battlefield. Médecins Sans Frontières estimates that at least 25,000 women have been raped by militia in Congo.
If that is too far afield for Members or people at home to empathise with the seriousness of the situation for women and girls not just in this country but across the world, what about the group of 70,000 men in Germany who shared tips on how to rape, how to drug, how to get away with sexual assault, and how to wreak revenge on women and girls? Just in Germany, 70,000 men shared those tips. Can we guarantee that something similar is not happening closer to home? Probably not.
We are about to witness the inauguration of a President who openly boasted about grabbing women “by the pussy,” enabled by the richest man in the world, Elon Musk—who, on the one hand, has pretended over the last few weeks to care about the victims of sexual violence while, on the other hand, targeting and inciting hatred against the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), calling her an “evil witch.” That is digging deep into historical misogyny. How long have powerful women who stand up been constantly called a witch, or something that rhymes with it? I am pretty sure that most of us have been called something similar for standing up to those in power.
The hypocrisy of this man continues. He helped to elect a man who has lost another lawsuit against a woman who claims that he raped her—a man who has 26 claims of sexual assault against him. We have Members of this House who champion both those men. We often share this Chamber with a man who has been convicted of kicking a woman, and with others who think that is acceptable.
Sadly, violence against women and girls does not start or end with politics and war. As we have heard, society’s view of women is such an important part of this. In 2025, where are we as a society when it is okay for 70,000 men to get together to share tips on how to rape and sexually assault women and get away with it? What is our place in this world? What is the place of women and girls in this world? Are our institutions designed for us? Are they working for us? Are our services actually protecting or supporting us? For over a decade, when it comes to health, the police and justice, no one can say that is clearly the case.
We have been failed by institutions and individuals, which is why many of us still ask our friends to text us to say that they have got home safely. It is why many of us will not run at night, and why many of us wear just one earphone, if that, when we are walking around. It is why we carry keys in our pockets, rolled up in our hands. It is why we have to explain to our daughters what is appropriate and what is not, and it is why we should also explain that to our sons.
All of this happens, and continues to happen, to women and girls, and more so if they are black, Asian or minority ethnic, if they are disabled or if they are LGBT, which is why I am so grateful that we have a plan of action for halving violence against women and girls. That sounds like an incredible aim—an impossible task—but I hope it is not.
I have printed just one page, but the measures that will happen under this Labour Government to tackle violence against women extend over many pages. The ones I pick out are, first, that there will be domestic abuse specialists in every 999 control room, which will be life-changing for those with the bravery to pick up the phone and say, “I am being abused by a loved one.”
Rape cases will be fast-tracked through the courts. We have heard that justice delayed is justice denied. The minuscule number of reported rape cases that actually find their way to court are being dragged out to the extent that people give up hope.
Banning the creation of deepfakes and non-consensual intimate images is hugely important. The Women and Equalities Committee has heard evidence from brave survivors and victims of this cruel, degrading abuse. The impact that has, and continues to have, on their lives does not match the punishment that perpetrators currently face. I am grateful that we will see a minimum two-year sentence for these offences.
The Government are seeking to ensure that all victims of violence are seen, supported and protected, particularly migrant women and girls, as well as black, Asian and minority ethnic, LGBT+ and disabled women and girls. We can receive abuse and violence for multiple reasons—because we are a woman and because we are an ethnic minority, or because we are a woman and because we are disabled. Hatred never stays in one lane, or at least not for very long.
These measures are all needed and, in many areas, they have been neglected for years. We cannot take our eye off the ball, because there are those who seek to sell off our rights and freedoms to the highest bidder on the world stage.
Violence against women and girls does not come out of nowhere. I do not believe that any child is born with hatred in their heart and their mind. No baby boy is born thinking that he has a right over a woman’s body, or the right to abuse or rape her. It is society that instils that belief.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Before upskirting became a specific criminal offence, people said it was “just a laugh”. Does the hon. Member think we have a massive problem in society when offences against women are dismissed as just a laugh and seen as acceptable?
Sarah Owen
Yes, and that is why I want to talk about why society needs to move on. We can implement all these measures in the criminal justice system to make sure that the right people get the right support when they need it, but ultimately, we need to see the societal changes that the hon. Member outlines to ensure that we are not here having the same discussion 10 years down the line.
It is so important to address how society views not just women but men. What makes a good man? What makes a good boy, and which men should he aspire to become? I am looking forward to hearing more about the men and boys ambassador, but who are boys aspiring to become at the moment? Unfortunately, it is the men who shout the loudest and have the most money, even if they got their money, power and influence through the sex trafficking of women or by starting new political parties for “bros”.
This is nothing new, sadly. Whether it is the Harrods scandal, Harvey Weinstein or Jeffrey Epstein, we see the same pattern, time and again, of influence, power and money making them unaccountable to anybody until it is far too late. The answer to that is good role models, and there are plenty of them. There are so many. Being a strong, good man is very different from being the men I have highlighted. I am lucky to work alongside some of them, I am lucky to call some of them my friends, and I am really lucky to have some of them in my family.
It is also about holding up a mirror to the men who use their power, position and money to try to crush women and girls, and who see it as a badge of honour, rather than the badge of shame that it should be. What path leads a man to conclude that it is okay to rape someone? What path leads a man to believe that women are just commodities to buy, sell and traffic to please his needs? What kind of man uses his body to kick, punch and strangle women? How hollow is the shell of a man who gets his kicks from sending intimate videos or photos of a girl to embarrass or degrade her?
Unfortunately, just as we know many good men, we also know bad men. We work alongside them, and they are around every day of our lives, in every part of our lives. We like to paint rapists, perpetrators of sexual assault and predators as monsters or something “other”, but if we think about the statistics of sexual violence and rape that were highlighted earlier, we see that those men walk among us. Young boys need better role models than those promoted on X, Telegram and soon, I fear, Meta.
I want to end by talking about the people who embody the mirror that ensures shame is reflected on those who deserve it: Gisèle Pelicot and every other victim of abuse who steps forward. Gisèle Pelicot was drugged by her husband and raped by 51 men—betrayed by the person who should have loved and cherished her. As with so many cases of violence against women and girls, it was a supposed loved one—a close one. She waived her right to anonymity because she felt the “shame must change sides”. She could not be more right, but are we up to that challenge? Will women and girls stop being blamed and shamed, and will male perpetrators actually be held to account?
We are seeing action, but with technology we are always playing catch-up. The founder of the website that hosted the ads placed by Gisèle Pelicot’s husband to recruit his wife’s rapists has just been arrested in France. I am grateful that this Government are introducing measures to tackle online abuse and violence against women, but we cannot let up. We have to continue.
During my Committee’s most recent inquiry into non-consensual intimate image abuse, we heard that police officers were handing devices containing intimate images back to the perpetrators. That was a ludicrous situation, so I am grateful that the Minister outlined that there will be strengthening of the codes to ensure that no perpetrator of NCIIs will have devices or materials related to the original offence returned to them. We need to continue the fight against violence against women and girls, because it was never won in the first place. Perpetrators are using new technologies to evade justice and to inflict greater harms.
I will end with the words of Gisèle Pelicot after the verdicts against her husband and her rapists were given. She said:
“I now have confidence in our capacity to find a better future where everyone, women and men alike, can live in harmony with respect and mutual understanding.”
My goodness, I wish I shared her confidence, but I do share her hope. Much of that rests on the Government’s aim to halve violence against women and girls, and that the next generation of women have fire in their bellies, and a hunger for change and equality in their hearts.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That was very powerful indeed. I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
Nine years ago or thereabouts, I was sitting in a courtroom supporting victims of domestic abuse. I saw at first hand how our systems of justice were failing women and girls when they were at their most vulnerable. That was my first motivation to enter politics, and it is a privilege to stand here and speak today, in this Chamber, in honour of all the women and girls who have faced abuse, violence, misogyny, harassment, stalking, spiking, non-consensual image abuse and everyday sexism.
Violence against women and girls is systemic. It transcends constituency boundaries and national borders, and it is embedded in a global culture of discrimination and inequality that is even present in this House. I have heard casual sexism roll off the tongue as a female MP’s domestic context was used as a reason she should not progress. To those who believe that feminism has gone too far or that equality is here, I say this: the evidence shows otherwise.
As if all the shocking statistics we have heard so far were not enough, here are some more. There is still a 13% gender pay gap. Some 41% of women provide unpaid care for children, grandchildren, older people or people with a disability, compared with 25% of men. Despite significant progress, we still do not have a Parliament that is representative of society with 50% women. This inequality manifests itself in discrimination across our systems, which just do not work for women. Our society still sees femininity as “less than”, and too much violence is tolerated.
Some 3,000 crimes of violence against women and girls are recorded every day, and that is just a tiny part of the story. We have heard already about the number of women murdered every week by a partner or ex-partner, a figure that has not changed in decades. At least one in four women has been raped or sexually assaulted since the age of 16, and hundreds of thousands of crimes against women and girls every year have an online element. Given the fear and shame around reporting, it is certain that in reality, the figure is significantly higher. A woman in a domestic abuse situation will experience an average of 35 assaults before calling the police. We are not talking about a few isolated incidents; 2.3 million people aged 16 years and over experienced domestic abuse in the year ending March 2024. Those numbers seem abstract, but they represent real women, real children and real lives.
That violence is enabled by a bedrock of inequality and a culture of disbelief. The experiences of women and girls are ignored, deprioritised and doubted. The Jay report on child sexual exploitation—yes, the same report on which the former Government took no action—found in 2022 that individuals and institutions often thought children were lying when they tried to disclose what was being done to them, and found that victims were frequently blamed for their own sexual abuse. We are not beyond the days of saying, “She was asking for it.”
That disbelief has consequences for abusers. Last year, fewer than three in 100 rapes recorded by the police resulted in someone being charged in the same year. The Government must do what the previous Government did not: tackle violence against women and girls head-on. I support the Government’s ambition to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. It is a bold aim, but a vast undertaking. To achieve it, we must have cultural and legislative change. We have the opportunity in this House to create laws that not only protect women and girls, but effect significant cultural shifts. Passing the Domestic Abuse (Aggravated Offences) Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), would enable domestic abuse to be considered an aggravating factor in assault cases. That would distinguish it from other offences, and its severity and gravity could be understood more clearly. The Bill would exclude domestic violence perpetrators from schemes for early release from prison, and protect survivors of domestic abuse.
In a survey conducted for a Crown Prosecution Service report on prosecution of rape and sexual offenses, 92% of CPS staff agreed that current court backlogs inhibit the prosecution of rape and serious sexual assault. The Government must address these backlogs, improve safety for women in the justice system, and fully support the staff who are working daily to support victims of trauma and abuse. Training of those who work with victims is of the utmost importance, but has not been prioritised.
From my previous work supporting victims, and from my casework, I know that victims of domestic violence have had their and their advocate’s safety compromised because details have been shared with an abuser by someone working in the statutory services. All reports and information surrounding domestic abuse must be handled with exceptional sensitivity. That highlights the need for more specialist training, not just for our police forces—that will be welcomed—but in social services. The majority of cases in children’s social care involve domestic abuse, but the training done on it as part of social work qualification is insufficient.
We must ensure that funding for services supporting survivors of domestic abuse is sufficient and secure. Charities that provide refuge and community services for victims inherently require long-term decisions and planning, but are frequently left with one-year funding agreements and one-off grants that limit their capacity to operate effectively.
What about the men? I was pleased to see that a debate on paternity leave was extremely well attended by male MPs, who clearly wanted more time with their children. I am also pleased to see so many men supporting this debate. Unpaid caring work is still disproportionately done by women, but men are also disadvantaged, as valuable time with loved ones is lost. Our culture maintains an imbalance in expectations and opportunity for both men and women. The UK’s two weeks of statutory paternity leave lags far behind the entitlement in most advanced economies, and I call on the Government to make improvements to all parental leave, so that parents in every family have the opportunity to bond with their children in those first crucial months.
Financial independence is a significant factor in women being able to leave an abusive partner, so for both men and women, we need to tackle the gender pay gap. We also need to tackle paternity leave, pay for carers, violence and issues with the criminal justice system, so that we stop seeing femininity as “less than”. We must tackle all aspects of inequality that underpin violence against women and girls for justice to become a reality.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
I am glad that we are discussing this most important issue today. The National Police Chiefs’ Council rightly stated last year:
“Violence against women and girls is a national emergency.”
Action must be taken against our societal epidemic of violence, including sexual violence, against women and girls, and I am glad that the Government are committed to halving it in a decade. I will do my part to ensure that promise is delivered.
We rightly talk a lot—although not nearly enough—in this place about victims. They must be at the heart of our work. Society has reached a place where most of us can accept the fact that we will all know victims of domestic or sexual violence. How could we not, with the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s statistics showing that approximately one in 12 women will be a victim in any given year, and as many as one in three over the course of a lifetime? Violence against women and girls is endemic in our country. It happens all around us and is committed by people—mainly men—whom we all know, and often trust and love. Societally, that is the aspect with which we have failed to grapple.
Even though we accept that we know victims, far fewer people can accept that they know perpetrators. Instead, the 3,000 offences that happen each day, which leave behind psychological wreckage, seem to be rhetorically and conceptually driven by some sort of mysterious, passive, abstract force. It may be tempting to imagine that predators and perpetrators are unusual and could be identified if only we ditched our politically correct attitudes. However, that ignores the majority of abuse that takes place. Worse, it leads to a complacency that makes women and girls more vulnerable. It is easier, psychologically and societally, to hold to the idea that sexual violence is a rare thing, perpetrated by monsters that we can spot a mile off. Finding any excuse to delegitimise those who come forward—for example, by victim blaming, or by having preconceived ideas about how a “real” victim would behave—is key to upholding that. We see excuses made constantly for such behaviour, including in this place, and often by people who claim to be feminist or Christian, but who do not demonstrate any of the values that they claim to hold when it comes to having to confront the behaviour of someone in their circle.
It is easier to immediately accept the abuser’s wholesale narrative and deflect, minimise, deny, defend or rubbish the victim’s credibility than to accept that someone we know is not only capable of that type of violence, but has perpetrated it. That tendency is at its most egregious when there is an institutional failure of reckoning, but all institutions are made up of individuals who share in and perpetuate that culpability. Even in the vanishingly rare cases in which someone is successfully convicted for domestic or sexual violence, we need only look at the comments online about how they had been “hard done by” or were “such a nice neighbour” and “couldn’t possibly have done it”. We all know that the vast majority of cases will never even make it that far, so what then?
Let us be clear. According to the National Police Chiefs’ Council,
“1 in 20 people are estimated to be perpetrators of VAWG per year”.
Many of those will be repeat perpetrators. We will all know at least one of them. They hide in plain sight. They may very well be the last person we expect to be a perpetrator, and they know exactly what they are doing. Failure to acknowledge that means forcing victims to carry the shame that belongs to their abusers. We cannot say that we support victims coming forward if we cannot reconcile the fact that everyone here and everyone watching will know perpetrators of that form of violence.
If we are to turn the tide, we need better education. We need more honest discussions of women’s safety and men’s roles. We need cultural change to identify and call out abusive behaviour. We need structures that believe women and girls and take misconduct seriously. We need investment in mental health and victim support services far above that currently on offer, including in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, and support from independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers. We also need a justice system that works, that can deliver timely justice and in which women can have faith that they will not be further traumatised, as happens all too often, when seeking justice. Fundamentally, we all—in this place and right across society—need the courage to be more honest with ourselves about what we collectively look away from because it is too difficult. If we are ever going to hold perpetrators accountable and create and sustain a culture where women’s and girls’ safety is the norm, not the exception, that is where we need to begin.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I was not expecting be called so early. I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this important debate.
I have taken part in many debates on these topics over the years, and they show the House at its best, because they are when we come together. This House, when speaking with one voice in our determination to tackle these issues, is incredibly powerful. What we say is heard beyond these walls; it is heard by law enforcement, the judiciary, the media and others. I am grateful for this chance to speak together and come together to find ways to tackle horrendous crimes.
As I said in my intervention on the shadow Minister, we are talking about a process, not an event. We are all working towards the eradication of these crimes, and making them socially unacceptable in our country, but that is a massive challenge. Anybody—any Government—who stands still on this issue will go backwards, because the offences change and technology enables new offences. When I was a Minister in the Home Office, the idea of deepfake imagery or even revenge porn was simply not coming across my desk. It simply was not happening; the technology was not there. We all have to be on our guard, and must make sure that we all work towards tackling those crimes.
I agree with the Minister, who made a powerful speech, that this is not a problem that can be solved only by women. Women and girls are predominantly the victims, but we need men to be part of the solution, and I am grateful to see so many men in the Chamber today. There have been too many occasions when taking part in this sort of debate has felt like being in a women-only club. We need men to be part of the solution and to work with us.
I have sat where the Ministers are sitting, and I suspect that I have felt the frustrations that they are feeling. I have probably felt what one of the Ministers—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips)—is feeling particularly acutely this week, having been through many media onslaughts on social media and otherwise over the years. I have immense sympathy for what she is going through.
There is frustration as well because the levers that can be pulled by a Minister to resolve these issues are really quite limited. We can legislate—of course we can—but the police need to understand what the crime looks like. I refer here to my taking the coercive control offence through Parliament 10 years ago. I remember the media at the time saying, “Why on earth are you doing this? There is no way that this can ever be prosecuted. There is no way that anyone can ever understand it. There is no way that they can ever get the evidence.” I remember saying to one journalist, “So is that your answer—just don’t do it, because it’s too hard?” Surely we need to do these difficult things, but we also need to recognise that seeing the fruits of our labours will take a long time and that these things do not change overnight.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making an important point. Does she agree that this House has to legislate in order to lead cultural change in our country? Furthermore, does she support some of the work that the Government are doing in exactly that direction?
Dame Karen Bradley
I do agree with my right hon. Friend: I fully support what the Government are doing and I fully support their aims and goals. We might have slightly different ways of getting there, but all of us in this House want the same thing. We need to be supportive. If we scrutinise the Government and suggest areas where they might improve their position or their policies, it is not a criticism of their intent; it is merely that we think there may be other ways of doing things or that there may be improvements that could be made. I took such suggestions when I was a Minister in the faith in which they were intended, and I hope that that will happen here. I am certain that, with the two Ministers on the Front Bench, that will absolutely be the case.
Earlier, I was talking about the levers that can be pulled. When those levers need to be enforced by law enforcement, local authorities, the health service or education, there is a real frustration that there is not a simple direction that can be given so that everyone understands the changes that, as a Minister, one wants to see. That is why cross-departmental work is so important. I believe that inter-ministerial groups are being deployed again, which is an excellent step, and I wholeheartedly congratulate the Government on that. When I was a Minister, such groups were so, so important.
We must also ensure that there is a multi-agency working. We have to make sure—I saw this myself as a Minister—that the police are not the point of last resort. I remember going to visit the A&E at the Royal Stoke, my local acute hospital, 10 years ago and seeing the domestic violence specialists spotting the signs of domestic abuse. That is vital. So, too, is the schoolteacher recognising that when the child is coming to school late every day, or missing their class, something is wrong and action needs to be taken. We cannot always leave this to the police and law enforcement. We must make sure that there is multi-agency working. Having domestic abuse specialists in 999 centres and emergency centres is another a good step.
I introduced a VAWG strategy in 2016 when I was a Minister. Another one was introduced in 2021, and I know that we will get another one soon. I am certain that that will be victim focused. These are crimes that cannot be tackled without putting the emphasis on the victims. But all victims are different. The abuse that one victim has suffered will be different from that of another victim.
Let us be clear: getting someone who has been a victim of one of these most horrendous of crimes to accept that they are a victim is incredibly difficult. To be brave enough to pick up the phone to dial 999 is a really big step, because that victim has probably been enduring the abuse over many, many occasions. She does not believe that she is a victim. She thinks that she is in control. She thinks that she can deal with this problem without involving the authorities. We have to get to the point where victims are able to accept that they are victims and where we give them the support that is needed. That is why the multi-agency approach is so important.
A victim of female genital mutation will be different from a victim of modern slavery, and a victim of domestic abuse will be different from a grooming victim. They all have individual needs. Even within the categories, there will be different needs. It may be better for some victims of domestic abuse to remain in their homes and for the perpetrator to be removed and tackled. [Interruption.] Absolutely. I see the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley doing a thumbs away sign. I totally agree with her. However, for other victims that will simply not be practical. There need to be places of safety that those victims can be taken to. Those places of safety need to be different for each victim. A mother with children needs a different place from a young girl, and that young girl needs a different place from somebody who has severe learning disabilities, mental health issues or addiction. There are all sorts of problems that victims face—often caused by the abuse—and they need different approaches.
I have made the point about multi-agency working, but we cannot arrest our way out of the problem. There needs to be a strategy that looks across all aspects of the four Ps, as they used to be called in my time at the Home Office—the pursuit, protect, prevent and prepare strands. We need to make sure that we take every step possible.
I welcome the ringfencing of funding that the Minister talked about. I am keen to make sure that police, fire and crime commissioners and mayors who have responsibility for these areas have the correct funding to commission the services that they need to support victims.
My final point is on the online world. Not only do new offences get created, but the online world has provided a place of safety for perpetrators. Behaviour that is simply unacceptable offline is something that is normalised, socialised and anonymised online. A person can go online and find somebody who has a similar interest to them in something that is totally and utterly unacceptable. They have some images that they can share. They do not know who they are dealing with, so therefore it is fine. They can look at those images because nobody knows that it is them, nobody knows what they do in the real world, and nobody knows that they are looking at them. It also seems absolutely normal, because everybody else is doing it in this room. This is an incredibly difficult thing to solve. It is really difficult to get normal policing methods to work in this environment.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a valuable point about the dangers online. Does she agrees that one of the big threats is the incel community? This highlights the need to approach violence against women and girls from a public health perspective, because we cannot just rely on the police to deal with it. Often there are mental health issues and all sorts of family breakdown challenges. Does she agree that tackling the incel issue is vital in this environment?
Dame Karen Bradley
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. This is something that has to start in schools and in the workplace. We need to ensure that all of society appreciates, understands and gets behind this.
To conclude, I started the internet safety strategy as the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I am pleased that we have the Online Safety Act 2023, but if the Government wish to do more, they have my wholehearted support. I might scrutinise their work, but I will support them.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
I wish to acknowledge that I have had the privilege of working alongside the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), for a number of years while I worked in the domestic abuse sector. She was a one-woman safeguarding service. Members from across the House would ask for her advice, so frequently she would advocate for victims when others were unable to do so or when no other service would come to their aid. She has done more for abused women than anyone at X or in the Reform party, Members of which have not appeared here today. I therefore add my voice to those condemning the attacks on her and on others who have spent so long trying to fight for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence.
Having spent my career working to prevent violence against women and girls, I am dismayed and frankly disgusted by the way the issue of child sexual abuse, mostly against vulnerable girls, has recently been exploited by political opportunists for their own gain. To see the way people both in and outside the House have spoken about this issue, as if victims and survivors were a political football to be kicked about because of the passing interest of social media-crazed billionaires and their political servants, has been disgraceful. We do not need empty rhetoric or opportunism; we need action, and we need it now.
The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, led by Professor Alexis Jay, published its report in 2022, after a seven year-long process that engaged with more than 7,000 victims and survivors, many of them girls. It processed 2 million pages of evidence and published 61 reports and publications. It spent two years working on an inquiry into child sexual exploitation and grooming specifically. In the last three years, I worked closely with colleagues across the children’s sector, including survivors of child sexual abuse, to ensure that the previous Government implemented the inquiry’s recommendations. I am grateful to the Government for having said that they will take many of them forward, but as organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the National Association for People Abused in Childhood have argued, what we need now, and crucially what victims and survivors urgently deserve, is for the recommendations to be implemented.
I have been shocked by the lack of progress that we have made as a country in tackling violence against women and girls. I pay tribute to hon. Members across the Chamber who have made a number of big steps to ensure that women and girls are safer, most notably through the Domestic Abuse Act, but despite the changes that we have made in this House, the problem is only getting worse. It has been driven by technological changes and exacerbated by cuts over the last few years to the provision of support for victims and survivors and those at risk.
The financial situation facing local specialist charities, for example, is acutely concerning, particularly as many, such as Suffolk Rape Crisis in my area, have been forced to close. I totally understand the financial pressures facing the Government due to the huge black hole the Conservatives left, but charities such as Women’s Aid and Victim Support have raised real concerns after cuts were made to grants in the core victim services budget for police and crime commissioners, at the same time as they are having to grapple with national insurance contributions increasing. After terrible cuts for many years, services are faced with the spectre of having to think about whether they need to close, just as we start our mission as a Government to halve violence against women and girls.
Victims deserve to be, and should have a right to be, adequately supported and kept safe from further harm. Services such as the Waveney Domestic Violence and Abuse Forum in my constituency support hundreds of victims without any statutory funding, yet the work that they do is high risk and specialist, and saves women’s lives. Specialist services need long-term, sustainable funding arrangements.
We in this place should look to formulate a new statutory duty to commission services for victims of domestic and sexual abuse, both adults and children, and thereby end the postcode lottery that leaves too many vulnerable women and children to fend for themselves. That would meet a key recommendation of the IICSA review, which was to ensure that all child victims of sexual abuse are offered specialist therapeutic support. Similarly, given the significant harm and trauma caused by growing up being exposed to domestic abuse, we need to address the critical shortage of child independent domestic violence advisers. One in five children experience domestic abuse growing up, yet there are barely any services to support them. The domestic abuse charity SafeLives has estimated that an additional 1,900 CHIDVAs are needed to meet the needs of children identified in domestic abuse cases.
We also need to look at the drivers behind men’s violence against women and girls. As an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on commercial sexual exploitation, I would like to raise the issue of pornography. Women are the targets of both physical and verbal aggression in 94% of scenes in pornographic content, and most of the time the aggressors are men. One woman involved in the pornography industry describes her experience:
“I was being hit and choked. I was really upset and they didn’t stop. They kept filming. I asked them to turn the camera off and they kept going.”
I am hopeful that the Government will look more closely at online pornographic content that depicts sexual activity with adult actors made to look like children, and content that depicts sexual activity between family members. Children’s charities such as Barnardo’s are concerned that such content acts as a gateway for some viewers who, after repeated consumption, end up needing ever-more-real content, leading them to seek out child sexual abuse material. What is the purpose of pornography that dresses adult women as children—girls, with lollipops and teddy bears, in school uniform?
Widely accessible violent pornography is normalising abuse in everyday life, warping the perceptions of both young men and women of sex and healthy relationships, and fuelling the rise of a misogynistic incel culture. Illegal pornographic content is found across the internet, from the most popular pornography websites to social media apps that children still have access to. Ensuring that the Online Safety Act’s age verification checks for children are brought in properly this year, and that websites are held accountable by Ofcom, are paramount in tackling this issue. If necessary, we need to close any loopholes that might allow websites such as Pornhub to swerve their responsibilities under the Act. The Government should also require all online platforms to verify that every individual featured in pornographic content on their site is an adult, consenting to publication, and should bring the regime of online pornographic content regulation into the same system as offline pornography, which is regulated by the British Board of Film Classification.
We know that online pornographic content is normalising strangulation. Devon and Cornwall sexual assault referral centre looked at a five-month period in 2023. Of the referrals in that period, 31%—53 out of 172—were of victims who had suffered non-fatal strangulation as part of the sexual violence that they had experienced. Only seven of those cases involved a stranger. Three had to go to A&E due to the severity of their symptoms. Pornography has repositioned strangulation as “breath play”, and so minimised the hugely detrimental health implications: seizures, stroke, paralysis and death.
I am, however, particularly glad to see that the victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), has this week confirmed that the Government will introduce legislation to create a new offence for creating sexually explicit deepfake images. New deepfakes are having an increasingly insidious impact on children’s lives in particular, as well as the many women and girls who experience it every day. I have been campaigning alongside organisations such as Internet Matters to ban the nudifying tools and apps that create deepfakes. We know they have only one purpose: to violate women and girls; 99% of the images created on the apps are of women, and many do not work on images of men. I see no reason why they not only are freely available to use, but are free to advertise themselves to young people on platforms, such as TikTok and Instagram, and app stores, where there is no true age verification. Even with age verification, it is up to the app stores to determine whether content meets an adult’s level of age verification, and I urge the Government to look closely at the regulation of app stores to ensure that the content is independently verified as being suitable for our children to access every day.
We are failing our women and girls, and men, if we continue to ignore the public health crisis generated by violent and addictive pornography and the porn culture it generates. I know just how committed the Government and our Front Bench are to tackling violence against women and girls, and I am honoured to be here to support the—I hope—cross-party work we will do to truly end the huge trauma that too many women and girls face.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I just want to take a moment, because I found it incredibly distressing to sit and listen to the brilliant remarks from the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato). Why would I find that upsetting? I find that upsetting because I am a survivor of abuse myself. Northern Ireland is one of the most dangerous places in Europe to be a woman. I have to say that I am upset that no other Members from Northern Ireland are here at the minute. Eight women were murdered last year and over 20 in the last four years. But why should I feel like this? It should be the people who are out there perpetrating these crimes—people who are in this building, people who are everywhere. As previous Members have stated, statistically speaking, there will be people in this building who are the perpetrators. More often, the people doing this are people we know, people we love, and that is what makes it even more traumatic, upsetting and disgusting.
We live in a society where it was only in 1991 in the case of R v. R that marital rape was made an offence. It took until March 2000 for a Belfast man to be convicted for raping his wife. I could talk of the case of Alexander McCartney, a prolific paedophile, which speaks directly to what the hon. Member spoke about. Thousands of children were abused. Whenever I, the hon. Member and other Members across the House met big tech companies just a number of weeks ago, I put it to them:
“Are you aware of the case of Alexander McCartney? We have heard from you that you’re a self-regulating industry and that you take this matter of child abuse seriously. Have you heard of the case?”
Not one of them, bar the one who happened to own the platform where Mr McCartney was so prolific, had heard of the case.
We are living through a crisis where women are having their rights eroded every day. My mum was brought up during a time whenever she could only dream of having some of the rights that I and others in my generation were promised. We did get some of them—we did—but we have seen more rowed back in recent weeks, months and years. We are now literally having to fight for our lives.
Northern Ireland remains an outlier in Europe for violence against women and girls. There are many reasons why that is the case. One of them is the legacy of our troubled past, and we have heard from other Members about the impact of war and conflict, and Northern Ireland is not exempt. We have to deal with that legacy of trauma and conflict. Layered on top of it, we have to deal with the issues that every other woman and girl across the globe faces.
One thing that really disturbs me, terrifies me for my life, is incel culture. I am an elected rep in Northern Ireland. I stood for election for the first time in 2017, and that was whenever I received my first rape threat—my first. That should not be normal. In recent days, Members have sought to put forward a narrative that it should be taken as part and parcel not just of public life, but particularly of the lives of elected reps in this House. [Hon. Members: “Shame!”] I profoundly disagree with them.
Many trolls, no doubt online, will later consider my contribution to the House to be a self-indulgent rant—shrieking, shrill. I am a privileged woman. What can I say to my constituents in Lagan Valley? I do not know what to say to them. As the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), said, this is a societal issue and not one person will tackle it by themselves. However, various individuals in our society at this point in time are playing an outsized, toxic and disturbing role. I would like to put on the record my thanks to the Safeguarding Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), for the role she has played not just in recent days and weeks, but for years in protecting and standing up for women and girls.
Only a matter of months ago, another Member of this House said to me whenever I talked about wanting to do more on violence against women and girls that it was “topical”—a passing interest, bit of a fleeting thought, topical. Sorry, no. We have been dealing with this for years, and it is now turbocharged. That means our response must be turbocharged. But I have to be honest that, like other Members, I am torn because I do not want to give oxygen or a platform to these hatemongers and women abusers. How can we even deal with what is in front of our faces if we do not call it out in the most explicit way? That does not demean us or bring us down to that level. I do not think for a second that it takes away from the import of what we are saying or doing. It is actually essential, and we should not be ashamed because every single one of us in this House has to stand up for our constituents.
I see many women come across the door of my office in Lisburn who have been through years of systemic abuse, failed at every cut and turn by statutory agencies and others who had a duty and did not report. They are left in a position where we have to build up trust with them, not just in terms of their life but the societal and statutory response. I know every single person in the House today will commit to doing that, and I am delighted to see the seriousness with which this new Government have taken and gripped the issue.
We need to address the root causes, including online abuse and harmful cultural norms. We would see a lot of school groups coming through the constituency. We previously did a lot of visits to the Parliament Building in Stormont whenever I sat there in the Northern Ireland Assembly. During one school visit, a member of the public came up and said that they wanted to rape me.
There were two people there, and we were just kind of paralysed in response. That was not the right response—not from me, but from the people around—but it is so normalised that that was exactly what people thought. That is not good enough. If people have an issue with champions of women and girls, and of marginalised communities, standing up and using their voice to call that behaviour out—if it makes others feel awkward, and if others see it as creating a fuss or causing a big deal—that is not my problem. Otherwise we will never deal with the cause of it.
Sometimes there is a narrative that these murders are a tragic inevitability. That is not the case. Those deaths are preventable—so preventable—yet we are living in an age when, as the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) said, women dying is just seen as a normal phenomenon. That could not be further from the truth. I feel saddened that I have let myself down a bit by being so emotional at the start of my speech. [Hon. Members: “No.”] That is not my usual style. But like many other Members of the House, I feel that the abuse we have received in the last number of days, preceding the incidents in the House last night and over the hours afterwards, has compounded our feeling of being under attack simply for standing up not just for ourselves, but for the people across the United Kingdom that every single one of us was elected to serve.
I simply implore Members not to forget Northern Ireland in this. We have an incredible Justice Minister in my party colleague and friend, Naomi Long. She and our First Minister and Deputy First Minister are all desperate and anxious to act. But we cannot do it alone; we need the help of every single Member of this House. Human rights are not devolved, and on a technical point, the regulation of social media is certainly not devolved. I stand ready to partner with the Government to tackle this work. I simply and honestly ask that others help me and the other Members who represent Northern Ireland to end this epidemic of violence against women and girls.
Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)
I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for what was a moving, extraordinary and really brave speech—thank you very much indeed.
The Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), rightly said that this is a timely debate. It is timely, but the truth is that violence against women and girls has been a scourge on England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and beyond our islands since time immemorial, and it will take serious, calm and well thought through policies and a collaborative approach to tackle it. That is exactly what the Government are trying to bring.
There should be no illusions about how serious a problem this is. Nor should we pretend, as some on the Conservative Benches have appeared to do in recent weeks, that it is a problem only for one culture or ethnicity. That alone will not remove the threat of sex-based violence. In fact, in most places in the UK, including in my constituency, it would be unlikely to make any difference at all to the threat that women and girls face from violent men.
If we want to be serious about tackling the grooming that leads to such violence, we must recognise the role that social media companies play in monetising hatred, promoting extreme misogyny for profit and making a packet out of legitimising the exploitation of women. The Minister mentioned in her opening remarks the problem of toxic masculinity, which we all know is ubiquitous online. The profiteers of this hatred dress up their indulgence of extremism as free speech advocacy, but they are in fact consciously hoping to create a world in which women—particularly those who stand against the extreme hatred promoted on social media, which is based on sex and ethnicity—are cowed into submission.
In this House, our speech is formally protected, and no billionaire can hope to launch a libel suit to shut us up, but that does not stop them trying to find other means that they hope will silence us—principally the mob. We have all been on the end of it. Every woman in this House knows that anything we say in here that challenges power and privilege can put us at risk in a way that is quantitively and qualitatively different from our male colleagues.
There has been far too much admiration for the tech bros, and too little willingness to challenge abuse. I thank the Prime Minister and the Ministers for their robust words this week, which made me proud to be a Labour MP. I hope that they mark a departure from what we have seen, and that we will see many more such responses in future. We should do more to tackle the abuse that the tech industry has been allowed to get away with for so long.
I associate myself with every word that my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) said about the role that pornography plays, but I would add one piece of evidence that I find shocking. Eight-year-old boys regularly access pornography, and that has a well documented impact on violence against women and girls.
I will take this opportunity to mention another area of tech that I think needs to be addressed: pimping websites, on which women’s bodies are freely advertised for sale to abusers. UK Feminista carried out a survey just before Christmas, and found that 368 women in my constituency of East Kilbride and Strathaven, and the surrounding area, were freely advertised online as for sale. That is legal. I know that many people argue that that is sex work, but as a socialist and a feminist, I remain wholly and utterly opposed to that dangerous idea. It is grotesque abuse and exploitation of vulnerable women, and it indicates to men that women are commodities to be bought and sold. Money should not make acts of physical abuse legal and lawful.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
At a recent constituency surgery, the lack of care and oversight of dating apps towards their women users was mentioned. Does the hon. Member agree that dating apps, and the operators that profit from them, should be held to account for protecting the women and men who use them, in the same way that social media companies should be held to account?
Joani Reid
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment, and I hope that we can work across the House to make that happen.
My plea to Ministers is that they consider introducing legislation to tackle pimping websites, pornography and the abuses of dating apps. Perhaps the Government could take firmer action against online abuse at its source, and spend money on some of the wonderfully thought through measures that the Minister outlined in her speech, the likes of which we have not seen for some time.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, Members will have seen how many people wish to speak in this debate. It is such an important debate, and I do want to get everybody in, so I am going to introduce a six-minute time limit.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to speak in this incredibly important debate. I very much welcome the Government’s ambition to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade, and I hope everyone in this place will work together to ensure success, because if we do not, it is our daughters, mothers, sisters, neighbours and friends who will all pay the price.
There are many factors driving sex-based violence, and many powerful contributions have been made today laying them out. I intend to speak specifically about the impact of online pornography on attitudes and violence towards women and girls, especially when viewed by young people during their formative years. With 50%—yes, 50%—of all internet-using adult males in the UK visiting Pornhub in September 2020, this is not a fringe concern or something that can be ignored.
To be very clear, we are not talking about the type of content once seen in ’80s jazz mags, but about harmful, degrading and violent imagery that dehumanises women. This type of extreme online pornographic content has proliferated over the last decade and includes footage featuring physical aggression and violence, predominantly directed at women. This material has become mainstream, though it bears little resemblance to real sex or what goes on in genuinely loving relationships. Worryingly, in these videos, women are typically shown responding neutrally when on the receiving end of this aggression, or even with pleasure. Make no mistake, this content reinforces the idea that women desire and derive pleasure from violence, and ultimately perpetuates rape culture. When we then layer on the fact that this content can be pulled out of anyone’s pocket and watched repeatedly throughout the day on smartphones, even by children, it becomes clear why this is such a problem for our society. Boys will think that this type of activity is normal in the bedroom, while girls will think it is expected.
A survey done by the Children’s Commissioner in November 2022 found that one in 10 children had seen pornography by the age of nine, with half having seen it before they turned 13. It is horrifying to think of our children watching these acts of sexual violence that they cannot properly comprehend or understand. Its consequences can be clearly seen, with 47% of young people between the ages of 16 and 21 stating that girls “expect” sex to involve aggression, and a further 42% stating that most girls “enjoy” it. A study that analysed heterosexual scenes published on two leading free pornographic websites found that between 35% and 45% of content contained at least one act of physical aggression, the most common of which were gagging, choking, spanking, slapping and hair-pulling. Women were the target of the aggression in 97% of those scenes. It can be no surprise to anyone that if young men are watching this content day in and day out, it will impact their perceptions and relationships with women negatively.
Hundreds of studies have been undertaken over the past 30 years, which confirm the obvious: porn culture is pervasive and influential. It has normalised and sexualised choking and strangling of women during sex, spitting on them, and other unsafe and degrading acts. As Dr Jackson Katz, an educator and author, has said,
“It requires wilful naivety to pretend that this has no negative effects on generations of young people’s sexuality or has no connection to the ongoing pandemic of men’s violence against women”.
Moreover, disturbingly, frequent viewing of online pornography can desensitise some men to sexual content, driving a need for ever more hardcore content to satisfy them. This causes some boys and men who would not otherwise do so to escalate to viewing illegal content such as child abuse imagery or rape videos.
So what do we do to address this situation? It is not easy—it is a bit like trying to get the genie back in the bottle—but we must address it. I suspect that in the years to come, we will look back at the content that was so accessible to our children and so damaging and be utterly incredulous. Today, I have two asks for the Minister. First, we must put in place basic safeguards requiring online platforms to verify that every individual featured in pornographic content is an adult and gave permission for their content to be published. Verification information must be provided by each individual featured in the content, not by any other person, and most importantly, failure to comply with this requirement must result in robust sanctions by Ofcom, including preventing the website in question from operating in the UK if need be. Enforcement must be swift and robust to protect victims and create the necessary deterrent effect.
Secondly, we must bring the regulation of online pornography in line with that for offline pornography. The main statutory regulator of offline pornography is the British Board of Film Classification. It is responsible for classifying pornographic content before it can be published and ensuring it does not contain illegal content such as child sexual abuse, incest, trafficking, torture, rape or strangulation. Any such offline illegal content cannot be sold or supplied in the UK, yet the law has never been extended to cover regulation of online pornographic content. This is anachronistic.
Dame Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point: what is illegal offline must be treated the same way online. I fully support everything she is saying.
Rebecca Paul
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and I completely concur. The fact that our laws have not been extended in this way demonstrates that they have not kept up with our ever-changing world. I therefore call on the Government to ensure that online pornographic content is held to the same standards as offline pornographic content.
Lastly, I thank the all-party parliamentary group on commercial sexual exploitation for its groundbreaking inquiry into pornography during the last parliamentary term. That APPG has shone a light on this important issue, and has not shied away from harsh truths. We cannot end the epidemic of male violence against women and girls in this country without recognising and confronting the role that harmful online pornography is playing. Enough is enough. If everyone in this House cares about women and girls—and our boys too, because this is bad for them as well—it is time to take action and ensure that online content is properly regulated.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood). Her speech was incredibly courageous and brave. In recent days, like most women Members of this House, I assume, I have received online abuse, but her courage and bravery inspire us all, and give us the confidence to stand here. I give her my personal thanks for sharing what she did with us.
Violence against women and girls is nothing short of a national emergency. In my constituency of Thurrock alone, 317 sexual offences and 1,841 incidents of stalking and harassment were recorded in one year. Behind each of those statistics is a woman or girl whose life has been impacted by some of the worst crimes, but those figures are just the tip of the iceberg—the sharp end of unrestrained misogyny and hate directed towards women and girls—so I strongly welcome the Government’s commitment to halving violence against women and girls in a decade, and the measures that have been outlined so far to deliver justice for victims of these awful offences, and to ensure that perpetrators are held accountable.
We must tackle the root cause of this epidemic of violence—more often than not, male violence—towards women and girls. The societal attitude that women and girls are second-class citizens, and are less worthy of respect and value, and expectations of the “perfect victim”—these all need to stop. Young boys and girls are exposed every day to a virulent mix of misogyny and sex-based hate crime online. It cannot be right for children to view strangulation as a standard practice in sexual intercourse, or for there to be any question around when no does not mean no.
To bring the meaningful change needed to end this scourge of violence, we need to tackle these issues at root. We need to educate and empower boys to show respect and call out misogyny in their peers. We need to encourage and support men to identify and speak out against all forms of sex-based hate, challenge their peers on what is and is not acceptable, and reflect on where the communities and spaces that they are in can do and be better.
We need to support women and girls who have experienced the worst of our society through male violence. SERRIC—the South Essex Rape and Incest Crisis Centre—in my constituency is a pioneering rape and abuse support service. Set up by women determined that rape victims would not be left unsupported, it provides specialist support, built up through years of experience, to victims of rape, sexual abuse or violence. It allows survivors to reclaim control over their life, understand the impact of what they have lived through and move forward.
SERRIC is keen to highlight that for all victims, a criminal justice outcome alone is not enough to repair the harm done. Indeed, for some victims, a criminal justice outcome is not the desired or best approach. Retraumatising victims in the criminal justice system by forcing them to repeatedly retell what happened to them needs to be minimised, and support needs to be prioritised, but that will require a cross-Government effort. Health services need to be equipped to recognise the signs of physical and sexual abuse, and to provide support for victims that is not purely focused on gathering evidence for prosecution. Specialist support services such as SERRIC need to be funded to deal with referrals from health services, particularly community therapy services that will not treat a woman who has been the victim of sexual violence or rape.
There is no statutory framework for specialist rape and sexual violence support services, so specialist support is often under-supported, compared to more generic provision. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to developing a strong and sustainable model that ensures that specialist services are protected, and I request that she meets me and SERRIC to make sure that we do not miss out on its valuable input on amplifying the voices of victims of male violence against women and girls.
To conclude, with the spotlight on this issue—as a woman, I know that it very seldom is—we have an opportunity to tackle the causes of male violence against women and girls at root, to implement the recommendations of IICSA, and to listen to the voices of victims and provide the support that they need to rebuild their life. I hope this opportunity is not squandered by those who seek to put their political ambition, or spreading misinformation, insinuations and division, ahead of making real change.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
In 2021, Plymouth, part of which is in my constituency of South West Devon, had two horrific tragedies affecting a number of people. We had the Keyham shootings, which were incel-linked, hence my question about that earlier, and the tragic murder of Bobbi-Anne McLeod. I know that both Ministers are well aware of those cases. What came out of those tragedies was an opportunity to shine a light on VAWG in the city in a way that had never happened before, as well as to see what was already being done, and what more could be done to make things even better, and ultimately to make women and girls safe, and feel safe.
The Plymouth violence against women and girls commission was established in response, and I had the privilege of leading it. It took us six months, but we worked cross party, and we reported back with 15 recommendations, which were supported by organisations and businesses right across the city. Hon. Members may be interested to know that we deliberately called it the “Male Violence Against Women and Girls Report”. At the time, it felt as though we were breaking ground, but we have moved on a long way since then. In January 2023, one of the recommendations, which was for a Westminster Hall debate, came to fruition, so my name was mentioned in Hansard. The Ministers both took part in that debate, which my predecessor, Sir Gary Streeter, organised, and it enabled us to share our learning, which we were really keen to do.
We all know that violence against women and girls is a huge topic, and it is very difficult sometimes even to figure out the best way to approach it. That is why we approached it through the lens of public health. We recognised that there are no quick fixes, and that multiple factors influence the likelihood of someone being a perpetrator or a victim, and that was key to what we did. We wanted to change culture and behaviour in the city, and to support women and girls by being victim-focused and trauma-informed. I pay tribute to the organisations that were already working hard to do that in the city, including Trevi, First Light, Ahimsa, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and our police and crime commissioner, Alison Hernandez, as well as the police and the city council. In particular, I want to name Hannah Shead, who has worked for Trevi for a number of years and is now moving on. I thought it would be nice to get her mentioned. We also recognise the importance of creating safe spaces and the building blocks for the future.
That was two years ago, and I will briefly update the House on what we have done since. A key thing we did was appoint a strategic lead in the city, and there are now four women—Meghan, Verity, Tracy and Lisa—whose job it is to bring everything that is happening across the city together. If any Members want to take a good example back to their constituencies, I would highly recommend that one.
On changing culture, there was a focus on allyship and education for those of all ages. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has done fantastic work in schools focusing on pornography, and we have seen the establishment of a group called Man Culture, which wants to work collaboratively on reducing VAWG in the city. It received funding under the serious violence duty, and has delivered workshops that facilitated conversations about healthy and positive masculinity, a subject raised today.
A huge amount is being done to support women and girls and to make it easier to access support. Since 2022, the city has been pursuing co-ordinated community response accreditation. It is working with Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse, and we want to ensure that we have an assessment of how we deal with all this multi-agency work. There has been a review of the city’s multi-agency risk assessment conference, which has led to improvements and a new steering group, which is ongoing. It is looking at developing a multi-agency tasking and co-ordination process in the city, and the working group for that was launched in autumn 2024. We want the council, police, probation and local charities to work with perpetrators, engaging with them, disrupting their behaviour, and seeing high-harm domestic abuse perpetrators tackled.
A huge amount has been done on creating safe spaces. Of particular note is—the House will have to bear with me; it is a long name—Plymouth’s evening and night-time economy predatory behaviour disruption partnership. It is working on a pilot looking at how we can bring together civic and criminal justice tools to tackle predatory behaviours. Criminal justice tools are often not enough, or do not hit a trigger point. In the past 12 months, we have had 12 community protection notice warnings served, one antisocial behaviour stage 2 warning served, and five meetings at police stations with words of advice. That is cracking action. We have brought together those criminal justice actions to tackle that predatory behaviour. Well done to everyone involved. The key is working together and holding each other to account.
Still on the theme of safe spaces, I will touch on single-sex spaces. I ask the House to hear me out, as I say this with a real spirit of gentleness. I appreciate that there are a lot of women out there—some are my constituents—for whom this issue is particularly important, and it is important that their voices be heard. There is a concern among women about the lack of clarity over language and guidelines, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), when she was Women and Equalities Minister, called for examples of guidance that might wrongly suggest that people have a legal right to access all single-sex spaces and services on the basis of their self-identified gender. The new Government responded to that in December, and we are concerned that it has led to a lack of clarity about whether a single-sex space can be used by those who self-identify, or is specifically just for women.
Dame Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend is making another powerful speech, and her real-life examples of how we can change things with a multi-agency approach are so powerful. Her point on clarity is important, and I urge her to keep fighting to make sure we have that clarity.
Rebecca Smith
I thank my right hon. Friend for her contribution. It would be great if Ministers could address that point this afternoon, so that those who are watching this debate can understand whether the Government will recommit to doing something on single-sex spaces.
To go back to Plymouth, the experts in our city are beginning to look at the fact that the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 created the statutory standing for children to be considered victims in their own right. The men and women working on the issue in Plymouth are beginning to wonder whether we should call it violence against women and children, rather than girls, because the challenge with any label is that it can take our focus off what we need to be talking about. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that.
I have briefly set out the results of the commission on violence against women and girls and our recommendations. Members are all welcome to visit Plymouth to see what we have done. We have not solved the problem, but we have gone a long way to playing our part in tackling violence against women and girls.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Members for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), and for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), and my hon. Friends the Members for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), for East Kilbride and Strathaven (Joani Reid), and for Thurrock (Jen Craft). They have all made powerful and compelling speeches. It is such a shame that certain Members from some parties simply did not bother to turn up.
I welcome the largely constructive tone from the shadow Minister, but I want to say something about the tone of the recent debate and how it has unleashed yet another tide of misinformation and lies. Overnight, Facebook groups have become a sewer of misinformation on last night’s vote. I proudly voted for the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill because it toughens the law to improve child protection and safeguarding. Anything else that is said about me or my colleagues is a lie.
I have made it clear to my Rochdale constituents that I am open to a new inquiry into grooming gangs, if that is what is most helpful to the victims and survivors, and, crucially, if it can be done in a way that does not conflict with live police investigations and prosecutions. We must not forget—as people are forgetting—that the Jay inquiry had victims and survivors at its very heart. They were built into its process and consulted all the way along—at the start, during and after it. Many victims and survivors have said that they want that report to be implemented in full—that is their priority. Alexis Jay’s clear demand is to get on with it. That is exactly what this Government are doing.
In Rochdale, a predominantly Pakistani-heritage grooming gang raped our local girls and tarnished our town’s good name. Andy Burnham’s independent inquiry into the council and police failures in Rochdale was published last year. Like the Jay report, the Rochdale report listened to victims and came up with recommendations. Crucially, the prosecutors and police have been able to get on and pursue further prosecutions as a result. That is what the public want. Their priority is locking up these paedophiles, and making sure that they get the strongest possible sentences and are brought to court swiftly.
Telford is another excellent example of a local inquiry that builds on the survivors’ experience and makes sure that they are involved all the way along. They know what the flaws are, what the best solutions are and how they can be embedded locally and nationally. It is clear from the Greater Manchester inquiry that the central failure was working-class girls not being believed or respected, and the police thinking that their cases would not stack up in court. That was also the problem in the abuse of boys by Cyril Smith, which I had a role in exposing as a journalist more than a decade ago. Working-class youngsters were simply not believed by the authorities, locally or nationally. It was this Prime Minister, as Director of Public Prosecutions, who brought in real change to make sure that those working-class voices could be heard in court.
The additional problem in Rochdale was delays in multi-agency working: social workers and the police not getting their act together, not getting the right specialist help and not spotting the patterns of organised abuse. We need specialists within police forces—rape specialists and child protection teams. We need to disrupt this wherever it happens and be tough on the sentencing. But what I loathe is the suggestion that this should be a political game. It sickens me that politicians can think that another party can be damaged or tarred by the idea of child abuse. I pay tribute to Theresa May for setting up the child abuse inquiry and to the former Prime Minister for setting up the grooming gangs taskforce. We should have cross-party consensus on this and maintain it at all costs.
It is sad to see that certain Reform party Members are simply not here today. A responsible politician does not ride the wave of justified anger about child abuse; they do something about it. We can have a robust debate about policy, delays, action or inaction, but to suggest that someone who disagrees is somehow complicit in or endorses child abuse is completely unacceptable. The real danger in all this is that politics will suffer and the victims will suffer.
I pay particular tribute to Sara Rowbotham, the former health worker in Rochdale who later became a Labour councillor. Her tireless work led to the exposure of the grooming gang in our town. Sara was played by Maxine Peake in the BBC drama “Three Girls”, the broadcast of which led to huge change and justice for many girls, not just across Rochdale but across the whole country. There is a remarkable effort in Rochdale—a collective movement that has long been at the forefront of protecting women and girls from domestic and sexual violence.
Our town is not just a place of resilience, but a beacon of hope, support and empowerment of the most vulnerable in our society. I pay tribute to the exceptional individuals leading this work: Khaldha Manzoor, CEO of the Rochdale Women’s Welfare Association; Kathy Thomas, CEO of Rochdale Connections Trust; and Councillors Sameena Zaheer, Janet Emsley and Amber Nisa. They have all driven this work. Finally, I must pay tribute to the youngsters. Falinge Park high school’s white ribbon ambassadors and initiatives by the Rochdale Islamic academy girls school demonstrate how education can play a pivotal role in preventing abuse and changing societal attitudes.
Rochdale stands as a testament to what can be achieved when individuals, charities, public institutions and political parties unite for a common cause. Let us honour their efforts not just with words, but with the continued support that they need to thrive.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I very much welcome the Government bringing this important debate to the House today.
Every single day, 3,000 crimes of violence against women and girls are recorded. That is 3,000 acts of harm inflicted on women in our society. Yet according to the End Violence Against Women coalition, the true figure is likely far higher, as so many victims simply never come forward. One in 12 women will become a victim of these crimes each year, while it is estimated that one in 20 people will be a perpetrator annually, although, again, the actual number is thought to be significantly greater. These figures are not just statistics; they represent lives disrupted, confidence eroded and safety stolen.
Violence against women and girls is horrifyingly prevalent in our society. Too many women feel unsafe walking down their own streets, in their homes and workplaces, and online. The reality of this violence has been felt profoundly in my constituency: in 2023, Emma Pattison and her seven-year-old daughter were brutally killed by her husband. There were warning signs of coercive, controlling behaviour, but they were not picked up on. The loss of Emma and Lettie Pattison should serve as a reminder of how domestic abuse can escalate rapidly, and how we must be ready to listen to women and pick up on these signs of abuse. We must learn from such tragedies and act decisively to prevent others.
Our criminal justice system is failing women, survivors are not supported as they should be and, far too often, perpetrators evade justice. Online abuse, workplace harassment and daily intimidation are all too common, and they reveal a society that continues to let women down. We need a whole-system approach to tackle this issue. Criminal justice partners, Government bodies, voluntary organisations and industry must come together to improve early identification, risk assessment and the provision of support for survivors. Most importantly, when there are reports of any sort of violence or sexual misconduct, they must be taken seriously. We will not end this surge of violence against women and girls in our society if the police do not take women seriously, investigate the reported crime and bring the perpetrators to justice.
The Liberal Democrats believe in a clear path forward that includes making misogyny a hate crime; fully implementing the Istanbul convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, with protections for all survivors, regardless of nationality or immigration status; and ensuring sustainable funding for refuge spaces and rape crisis centres to meet the overwhelming demand.
Survivors deserve better. They deserve domestic abuse specialists embedded in every police force, mandatory trauma training for officers and prosecutors, and real action to address the delays in the justice system that put women at further risk. Social media companies must also play their part by addressing the appalling abuse faced by women online, including Members of the House today. This is often how abuse starts. Transparency and accountability must be non-negotiable.
No woman should have to live in fear of violence; no girl should grow up thinking this is the norm. We have the tools and knowledge to make a difference; what we need now is the will to act. I welcome the announcements from this Government and the fact that they are maintaining this as a key priority, and I stand ready to work with anyone in this Chamber to build a safer, fairer society for women and girls.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Before I begin, I want to remind everyone that every woman—and some men—has a story. Some are awful; many are devastating, including those of women in this House, like myself. If anyone is feeling affected by this debate and the issues raised, either in the House or watching online, please reach out to the many amazing organisations; for people in Milton Keynes, MK-ACT is one partner. It is for women like me and the women of Milton Keynes that I extend my thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), because it is women like them who are making our lives safer.
Previous Governments have treated violence against women and girls as inevitable, or, more recently, a political opportunity, instead of the national emergency that it is. I feel sorry for the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), who I know feels strongly on this, but who is not in the Chamber today? There is not a single Reform MP, which shows how much they care. There is no show from the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who said that he really cared about the issue, and no show from the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who also said that he cared about the issue. I guess they care about it only when they can put out Facebook ads afterwards.
We are sick and tired of seeing women and girls facing the same threats of violence and abuse generation after generation. After Sarah Everard was killed, women across the country demanded action, but too little changed. After Raneem Oudeh was killed, we expected major overhauls of policing and the criminal justice system, but barely anything was done. After the reports and the reviews, not a single recommendation was enacted. The passive response from previous Governments to those devastating crimes was hopeless. For those of us who care, the constant frustration, the mourning, the tragedy and the inevitability of male violence against women and girls in this country is exhausting, but we will never stop fighting.
Every new case that makes the news of a woman killed by a husband, killed by a boyfriend, killed by a stranger or killed by an ex is a gut-wrenching reminder that you are never safe. Your daughter, your mother, your friend and your sister may never be safe, either. It has to stop. It happens everywhere, in every corner of the country and in every community. Unfortunately, it happened on Christmas day in Milton Keynes when two women, Joanne Pearson, 38, and Teohna Grant, 24, were killed.
While the previous Government did not do enough, they did not create the crisis alone. How do we sort it? By understanding it. That starts with the House becoming the first white ribbon Parliament in the world. I am grateful to the Leader of the House, the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers for their support in that.
We have to understand online radicalisation. A generation of young men are being raised in radical anti-women spaces online. Those used to be niche places that would have to be searched for on some kind of Telegram or 8chan channel, but they have been mainstreamed. Growing up, our children heard those jokes only from the drunk uncle in the corner who everyone ignored; now, they are there every day and have become popular with young and older men with aspirational lifestyles.
I have spoken before in the House about Andrew Tate, but he is just one of an endless supply of misogynists repacking hate for women as standing up for men. The tactics and content used by these men to radicalise men in this country are the same psychological process used to radicalise Islamic extremists, yet the law, the press and the public do not treat it the same.
The harm is extreme, with one woman killed every week in the UK, and the average age for rape is now 14 years old. That has been compounded by violent pornography. One young man reported on by Laura Bates —for those who want to read more, she is fantastic on this issue—was asked:
“Why didn’t you stop when she was crying?”
He looked back, bewildered, and said:
“it’s normal for girls to cry during sex”.
That is what our young people—and older people—are facing.
We have to strengthen the Online Safety Act 2023 and ensure that the criminal law is robust and can keep pace with emerging technology issues, especially when we have social media tsars pushing their radical free-speech agendas that make our children less safe. We have to step up to prevent online radicalisation of our young men and boys and keep our women and girls safe online and offline. I believe in the Government’s mission to halve VAWG, I am proud of the work done so far, and I am proud of the women leading the effort to build a world where women can exist in online spaces without being exposed to sexist put downs and where we do not have to say, “This happened to me.”
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
We have heard many moving and personal accounts this afternoon from Members addressing the scourge of violence against women and girls. It is crucial that we continue to shed heat and light on this horrendous abuse—not just the horrific stories that make the news, but the hidden harms that we do not hear about. In 2024, domestic abuse-related crimes represented 15.8% of all offences recorded by police, with nearly three quarters of those victims being female.
The incident that I wish to highlight involves a young woman who was violently attacked outside a nightclub. The man who was her attacker was also her boyfriend at the time. By his own admission, the young man said he had only pushed her and she fell to the ground and was hurt. Court records subsequently revealed that he had repeatedly kicked her, “around four times”. It was reported in the Daily Mail that the attack was stopped only when two doormen dragged the attacker away from the young woman and then called the police. The man was arrested and charged with assault. The Times reported that he had initially denied the charge, maintaining his innocence, which meant that both his victim and witnesses were forced to relive the attack by giving statements to the police ahead of going to trial. The young woman herself was left with both injuries and lasting mental scars.
Speaking to the Daily Mail, the victim’s mother described how it had taken
“two security guards to pull him off her”.
She explained how he had
“left marks on her body”
from the violence of the assault, going on to describe her daughter’s attacker as “a monster” and stating:
“There is no way he should be an MP in the House of Commons representing people.”
As of July, that young woman’s attacker sits on these green Benches as a Member of Parliament. His constituents were made aware of the crime only when the story was reported in the Daily Mail on 12 July. After the story broke, the Member referred to it as a “teenage indiscretion” —even as recently as last weekend, during a fractious Sky News interview.
While the Member maintains that the assault was nothing more than an argument followed by a push where his former girlfriend
“fell over and…was hurt”,
the extract from the Chelmsford Crown court records relating to the conviction explains why the judge awarded a custodial sentence, stating that
“the sentence was not suspended in light of the serious nature of the offence”.
It states that the offence “requires immediate punishment”, and that a pre-sentence report indicated a
“lack of willingness to comply”
before the man eventually submitted a late guilty plea.
I find it incredible that a Member of this House has a conviction for a violent assault on a young woman, his own partner, receiving an immediate custodial sentence for it. In a previous interview with Sky News, there was a refusal from the very top of the Reform party to acknowledge that female constituents who might have suffered domestic abuse or violence might be uncomfortable with having an MP who had been convicted of attacking a woman. The party leader stated in November that the Member “wasn’t vetted at all”, but in July a party spokesman was quoted in the Daily Mail as saying that the party knew about the conviction because the Member had been
“entirely honest with us when he applied to become our candidate”.
On-the-record comments from the party leader and the party spokesman appear to contradict one another completely in respect of what was known. The Reform party appears to have knowingly put up a candidate with a conviction for attacking a woman—a party that does not believe that violence against women and girls should be taken seriously if the perpetrator is one of their own. We in this House, constituents and the wider public deserve to know precisely what Reform knew about this conviction; what they were told, when they were told it, and what they chose to disclose in subsequent statements to the media.
I believe in the rehabilitation of offenders—I believe that the justice system needs to be rehabilitative in order to reduce the rate of recidivism, and that those who have served their sentences should be free to move on with their lives—but I also believe that being sentenced for such a heinous crime should mean forfeiting some of the privileges that those of us who have never attacked a woman are granted. One such privilege is being a Member of Parliament. If the conviction in question had been related to a sexual offence, would it have been accepted here so comfortably?
Justice should not mean that victims are forced to see those convicted of attacking them being elected as Members of this House because there was no requirement to disclose their past. The Government have pledged to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, and to provide victims with better support. The presence of a Member of Parliament with a conviction for violently assaulting a woman has never been acknowledged in this House, let alone addressed. Any debate in the House on the subject of violence against women and girls should address the convicted criminal already in our midst. As this Government shape their legislative agenda, I ask the Minister to consider whether it is time to introduce legislation that bars those who have served a custodial sentence for violence against women and girls from standing as a Member of Parliament.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I want to thank all my colleagues for their valuable and powerful accounts, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), who has worked so hard on this issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh), who has done a great deal to assist in community cohesion.
Violence against women and girls is undeniably difficult to speak about, especially as so many of us have suffered and will know friends and family who have been affected. Before I begin, I would like to express my solidarity with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who has received further vile and misogynistic attacks this week. I hope members of the official Opposition are brave enough to do the same and call out these vitriolic attacks for what they are. My hon. Friend has always shone brightly as a beacon for all victims of violent and sexual abuse.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) said, it feels like nothing has changed since the 1980s, when I went to university in Leeds in the wake of the Yorkshire ripper. Women’s behaviour is still dictated by fear of rape and violent attack. Violence against women and girls is a national emergency, not the inevitability that previous Governments have treated it as. We are sick and tired of seeing women and girls facing the same threats of violence and abuse, generation after generation.
Recent generations have faced the new threat of image-based abuse. My colleagues and I on the Women and Equalities Committee investigated image-based abuse and produced a report, which recommended that the Government take action to protect victims. I am pleased that the Government will introduce three new offences to combat image-based abuse. These are steps in the right direction—steps that will protect more women from revenge porn and will hopefully lead more victims to feel confident in reporting perpetrators.
We can go through statistic after statistic, but I want to speak about the experience of one of my constituents, who was brave enough to share her story with me and asked me to share it with the House. Olivia, in her words, was love-bombed before her abuse started. Her abuser emotionally manipulated her and then strangled her and left acid in her car. She did everything that we ask of victims. She called the police. She reported everything at the time and had witnesses who spoke to the police, but she was too scared to tell them about all the abuse that was happening. Then her perpetrator made her believe that he was the victim and convinced her to drop the charges and continue their relationship. They went away on holiday. There, the abuse continued, and she had to get the police involved abroad. She decided to end the relationship shortly after, but it did not end there.
Her abuser harassed, stalked and threatened her at her own home and in public. Again, she did everything right. She called the police on every occasion to report it. When he was finally arrested, no further action was taken because there was not enough evidence to convict him. When she first reported him, she was told that he would be convicted and charged for non-fatal strangulation, but he still walks the streets, and it is her who must live in fear of what could happen next.
We must confront the uncomfortable reality that even when victims of violence report domestic abuse to the police, they do not get the help they need. I asked Olivia whether there was anything she would like me to share, and she asked me to tell the House that
“when a girl or woman approaches the police, faster action needs to be taken as the perpetrators can very quickly get back into our heads and feel that we are the problem and women are more likely to drop the case, there should be more support from the police when victims ask for cases to be dropped”.
We know that domestic abuse is much more than physical abuse. Coercive control leaves victims helpless and unable to escape their abusers, like Olivia says. It is time we made sure that our first responders, police and ambulance crews know what coercive control looks like. We must make sure that teachers teach their students about coercive control, and that cases of coercive control are spotted and taken seriously by the police before it is too late, as was the case with another of my constituents, who sadly lost her daughter.
The Government’s new ministerial board on tackling violence against women and girls will bring together Ministers from the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education, the Department for Transport, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and many more Departments, to ensure that for the first time we have a truly cross-Government approach to violence against women and girls. I urge them to ensure that tackling coercive control is at the centre of that approach.
This cross-Government approach and the introduction of domestic abuse specialists into 999 control rooms as part of Raneem’s law give me hope in the fight against gendered violence. We have a long way to go, but I am proud to be part of a Government who are committed to tackling misogyny, halving violence against women and girls and taking action now to make that a reality in every corner of our society.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this very important debate, and I pay tribute to right hon. and hon. Members for their extremely powerful, informed and personal contributions.
According to the Office for National Statistics, 851,062 domestic abuse-related crimes were reported in England and Wales in the year ending March 2024. The NSPCC has reported that police in England and Wales made an average of 669 child protection referrals per day to social services in the last year. This week, I have been shocked to hear that an average of 500,000 children a year might be being abused in our country. We in this place must do everything in our power to protect those who have been victims and those who may end up becoming victims through our inaction.
I do not want to make this a party political issue. I recognise the potential failings of the last Government to inform the debate, but I acknowledge the positive steps that they took in this space. However, we are here today because those steps were not enough, and I am grateful to those on the Opposition Benches for supporting the motion.
The root causes of VAWG are not excuses for perpetrators to commit crimes, but they may lead to higher risks or a more difficult experience for those affected. Austerity and the devastating cuts to public services reduced funding for services that support victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse, and the cuts have led to fewer resources and support options for women in need. The weakening of social welfare programmes through policies aimed at reducing social welfare spending can disproportionately affect women, who are more likely to rely on such programmes. That leads to increased economic insecurity and vulnerability to abuse. There are insufficient legal protections and a lack of funding for the courts, and there has been criticism of the enforcement of laws relating to domestic violence and sexual abuse. Inadequate training for law enforcement and judicial personnel can result in poor handling of cases and insufficient protection for victims.
There is also a lack of focus on gender equality. Policies that do not actively promote gender equality can perpetuate systemic issues that put women at risk, because they do not address the gender pay gap, the lack of affordable childcare, the insufficient support for women in the workforce, and the failure to implement the recommendations of the Jay review in order to support victims of child sexual abuse and protect children from the same risks.
A constituent came to my surgery and recounted her experience. The person she was living with had drugged and raped her repeatedly. She had reported this to the police, who promised to take immediate action and arrest the alleged perpetrator.
I will not go into the details here but, unfortunately, the perpetrator is currently living not very far from the victim who alleged abuse against him. I urge the Government to take immediate steps to protect those who have been abused, or who are making allegations of abuse, from the further trauma of living close by and having their alleged abuser walking the same streets, leaving them feeling unsafe every single moment of the day.
I welcome and commend the Government’s commitment to cutting violence against all women and girls by 50% over the next 10 years, and I associate myself with the positive policies that have been proposed, but I urge them not to leave any stone unturned and to put in place, once and for all, the maximum practical measures to reduce the harm to women and girls forever.
I draw attention to the plight of women and children in BAME communities. They face similar issues, but they also face language barriers, the fear of not being believed or understood, and the fear of discrimination by statutory services such as the police and social services.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman talks about people needing to be believed. Could he talk about that a bit further?
Iqbal Mohamed
Every single person who reports a crime, especially violent or sexual abuse, must be taken seriously from the moment they present their issue to the relevant authority or any responsible person. Any person who turns a blind eye to such reports is directly or indirectly complicit. We need to tighten up the processes. Of course, we want to avoid miscarriages of justice, but it is really important that people are listened to.
Women and children in BAME communities fear they may become isolated from their family or community if they seek help or leave a relationship, or, where their immigration status is an issue, they fear they may lose their residency in the UK. It is therefore imperative that support services are culturally aware and sensitive to the needs of BAME women to provide them with specialised—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I call David Burton-Sampson. I have to impose an immediate four-minute time limit.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
Tackling violence against women and girls is a job for everyone. We all know that tackling violence involves far more than just the police and the criminal justice system. Preventing abuse in the first place is crucial, and everyone needs to play their part.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) and others in expressing my disappointment that some seem to pick and choose which type of abuse they wish to champion. Abuse is not a political football. All should come together to tackle abuse.
Across Government, and with mayors, local councils and police and crime commissioners, we need to support strong preventive action. According to the crime survey for England and Wales for the year ending March 2024, 2.2 million women that year had experienced domestic abuse, 1.1 million had suffered sexual assault and 1.5 million had been stalked.
Of course, it is not just physical abuse that women experience; they also experience online abuse. My fellow members of the Women and Equalities Committee and I recently heard evidence from young women about the abuse they experienced through non-consensual intimate images and deepfakes. It was harrowing to hear about the long-term impact this abuse has had on those young girls’ lives.
As we have heard, this Government have pledged to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, and I am pleased by the action they are already taking. I must mention the tireless and dedicated work of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips). She has stood up and fought against violence against women and girls for many years, supported many victims and is now doing great work to influence the tackling of this issue in her role as Minster for Safeguarding and Violence against Women and Girls.
However, the issue is not just what the Government should do. Preventing abuse in the first place is crucial, and everyone needs to play their part. Men need to play their part—men need to do more. The charity White Ribbon wants to prevent men’s violence against women and girls by addressing its root causes. It works with men and boys to change long-established and harmful attitudes, systems and behaviours that perpetuate inequality and violence.
It is clear that many young men are being warped by toxic influencers online. Police chiefs have warned that young men are being radicalised online. The police have demanded that technology companies act more quickly to take down extreme material. Schools have a role to play in providing high-quality, inclusive and effective relationships and sex education that is relevant to the realities of children’s lives and empowers young people to understand the true relationship boys should have with girls: respect, respect and respect. That really matters. Men need to be champions of that cause and of women’s safety.
Rachel Taylor
I thank my hon. Friend, who is my colleague on the Women and Equalities Committee, for everything he does to set an example to young men. Does he agree that we should call upon all our male colleagues to do the same in their constituencies?
David Burton-Sampson
I agree, and I call upon all men to do everything they can to champion the cause. Men need to be positive champions: there is so much we can do. We need to be allies, calling out poor language or behaviour in our own friendship groups when we witness it. We need to be conscious of our behaviour around women, such as keeping a distance if we are walking near a woman who is alone at night. If we see a woman being harassed on public transport, for example, we can be an active bystander by ignoring the aggressor and engaging the victim with a benign question, such as asking the time or offering a seat. That is non-confrontational intervention that can help diffuse a situation. There is so much more that we, as men, can do. We can all help. We need to educate, act and do more to support, and we need to drive down such behaviour once and for all.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
It is a privilege to be here in the Chamber to experience so many astonishing speeches. I direct attention specifically to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), whose speech was one for the ages.
I preface my contribution with the acknowledgment that there are 263 women Members of this Parliament who are often best equipped to speak on matters that impact women and girls. However, in the case of violence against women and girls, it is important that men speak. We should not shy away from the fact that such violence is often inflicted by men, from across society and from all walks of life. The recent convictions of the men who raped Gisèle Pelicot brought to light some information that shook my faith even in myself. Among the men who raped her were a journalist, a councillor, a soldier, lorry drivers, farm workers and even—pause for a moment to consider this—a nurse.
One of the most shattering examples of violence against women and girls was the tragic case of Sara Sharif. Rarely am I moved to such anger as when I revisit that case. The man who tortured and murdered 10-year-old Sara was the one person whose primary responsibility as a human being was to protect his daughter. I echo the statement by the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), who referred to labelling such men as monsters. To label him and the perpetrators of similarly disgusting crimes as monsters is to obscure an uncomfortable truth: they are often fathers and brothers, they are often our work colleagues. I note the absence today of the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock) and his enablers.
Men across the country are outraged by violence against women and girls, but how many of us are ready to look in the mirror? Men taking a stand against demeaning language, inappropriate behaviours and toxic mentalities will prove central to winning the minds of men and boys, but we must also recognise it in ourselves. As with any other form of intolerance—I draw attention to the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who linked broader intolerance to the matter we are discussing—it is the othering of “them” and the validation of “us” that drives resentment.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
May I associate myself with the words of the Minister, the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) and others on the comments made to the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls? I am appalled by the comments made online and by well-known members of the public.
Will my hon. Friend join me in wholeheartedly condemning public sexual harassment, including so-called cat calling, which is designed to harass, intimidate and humiliate women and girls? Shamefully, 68% of adult women have experienced sexual harassment by the age of 15. Will my hon. Friend also join me in asking the Government to pass the statutory instrument required to enforce the legislation passed last year on that?
Cameron Thomas
I absolutely stand by my hon. Friend’s comments. May I also congratulate him on the recent birth of his daughter? I am delighted that he will learn now, as I know, that there is nobody more blessed than the fathers of daughters.
The attention of men and boys is often won through divisive and even violent rhetoric and behaviours. It appeals to men’s frustrations. It frames women as opponents— some adversary to be controlled or defeated—or an object to acquire, possess and impose our will upon. For some of us, that rhetoric is first experienced in our own home, growing up. If not, then it is experienced in the playground. It is not long before toxic role models are in our social media feeds, with algorithms repeating and reinforcing toxic messages.
We can decide in this House to challenge toxic influence, predominantly through our schools. Boys and girls should be taught together to respect and appreciate each other for their differences, as well as for what they have in common. We should also mandate social media companies to publish the actions they take to address and control online abuse. Let me be explicit: those who do not measure up must have no such place of influence in our society.
I will end with an acknowledgment that withdrawing our armed forces from Afghanistan and leaving millions of women to the will of the Taliban is a self-made humanitarian tragedy. Together with our allies, for 20 years, we brought Afghan women freedom and hope for the future. With the US-planned withdrawal and our corresponding actions, we condemned and, in so many cases, returned them to a pitiful and hellish existence.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
I am honoured to participate in this debate and to follow such esteemed colleagues from all sides of the House.
Violence takes many forms, not just physical or sexual, but emotional, financial and coercive control. Those acts, which do not leave physical bruises, have just as bruising an effect—the effect cutting off the women on the receiving end from their families, from the friends who support them, and not necessarily from their abuser. It is the effect of cutting off women from the people who will provide support and help, and from those who will utter the immortal words, “Do you know you are living in an abusive relationship?” I thank the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) for what she said. We must not underestimate the power of those words, or the power of those friends. It was a person uttering those words that got me out. I did not believe it; I did not recognise it. I pooh-poohed it in that meeting, but then I sat back and reflected.
Every single one of us here will have come to the debate thinking of women we know—women we met before we came to this place. There were those who I represented in the trade union. There was one I sat in the car with and did the midnight flit with. They got out. I phoned managers and said that we needed to get her moved. There are people whose stories I do not have the privilege or the permission to tell, but one woman—one of my constituents—who did give me that permission got out of the relationship. She moved 400 miles to be beside her family and is now sitting in temporary accommodation, working part-time and on universal credit. She cannot get a tenancy in a private flat, because she does not have the good financial standing to get a reference. She cannot get a council house, because we have a housing emergency, and she has no children. She does not want to sit and wait for 10 years without work.
I know fine well that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and my hon. Friend the Safeguarding Minister know this inside out. I know that they can make the case that, as a joined-up Government, we need to solve the housing emergency, and we need to reform universal credit. It is only when we get this joined- up Government moving and working correctly—
Katrina Murray
I will continue, if that is okay; I do not need the time. I am good, thank you. Everything I had written down has gone. I have been struck by the power of words in this Chamber. People out there listen. As has been said, we are working for the good today. We need to make sure that everybody out there hears us working for the good. We believe everyone who comes forward, and we thank everybody who has shared their stories this week. Thank you all.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Far from letting anybody down, the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) has lifted survivors up with her contribution today. One of them, who has been watching from home, is my mum, who suffered abuse at the hands of a former partner. I witnessed that abuse growing up, and that is apart from some of the things that happened to me. The statistic, and the reality, that two women a week are killed by their partner or former partner particularly terrifies me, and always has. That must change, so I sincerely thank the Government for their commitment to halving violence against women and girls over the coming decade. I also thank the Safeguarding Minister for the work that she has done on this issue throughout her career. The vast majority of us in this House know that no tech billionaire, no pound-shop Enoch Powell, and no keyboard warrior can take away that record from her. The silence from Reform party Members is utterly deafening today. They might tweet about this issue while we are debating, but they are not participating, and shame on them for that.
Domestic abuse is a foul manifestation of violence against women and girls, as the Government recognised when they set out their intention of excluding domestic abusers from the standard determinate sentences 40% early release scheme, but as they have said, people can be excluded from early release only on the basis of the offence that they committed, not other antecedents. A challenge is that it is not possible to comprehensively exclude domestic abusers because there is no dedicated offence of domestic abuse in law. Instead, many abusers are convicted of offences such as actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm, which are governed by a piece of legislation from 1861 that was not written with domestic abuse in mind. Domestic abusers convicted of such offences are being let out early, or qualifying for early release. We have seen some such cases, and that loophole needs to be closed.
I convened survivors, academics and support organisations to come up with a solution, which exists in the form of a Bill that I introduced: the Domestic Abuse (Aggravated Offences) Bill, which would create a specific offence of domestic abuse in law for the first time. It would work in a similar way to racially and religiously aggravated offences by creating domestic abuse aggravated GBH, ABH or whatever it might be. Beyond giving the means for the Government to exclude domestic abusers from an early release scheme, it would tighten up some of the data, which is very difficult for academics and others to analyse when they are looking into the effectiveness of interventions.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that collecting data is so important in really getting to grips with the issue?
Josh Babarinde
I could not agree more, and I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. If we do not have the data that we want on domestic abuse offences, how can we measure whether we are halving violence against women and girls over this decade, and whether our interventions designed to reduce reoffending among domestic abusers are working?
The introduction of a domestic abuse aggravated offence could help employers with risk management; they could see it when it came up on a Disclosure and Barring Service certificate and press ahead accordingly. I am proud that Women’s Aid and Refuge are backing my Bill. They want to see it made a reality. I thank them and many of those in the media for their support. I also thank Members of this House for supporting my early-day motion 523, and for giving me their support in private discussions, especially folks on the other side of the House. I also thank Ministers for my constructive meetings with them, and the commitment that many have given that we will continue to discuss the Bill, with a view, I hope, to making it a reality. Lastly, and most importantly, I thank victims and survivors of domestic abuse, especially those I have had the honour of working with on the Bill, for their courage, resilience, hope and determination to ensure that others do not suffer as they have.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I ask Members to reflect on whether they should take interventions, given that they cost time and will squeeze out some Members who wish to speak, and who may have personal testimony.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I thank all those who have contributed to this powerful debate. Violence against women and girls is a grave issue that urgently demands our attention and action. It is a distressing reality that countless women and girls across the UK continue to live in fear and face unacceptable violence. However, the digital era has led to a new arena for abuse, with the rise of online emotional abuse, emotional blackmail, harassment, pressure and coercion to send sexual images, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, and technologies such as deepfakes presenting urgent challenges. Perpetrators are exploiting digital technology to escalate abuse online to the real world. Most worryingly, abuse is now faceless.
I will highlight online abuse in this debate. In deepfakes and synthetic media, a person’s likeness is manipulated to create false and often explicit content, which is weaponised. It is disproportionately women and girls who are affected. Our 2023 report found that 98% of deepfake videos are pornographic, and 99% of victims are women. The recent Ofcom report sheds further light on the scale of the problem. Alarmingly, one in seven adults reports having seen sexual deepfakes. Even more troublingly, 17% of adults thought that deepfakes depicted someone under the age of 18. Those figures expose the harrowing reach of this technology and its potential harm to women, girls and young children. The report also highlights a critical gap in awareness. Nine per cent of adults say that they are not confident that they could identify a deepfake.
I welcome the Government’s recent announcement on criminalising the creation of explicit deepfakes without consent. However, legislation is not enough. Ofcom’s report underscores the need for a co-ordinated response involving Government, tech companies and civil society to tackle the issue. Developing tools to detect and remove harmful content is absolutely vital, as is ensuring that law enforcement agencies act swiftly to get the images removed. Education is equally important. Many victims are unaware of the risks, and public awareness campaigns can play a vital role in empowering individuals to recognise and report harmful content. Education is not just for the victims, but for young people, young men and men in society. Additionally, we must work with educators to ensure that we have the digital literacy to safely navigate the changing landscape.
While technology brings tremendous benefits to our lives, its misuse should not disproportionately affect women and girls. Legislation like that recently announced by the Government is a vital step forward, but it must be accompanied by systemic change and cultural awareness to ensure that all individuals, including all women and girls, can live free from fear and abuse, online and offline.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) on all the work she has done over the years standing up for women and girls and fighting violence against them.
Violence against women and girls by men is a societal epidemic, and it is right that we in this place and the Government treat it as such. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s pledge to halve violence against women and girls over this Parliament, and we are keen to reform the law as soon as possible, and to accelerate what should be a national mission to stamp out this awful violence.
I particularly welcome the roll-out of the domestic abuse protection notices and orders pilot in Sutton borough, which covers my constituency of Sutton and Cheam. The orders will allow the police to take stronger, more immediate action in domestic abuse cases, and are a significant step forward, providing greater protections for victims and helping to ensure that abusers face the consequences of their actions without delay. In my borough of Sutton last month, we were tragically reminded of how urgent those protections are. The brutal murder of Gemma Devonish was a devastating blow to our community. Her death underscores the dire consequences of not providing all women with the critical support that they need. It is a dark reminder that those protections are not just necessary, but a matter of life and death. As with any kind of epidemic, we must recognise the warning signs, early indicators and normalised precursors that lead to this awful kind of violence.
Stalking is not just a crime against someone’s safety; it is a violent psychological attack on their very sense of self. It chips away at their emotional wellbeing, their sense of security and their right to simply exist without fear. For far too many women and girls, this crime is a daily reality, yet despite previous legislative reforms, the system still is not properly protecting victims of this crime. Data shared with me via a freedom of information request shows that in London, more than one in three stalking cases ends with the victim withdrawing from the process. That is a shockingly high number, and it should concern us all. In some cases, that is because victims disagree with the proposed action, but many have told me that it is also because they feel unable to provide enough evidence, as the burden of proof to achieve a section 4A conviction is set unfathomably high.
When the law places such an onerous burden on victims who are so clearly suffering torment, it is our job in this House to home in on it as a flawed piece of legislation. The current law is inconsistent and confusing, and is failing victims as a result. The current division of stalking offences into sections 2A and 4A just is not working, and the confusion allows perpetrators to buy time and continue tormenting their victims with little consequence. I fear that victims, who are overwhelmingly women and girls, are essentially being told that they need to be the perfect victim to ensure that the police get a conviction. They repeatedly have to expose their pain and humiliation to the system just to secure fundamental protection from the police.
I draw the House’s attention to a report published in September by the chief inspector of constabulary, the Independent Office for Police Conduct and the College of Policing. The report, driven by a super-complaint from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, has forced us to face the uncomfortable truth that many of us already knew: the system is failing women and girls. The report explores creating a single clear offence for stalking, rather than splitting it between sections 2A and 4A. The London Victims’ Commissioner has echoed those calls, and I strongly encourage the Government to do the same. The Minister for Safeguarding has promised a review of the current stalking legislation, so I ask again for the timeline for that review. More importantly, when will we see real changes to the law to protect victims and hold stalkers to account?
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I welcome the debate and pay tribute to Members for their testimonies. The points raised by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) and the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) relate very much to what I want to say.
This place has gained a terrible reputation, and not just in recent years, for predatory behaviour by those who have manipulated and used the exalted power of our elected positions to groom, touch inappropriately, sexually assault and rape many women and young men who have worked here. We are all aware of the scandals, and some of us will be conscious of the cover-ups. I liken it to the influence that Jimmy Savile was able to wield when he got the keys to Broadmoor—it is that dangerous. Although better reporting systems are now in place, more can always be done to clean this place up.
Every single one of us should have been required to undergo a Disclosure and Barring Service check before entering this House or the other place, particularly because our titles and positions open the doors to our public institutions, including hospitals, care homes, schools and children’s clubs and groups. Checks would create more openness and greater transparency, and trust should start before we make phone calls asking for visits or meetings. The other place runs the Learn with the Lords education scheme, for example, and although Members regularly visit schools, there are no checks or child protection or safety considerations.
I also welcome the significant recommendation in the IICSA report to require improved compliance with statutory duties to inform the Disclosure and Barring Service of individuals who may pose a risk of harm to children. Although that would be a significant step forward, I want to raise our standard and begin the process immediately. As a prospective parliamentary candidate presenting myself as a suitable person for election, there was no requirement for me to provide a DBS or criminal record check. That simply is not good enough. Making the DBS check a necessary hurdle to entering Parliament would work to clean up politics, and I believe that it would lead to parties making better and more thorough choices about their candidates. I am here with the mission of cleaning up our politics and bringing the DBS check to Parliament, which would make it a safer place for us all to be in.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I thank the Minister for her statement and for bringing this debate to the Chamber. As has already been mentioned, there have been some powerful contributions today, none more so than that of my friend the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood). I also echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who mentioned that those who have a history of amplifying the voices of recorded misogynists are not welcome here to tell us how we should be running our country.
Secondly and possibly more depressingly, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) mentioned that children watch pornography, and cited the statistic that one in 10 children has watched pornography by the age of nine. This has led to a horrendous rise in child-on-child sexual abuse; according to the police, 52% of recorded sexual crime is child-on-child, the youngest being a child only four years old who uploaded an indecent image and shared it. Much more needs to be done on this matter with our children. I thank the Minister for mentioning male victims of sexual violence, and I also thank a charity in my constituency, First Step, which does some incredible work on this issue.
It is really important that we focus on the needs of victims and survivors. That is why I would like to highlight some of the work that is being done in my constituency. Victims of rape, who have already had to endure such horrendous torture, are sometimes left behind and are victims once again because they get no support whatsoever. That is why for the past 35 years, Shama Women’s Centre in my constituency has provided sanctuary for victims of domestic abuse, among other incredible work. It helps those victims back on their feet, giving them training, job skills, advice, financial help and somewhere to stay while they are hiding from the perpetrators. This really helps women as they strive for independence in their battle for a better life, and to get away from the horrendous abuse they have experienced. We must do more to protect our charity sector; charities are sometimes the last place that these women have to go to, because they have been neglected by everybody else. Financial support is really needed.
Josh Babarinde
On the subject of charities that support victims and survivors, yesterday I met representatives of Victim Support. They shared that, at a time when demand for their services is surging, they are facing a 7% real-terms cut in funding because of the increase in national insurance contributions, as well as cuts to police and crime commissioner budgets. Does the hon. Member agree that we should be doing more to support—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. If I am going to get every Member in—and I would very much like to do so—interventions must be short.
Shockat Adam
I agree with the hon. Member, which is why I have raised the issue of national insurance on a couple of occasions. In fact, Jasmine House, which supports women who are the victims of rape and already has a two-year waiting list, was looking to add an extra member of staff, but is now going to reduce its number of staff members. It just cannot afford it, because of the rise in national insurance contributions.
With 8,000 cases of domestic violence being reported to the police in Leicester alone, it is clear that we need to ensure that the charity sector receives increased long-term funding, and that the police receive the best possible training on how to help the victims and investigate the cases. From our side, we offer cross-party support to help the Government however we can, to make sure that we can help with this matter.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I commend all the speeches made this afternoon, particularly those made by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Luton North (Sarah Owen), for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) and for Rochdale (Paul Waugh). I have to confess that I felt quite shocked by some of the statistics and stories I heard, even though this is something I have been involved in for quite some time as a trade unionist. I also find myself warning my daughter to be careful when she goes out in a way that I would not with my son, even though they are of a similar age. That is unacceptable in this day and age.
Data published by the National Police Chiefs’ Council in July 2024 found that over 1 million crimes of violence against women and girls were recorded by the police in 2022-23, equating to nearly 3,000 offences every single day, and that violent crime against women and girls increased by 37% during the five-year period between 2018 and 2023. Using data from the crime survey for England and Wales, the Office for National Statistics has found that domestic abuse-related crimes represented 15.8% of all offences recorded by the police last year. Domestic violence is something that affects all cultures and societies, as was acknowledged by the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies).
In my constituency of Wolverhampton West, we have the headquarters of the Haven Wolverhampton, a charitable organisation that provides practical and emotional support services to women and children who have suffered domestic violence, abuse and homelessness. The Haven has been established for more than 50 years and is one of the largest refuge providers in the UK, but like other charities it requires financial support to assist these women and children. As a society, we need to maintain and increase such provision throughout the country, and ensure that these organisations get the financial support they need.
We also need to safeguard victims of domestic violence in other ways. Currently, a survivor of domestic violence may be eligible for a debt solution to clear the debt accumulated during their abusive relationship, but once a debt solution is approved, their home address is published online on the individual insolvency register, which anyone can see. That is obviously terrifying for those who have been victims of domestic abuse, because it makes them vulnerable to further harm from their ex-partners, who can find their address online. There is an option to have their details hidden by obtaining what is known as a person at risk of violence order, but this requires them to pay £308 and attend court, which can be very difficult for traumatised survivors who are already in debt. I think that we should look at abolishing the fee for PARV orders.
I am very proud that this Labour Government have already taken steps to halve violence against women and girls within a decade by, for example, introducing Raneem’s law, which from this year will see domestic abuse specialists placed in 999 control rooms, and launching the pilot of domestic abuse protection orders, as well as rolling out the independent legal advocates for rape victims. However, having heard everyone this afternoon, I am sure the House would agree that we all need to strive to do even more.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I am humbled to take part in this debate. I do not have my own personal testimony to offer, but the issue of violence against women and girls has become very evident to me in my years as an MP through my constituency surgeries. First, I have learned how hard it is for women to get away and, once an abuser has them in their sights, how very difficult it is for them to escape. Secondly, as has been highlighted, not least by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), I have learned how abuse can be perpetuated by some of the institutions in this country, such as His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the financial system and the family courts.
I had learned those things, but since my eyes were opened to the extent of domestic abuse in my constituency, I have really come to admire the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) for all the work she has done on this issue before she came to this place, as a Back Bencher and now as a Minister. I urge her not to be deterred from the incredible work she has been doing by the awful experience she has had this week. However, I saw her compassionate and typically forthright response to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) after her extraordinary speech, and all I can say is that I have been very reassured on that point. I just want to pledge my solidarity with the Minister for all she has been doing.
I want to raise two particular issues that have come through in my casework. Very recently, constituents of mine who have been victims of violence have told me stories of how evidence of criminal activity has been removed from a crime scene—a violent crime scene—without forensic evidence being taken. I have challenged the Met police about this, and apparently it is no longer commonplace for forensic exams to be conducted due to budget cuts. Consequently, potential key evidence that could have contributed to the safety of my constituents has been lost. I have heard further examples of safety equipment, including panic alarms, being removed from the houses of vulnerable victims who remain under the threat of being attacked, and I am talking about very credible threats to life. I was again informed that this was for budgeting reasons. I have written to the Minister about this particular case, and I really hope she will make time for a meeting with me to discuss it.
It is unacceptable that budget cuts are putting the protection and safety of domestic abuse victims at risk, and I really hope the Minister will be able to take this up with colleagues, because it is vital that victims who are under threat have sufficient safeguards in place to ensure their protection from past abusers. The cases that are being brought to my office have shown the immediate impact that Home Office cuts to policing are having on the safety and wellbeing of vulnerable victims. In many cases involving crimes such as rape and murder, victims and bereaved families do not attend trial to avoid further trauma, and the Minister will know, because we have discussed it directly before, that a constituent of mine who was drugged and raped by her then boyfriend in February 2020 was quoted nearly £7,000 to access the transcript of the trial in which he was convicted with an 18-year sentence.
Without a transcript, many victims struggle to find out about the proceedings or why a certain verdict is reached. That is even more important in those cases where a not guilty verdict is returned. It is common for victims of violent crime to be advised by mental health professionals that a transcript of proceedings would aid their healing and help them process their experiences. In the previous Parliament, I introduced an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill which, had it passed, would have made provision for victims of crime to access a transcript of their trial free of charge. Victims can apply to the Crown court for a free transcript, but in many cases, such as that of my constituent, this request is rejected. I urge the Minister to take any steps available to her and to speak to colleagues about what more can be done to increase the availability of court transcripts to aid the recovery of victims.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)
Violence against women and girls is one of the most prevalent and pervasive human rights violations in the world. As an ongoing survivor of domestic abuse and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic abuse and violence, I know that it can affect women at all stages and in all aspects of their lives. As survivors, we are complex and multifaceted beings, and we are being let down, so I continue to advocate for the need for a multifaceted approach and a comprehensive and cross-departmental strategy that goes beyond criminal justice to social security, housing, employment, health and so on to address perpetrators and empower survivors. A whole-system approach is vital. In the time I have today, I will focus my remarks on the rights of survivors in the workplace.
On Second Reading of the Employment Rights Bill, I raised the point that domestic abuse could have an impact on an individual’s working life through unexplained absences, lateness and negatively impacted performance. For one in 10 survivors, the abuse continues in the workplace, often with their partner turning up at their workplace or stalking them outside their workplace, which is something I know first-hand. The statutory guidance of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 reminds us how pivotal the role of an employer can be.
Soon after the general election concluded, the APPG on domestic abuse and violence met and discussed how parliamentarians can advocate for the rights of survivors in the workplace. There are calls from organisations, campaigners and Members across the House in that regard, which I will raise now. First is the call for a right for victims of domestic abuse to take leave of absence from work and for regulations to be introduced to give effect to that right, including a minimum of 10 days of paid leave. Survivors may need to take time off work and may not be able to return to work immediately after escaping a perpetrator, for example. They may need time to seek emergency health or housing needs, attend court and so much more.
I draw the House’s attention to the fact that 10 days of paid leave for domestic abuse survivors is a provision available in Northern Ireland. Paid leave measures have also been implemented in other parts of the world, such as New Zealand, the Philippines and some states in the USA. I acknowledge that a handful of organisations in the UK provide paid leave for domestic abuse survivors, but many of us believe that right should be accessible to all survivors, no matter who they work for.
Many of us would also like to see protections for workers from adverse treatment if they are, or are suspected to be a person affected by domestic abuse. That surely must include protections from being dismissed to ensure a survivor’s long-term earning potential is not negatively impacted, as well as ensuring financial independence and freedom from economic abuse in many cases.
My final point on employment rights and domestic abuse survivors is about the work that organisations, campaigns, such as those led by the Employers’ Initiative on Domestic Abuse, and trade unions have done to ensure that employers take all reasonable steps to prevent workers from experiencing domestic abuse. Those steps could include implementing domestic abuse policies in every workplace and ensuring that risk assessments are done for every worker who discloses domestic abuse. That would surely be a progressive next step forward in the struggle to eradicate violence against women and girls from all parts of our society.
The history of challenging violence against women and girls has always had pioneering activism and fighting for social change at its heart. Because of so many survivors around the world, I would never allow my voice to be silenced. The next step is to look at how we support survivors to make sure that no one has to experience abuse in the workplace.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I want to make a brief contribution to this incredibly powerful debate, to draw attention to a specific and extreme form of violence against women and girls that is taking place right now across the whole of the United Kingdom: trafficking and modern slavery. Women and girls are trafficked into and around the UK, for sex and for other forms of exploitation such as labour exploitation and domestic servitude. They are among the most vulnerable people in our society.
Before being elected, I worked for three years on anti-trafficking in Scotland. The stories from my time there will haunt me: women trafficked and forced into prostitution, forced by their captors to have sex with multiple men a day with the money going to their captors, and forced to participate in pornography. These are women with no social networks and no knowledge they were even in Scotland. We say, “Listen to women”. These women did not have the English language skills to say no. There are pimping websites where men would leave reviews of the women they had paid to have sex with. I will not quote them, but they are spine chilling. It was perfectly clear that these men knew that the women were trafficked, coerced and unhappy. Some comments showed that that was the point. They knew that some were girls, not women.
We must do more to tackle this extreme violence against women and girls. I want to make four brief points. First, let me do something unusual and praise the previous Government. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 set up structures that were important and effective—the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), who is in her place, was instrumental in that—but it has fallen into severe abeyance. The focus on supposed abuse of the modern slavery system has all but wrecked the good system we had. Extremely long waits for the national referral mechanism have made it essentially dysfunctional, and we no longer give women who seek help the assurance that they will not be deported or prosecuted. This is important: no woman is complicit in her own abuse.
Secondly, we must support frontline organisations. The organisations that support vulnerable women operate on a shoestring budget, such as the Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance in Scotland. We have to stop making these organisations apply for funding every year. On that note, when I was working in Scotland, across the sector, even people who were quite suspicious of the Labour party, always spoke extremely highly of the Safeguarding Minister.
Thirdly, we must prevent re-trafficking. I consider it the biggest failure of the British state that women who escape their traffickers and come to the state for help later find themselves back in the hands of their traffickers. Small basic interventions and joined-up thinking would prevent that. But too often we say, “Well, you’re rescued now. Off you go and make yourself a life.” These vulnerable women fall back into the claws of their traffickers. It should shame us all.
I was a bit nervous about participating in this debate because I am conscious that the fight to stop violence against women must be led by women. We do not need men pontificating about what they think should happen. But I think there is a role for men, not just because men are also trafficked in the UK but because concepts of masculinity are changing for my generation and men younger than me.
Rebecca Smith
Earlier in my contribution, I referred to Man Culture. If I can be of any assistance at all in the hon. Gentleman’s quest to find some examples, another organisation I would be delighted to recommend to him is Beyond Equality. If there is anything I can do, I would be happy to do that.
Chris Murray
I very much welcome the hon. Lady’s contribution, because it will be for both genders to step up. We can see concepts of masculinity transforming before our eyes, exacerbated by the internet but also by political interventions. It is incumbent upon us—the younger generation of men—to stand up and face that head on.
Trafficking is one of the most extreme kinds of violence against women. It is happening all over the UK right now. We can do more to stop it, and we must.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
In my very short time in this place, I have always been conscious of the history of this Chamber and the speeches that have been made in the years and decades previously. However, this debate is the first time I have spoken where I have been aware that whatever I say will be dwarfed by what has been said in speeches previously by every Member who has spoken. The right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) was absolutely right: this is the House at its absolute best.
It is a privilege to speak in this debate. I will speak a little bit about some campaigners in my constituency. First and foremost, I will mention the families of Holly Newton and Joanne Tulip, and in particular Joanne’s mother, Doreen Soulsby, who has been a diligent and doughty campaigner for more than a quarter of a century. I also pay tribute to the work of Northumberland Domestic Abuse Services; in my first month after being elected, I was extremely honoured to be asked to become one of its patrons. I celebrate the work that Sharon Brown and her incredible team do in providing support to some of the most vulnerable people in England’s most sparsely populated county. One thing I would like to do as a result of this debate is to invite the two Ministers on the Front Bench, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), to come up to Hexham to see the work being done by NDAS. I would be absolutely honoured to welcome them and to celebrate the work Sharon and her team have been doing. Since April 2024 alone, NDAS has been into 23 schools across Northumberland and worked with almost 2,000 children on the perils of domestic abuse.
Ultimately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) was just saying, it can be tough to figure out our place in this debate as men. It needs to be led by women. However, if we do not stand up and speak, we are complicit in contributing to that culture of silence.
I have only a minute left, so I will not detain the House’s attention for too long. I am aware that in this debate, as in so many others, we stand on the shoulders of giants. I was very pleased to be sent an email by my office manager during this debate from a constituent of mine, saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley just how supportive she is, and how supportive constituents across all our constituencies are, of her tireless dedication to women across the country and to safeguarding them.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
Other Members have said what an honour it is to speak in this debate, with such expertise from so many; I have been struck by not just the passion, but the compassion from Members across this Chamber. I am pleased to rise and speak in this debate.
Others have mentioned the great work this Labour Government are already doing to reduce and halve violence against women and girls, so, given the time limitations, I will not recount that. I acknowledge that one in four women in the UK will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime. In Merseyside last year, nearly 20% of all crimes were related to domestic abuse. I do not think, therefore, we can underestimate the impact of our getting this right.
Economic abuse involves an abuser restricting a victim-survivor’s ability to acquire, use and maintain money. It is an insidious form of abuse that means survivors—overwhelmingly women—remain with abusers because they do not have the money or resources to flee. The charity Surviving Economic Abuse, which I have mentioned in this House before, has found that almost 1 million women were prevented from leaving because of this form of abuse—1 million women. Even if a victim-survivor does manage to leave, economic abuse often continues: wrecked credit scores prevent them from accessing the most basic items, such as a mobile phone; joint mortgages tie a survivor to their abuser so they can continue malicious control; perpetrators sometimes cruelly withhold maintenance payments for children or deliberately make unreliable payments, leaving survivors unable to afford the basic needs of them or their children.
The Government are serious about changing the story and ensuring that levels of violence against women and girls fall. To do this, they must put economic abuse at the heart of their work. It is the key to breaking the cycle and to helping survivors to rebuild their lives.
I heard many harrowing stories during my campaigning of inspiring women facing the most sickening abuse. I pay enormous tribute to one survivor who came forward with her experience—I cannot tell the House the whole story—with Citizens Advice Wirral, which helps such people rebuild their lives. As has been mentioned, support is available from so many people who are doing excellent work. The stories that we have heard show just how important it is that we work in partnership in our communities and in this place to deliver for survivors.
In my final moments, I pay tribute to the survivors. Their work and their bravery has pushed Governments of all colours and financial institutions to improve the lives of survivors. They inspire me, and I will continue to work in this place to eradicate economic abuse.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for her opening speech. Equally, as hon. Members across the House have done, I thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), for her continued championing of this hugely important issue. I will take a moment to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) for their incredible strength in telling us their personal stories. I am genuinely ashamed to live in a society where some people see it as acceptable to go up to a woman and tell her that they want to rape her. I find that disgusting. The sad reality is, many of us are not surprised by that. Women I know have experienced online abuse where exactly that sort of language has been used towards them. It is not acceptable. It is disgusting. I am ashamed that we live in a society where that happens.
I want to take a moment—I have only got a moment—to thank two local champions in my constituency who have done so much to raise this important issue time and again: Councillor Lanie Shears and Councillor Kay Morrison. Every year on White Ribbon Day, Kay organises a vigil in Harlow town centre where she and other community champions read out the name of every single woman and girl who has been killed by a man in the previous 12 months. That takes 20 minutes. Last year, they raised a motion on Harlow council calling on all councillors, council leaders and civic leaders to lead by example in their strategic leadership, in changing cultures, in raising awareness and in engaging with men and boys, because, as the Minister said at the start of the debate, everybody needs to play their part to get this right.
I really recommend that everybody does the White Ribbon training, which gives practical advice on how we can support women. But this issue is about more than that. It does not start with attacks on women or rape or murder. It starts with comments in the workplace—misogyny and banter. That is what needs to change. We have to change the culture. We have to educate men and boys. We have to say, “Enough is enough.”
Mims Davies
With the leave of the House, I am grateful to respond to the debate on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. The spirit of the debate has been strident. We have not always been wholly in agreement, but where we have disagreed, we have done so with respect and kindness, which is exactly how I approach this issue. I know that the Ministers opposite me do exactly the same. It is not easy to move from being a campaigner to a Minister. As MPs, we are campaigners for our own constituencies; that unites us all.
I am grateful for the range of contributions made by all hon. Members. It is right that we did not shy away from what needed saying, and I will take a moment to cover a few matters that came up. I must reiterate that in our 14 years in government, a huge amount of work was done in this area. None of it is easy, and none of it is done on its own.
I am grateful for the work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), in her role as Minister for Women and in the Home Office; by the former Safeguarding Minister, Laura Farris; by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Dame Priti Patel), in all her time in government; and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley).
As I said earlier, this is about building on the foundations established by many women and much partnership work across constituencies and sectors. I think of the work of Maggie Blyth, who stepped up as the national police lead in the wake of the brutal murder of Sarah Everard, following on from the work of the Casey review, listening to women’s testimony and working on that basis of it. I think of Festus and his time as Bedfordshire’s police and crime commissioner; I remember joining him to learn how mobile phone technology from the Home Office could be downloaded within 24 hours to help women and girls get the justice that they need.
Operation Soteria adopted a transformative approach to tackling rape and other sexual offences: it was a game changer for women in policing, and had the impact that was needed on investigations and prosecutions. It is right that the cross-Government tackling violence against women strategy of 2021 built on the work of those who came before. We have heard about the national communications campaign and the Enough campaign. We know of the work to criminalise virginity testing, the work that we did to change the taxi licensing regime, the £1.5 million a year spent on specialist support services dealing with revenge porn, and, of course, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which I mentioned earlier.
Let me now turn to some of the contributions that we have heard today. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) rightly talked about halting violence against women and girls, and also said that she felt somewhat sorry for me, which I appreciate. However, I must reiterate that the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which we debated yesterday, contains no additional work in this realm. These debates are important, and the Minister knows that. We need to do more than engage in general debates in the pursuit of justice. I welcome the work that was outlined by the Safeguarding Minister earlier, and we in the Opposition will certainly focus on the full eradication of deepfakes.
As we heard from the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), victims can never easily move on from the violence perpetrated against women and girls. Offenders may forget the details after their rehabilitation, but we and our constituents know that the victims will never forget. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) pointed out the juxtaposition between what is done by the political party called Reform and its belief that other parties do not turn over the stones. What he said was right: no barrier should be unbroken when it comes to talking about what happens to women and girls. Where political differences exist, we can say in unity that we in the House must continue to enable women and girls to feel safe. We must agree that people can turn their lives around only by telling the full truth, which is how victims and survivors can feel that true justice has taken place.
I welcome the cross-Government approach described by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), and her focus on the subject of coercive control. Nothing will get done about that without cross-Government working, and I was very much part of that as a Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) viewed male violence against women and girls through a public health lens, and said that a community partnership was vital. She also spoke about the dedicated work that needs to be done to protect single-sex spaces. Whether it is done in the NHS, by the police or through charities, we need a full picture, and guidance, showing what women and girls and expect, so that male violence against them is dealt with and people feel safe through that public health lens and, more important, in those spaces.
The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), who is no longer in her place, spoke movingly, poignantly and bravely about the fact that the victims and perpetrators are the people we know and love. It was staggering to hear her say that women still feel like they literally have to fight for their lives. She spoke about rape threat culture, and said she was worried that her speech looked like a self-indulgent rant. Speaking up is never a self-indulgent rant. Dealing with the toxicity, bringing the power of women into the debate and calling people out is exactly the bravery it takes, and I pay tribute to her on behalf of my party.
The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), who is a very brave lady, spoke about the importance of employment and how it can bring someone into the next stage of their life. I pay tribute to somebody I worked with stridently at the DWP who worked on the employers domestic abuse covenant, which can help get people into work and on to the next steps of life. I hope she will lean into that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) spoke about the change in the perception of what love is and the fact that, through social media aggression, violence in a loving relationship is apparently becoming a norm. She talked about the normalisation of abuse in relationships, how it is confusing for our young men and boys to know what love is, and the link between porn culture and desensitisation. She was right to talk about degrading acts that are not acts of love—they are acts of aggression and violence—and to say that we need to help young men and boys not to get caught up in that culture.
That leads me on to my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands, who spoke about AI and tech, about helping men to find the solution, how we deal with these challenges and how our way of life is being undermined, which is very concerning. Despite the coercive control laws, the multi-agency working and the VAWG strategies of 2016 and 2021 and the one coming from this Labour Government, there is a change in the challenges of female genital mutilation, modern slavery, grooming and domestic abuse—and I reiterate that it is not domestic abuse; it is criminality in the home. It is not acceptable, and we must always treat it accordingly and root it out. Whether it is the updated internet safety strategy or other work, all of society needs to get behind the challenge that tech and AI will present.
I thank the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), for the focus that she is bringing to this issue, including on the importance of good male role models and the work on deepfakes.
I turn to grooming gangs. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), intervened on me at 1.18 pm to say that the ethnicity data on grooming gangs is collected and published. Will she and her team place a copy in the Library or share it directly with my office, so that we can be clear what data is currently available and where it is linked to? For clarity, we want police-recorded grooming gang ethnicity data, not self-reported CSE data. This links to the previous Government’s announcement of April 2023. This proper data was welcomed by Professor Jay, and it is very important. This is not about politics; it is about clarity and not letting this issue lie. The IICSA report looked at six towns our of what is now reported to be 50, so victims’ voices have simply not all been examined.
I want to turn to bandwagoning. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) rightly spoke about listening to the voices of the victims. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien), the shadow Education Minister, said that we are not going to let this lie when it comes to grooming, because we must not screen out women’s and girls’ voices. If we agree with the bandwagon, apparently it is fine, but if we do not agree with the bandwagon, apparently it is “politicising” to call something out. Many of us are here focusing on and dealing with causes because we are on the bandwagon—we believe it. It is what has brought us to frontline politics. We will never let it go. Bandwagoning can also come with purpose and real change. If we are going to not just halve violence against women and girls but eradicate it, let us not be afraid to deal with bandwagons.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
As a Minister, I get given a speech that I am told to read out, but the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) reminded me who I am today, so I am going to give an impassioned speech. The first person I will respond to is the Minister, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies). [Hon. Members: “Shadow Minister!] Sorry, the shadow Minister. No, she is not actually the shadow Minister; the shadow Minister with this brief is not here. The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp)—he certainly got on the bandwagon—is not here. The shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), is not here. The Conservatives had to have the same person starting and finishing the debate.
Do you know what? I will give credit to the last Conservative Government for the work that they did. I worked with many Members on the Opposition Benches to carry out lots of that work, but what happened was that loads of brilliant words were written on goatskin and rolled up somewhere in this building. Really good legislation was passed, including the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which I remember being a Bill, because I worked on it—not that I am jumping on a bandwagon, too. What did not happen was actual, fundamental change on the ground.
Being in this debate has been a little bit like being at my own memorial. My husband said that my house looks like a funeral parlour. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) said she was pleased to see that my gumption has not gone away; I am indeed very much not dead.
I have had lots and lots of correspondence from grooming victims—some I have known for years, and some got in touch with me freshly to ask for help with their case, which of course we will provide—and lots of child abuse survivors. I will read out something that a child abuse victim sent me in the last few days:
“I’m a victim and survivor, and I gave evidence to the IICSA inquiry. I am angry at the lack of response.”
He goes on to say:
“We haven’t resourced the police, the courts, victim support, therapies, schools, councils, and I am angry that men, by and large, have turned this into a political football.”
Lots of good words have been written on goatskin in this place. The hon. Member for Richmond Park said that cuts have meant that panic alarms have not been put in place and so forth. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) mentioned some of the cuts in her area; lots of people mentioned the issue. Do you know what has actually happened? It is harder than it has ever been for a grooming victim to get a house in this country—a place of safety where she can get away from the grooming, whether it be for sexual exploitation or county lines criminal grooming, in which we see terrible cases of knife crime. We could have amended the Domestic Abuse Act to give domestic abuse victims priority need. I pushed the amendment myself. Cracking! But it would have put them on a seven-year-long priority need waiting list.
As for the Conservatives’ record on the courts and the criminal justice system, lots of Members have graciously talked about SDS40 today. The shadow Minister mentioned it at the beginning of the debate. All I can say is that we—many of the people sat behind me, as well as the victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and the Home Secretary—worked tirelessly to make sure that this time, when it had to be done because of the terrible failures of the last 14 years, we put some exemptions into the system. I do not remember that happening before.
As the victims Minister mentioned, the absolute degradation of our justice system over the last 14 years has left rape victims waiting seven years. People can jump on the bandwagon, and can speak in this building on the subject—I welcome every single word that has been said—but it is action that is needed. “We accepted 18 of the recommendations.” Cracking! I have “accepted” that I am a size 10, but it is not fact. Accepting something does not make it so; it does not change things in people’s actual lives. That is my response to the first speech.
The Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), mentioned Gisèle Pelicot. Many Members mentioned issues affecting women around the world, and we do not serve women in this country if we ignore the plight of women around the world. Gisèle Pelicot deserves to be the person of the year, or the century. What a woman! We have all watched what she has done with absolute pride.
Like me, the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) came to this place from the sector; it makes me very happy every time that happens. She talked about the femicide data and the sticky nature of the list of names that I read out in this place every year—my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) said that it is also read out in Harlow.
The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) talked about a case in her constituency that will go on this year’s list, which has not yet been read out. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), similarly, mentioned the murders on Christmas day in her constituency. I am not willing to keep that list long.
The Government have talked about the metrics by which we will measure change. Of course, I want to get rid of domestic violence and violence against women and girls completely, and I love the suggestion that halving it is unambitious, but I do not remember a previous target. There was no target. Femicide will absolutely be part of the targets. The murder of women by men will absolutely be something that we target and measure, because we count what we care about in this country.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) said, focusing on perpetrators is vital. We are working with the police to develop a national framework, using data-driven tools and algorithms, to track and target high-harm offenders. For too long, we have looked only at victims. It is about time we really started to target offenders.
I will calm myself down for a moment. The right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) said that when she stands up in the House to scrutinise our work—she did not say “criticise,” but that was the intimation—it should be taken in good faith, just as she always showed good faith when under scrutiny from me and my sisters. That is absolutely how the scrutiny will be received. She has a record to be proud of on both modern slavery and domestic abuse. She took a cross-Government approach to her work on violence against women and girls, and that iteration of the strategy was considerably better, and attempted to do much more, than the one that came later. I promise that my door will always be open to her.
The right hon. Lady talked about welcoming Raneem’s law. That legislation is inspired by a woman close to my heart who comes from Solihull—the neighbouring constituency, close to where I live—whose sister was murdered. When they rang 999, they got no response, so we will embed advice on risk assessments in 999 control rooms, not just make sure that there is somebody there who cares. The measures will ensure that there is real speciality in teams, so that victims are referred to appropriate services, not just given the emergency response that they need. We will seek to put dedicated domestic abuse teams in every police force in the country.
A number of Members talked about domestic abuse protection orders in their areas; I see the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) in his place. Domestic abuse protection orders are a good example of walking the walk, rather than talking the talk. The legislation was passed four years ago, but absolutely nothing was done. Then we took office, and set up schemes that are delivering arrests and custody for people who breach the orders. I suggested to the Home Secretary that we might ring a bell for every arrest we get during the pilot. It is all well and good writing words on goatskin, but they do not put people behind bars, or ensure that victims do not ever have to enter a courtroom to get somebody behind bars. That is the outcome we were all striving for, and that is what we have delivered.
When I became a Minister, I felt I may have left a Jess-shaped hole to be filled by somebody who would always hold to account the person standing at the Dispatch Box. I cannot think of anybody better to fill that Jess-shaped hole than my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft. She talked about funding; I want her to never stop moaning about that. Apart from the funding from Refuge, it is not okay that grants for the work she talked about come solely from the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, which are represented on the Front Bench by Ministers. It is not okay that health services across the country do not fundamentally take on this work.
We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) for her beautiful and impassioned speech, but it is not okay that looking at welfare is not a fundamental part of the duty of jobcentres in every part of the country. As many hon. Members have said, domestic abuse affects so many areas of the life of those affected, and just 10% of women affected get a criminal justice response. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), who is a brilliant advocate on this issue, said, working across Government is the only way to tackle violence against women and girls, and that is exactly what we will do.
I am running out of time. Before the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) took her seat, her predecessor, Sir Gary Streeter, came to me and said, “You will love the woman who I think will replace me—she’s an absolute cracker.” He was not wrong. She talked about a terrible incident in her area, and she led a local response—essentially, an inquiry—that led to recommendations that changed things on the ground. Well done on that, because that is what works.
I want to make special mention of the deft manner in which my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) spoke, and I also want to mention Sara Rowbotham, the whistleblower in the Rochdale case. Hon. Members do not need to look in Hansard to see if I have referred to this case before; I wrote a book six years ago about Sara Rowbotham being a whistleblower in Rochdale. She is one of the bravest and best people I have ever worked with. As for the Johnny-come-lately shadow Justice Secretary, I look forward to reading the book he is writing on the subject.
I am about to run out of time. I just want to say a massive thank you to everybody who spoke; I am sorry I have not been able to mention them all. I cannot stress enough that the thing that matters is making something actually happen. As for waving flags, that time is over.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of tackling violence against women and girls.
Debt Advice Services
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
“Follow that!” is the first thing to say. Let me try.
I will start by saying that often the British public would rather talk about sex than debt. Both can equally cause a lot of trouble, though. A 2019 study showed that the majority of people in this country believed it was easier to talk about miscarriages than about money. How that has changed in recent years, when the cost of living has become the top topic of conversation for millions of people because they are drowning in debt. Indeed, they are now the majority.
In my constituency of Walthamstow, nearly 55,000 people are in financially vulnerable circumstances. That is 58% of my local population and way above the national average of 38%. Yet the truth is that debt is suffocating millions of people in this country; it is not just a north-east London phenomenon. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation recognised in October that there were 7 million low-income families in this country going without the essentials in the previous six months, including 5.4 million who had experienced food insecurity in the previous month. That is a fancy term for starving themselves because they could not afford to put food on the table. Furthermore, 4.3 million low-income households are in arrears on at least one household bill or credit commitment, and 14 million people in this country have less than 100 quid in their savings. One piece of Lego stuck in the washing machine and they are done.
Some would say that taking on debt in response to that is manageable—and it is for some people. That is how they have got through the crisis. However, that is not the one person every four minutes who is declared bankrupt or insolvent in this country. The Registry Trust estimates that 4.6 million people have one or more county court judgment. They are issued at a rate of 2.5 times more in lower-income communities such as mine than in higher ones. At the end of last year, lenders wrote off £576 million of debt, of which £291 million was credit card debt. That is £3 million a day being written off because people will just never pay it back.
Four million households hold a loan they originally took out to pay for food or housing—that is worth around £9.6 billion. Some £2.3 billion of that is owed on bills that have a massive consequence if people do not pay them or fall behind, such as council tax, rent or mortgages and energy bills—the kind where people end up losing their home or with the bailiffs at the door. It is not hard to see why. This is not profligacy; there is just too much month at the end of many people’s money.
High inflation since the end of 2021 has baked in higher prices in areas such as food, and energy costs are rising again. Private rents have continued to increase ahead of inflation, up 8.7% last year and higher in places such as Walthamstow. Interest rates might have seen two cuts, but the full impact of elevated interest rates is still feeding through into mortgages. Yes, the legacy of Liz Truss will be felt for decades to come, in the empty pockets and multiple evictions. So sue me for saying so.
The Government set up a financial inclusion committee with consumer groups and financial institutions to look at how to provide individuals who have poor credit histories with access to safe and affordable credit. In this target-rich environment, there is much for the legal loan sharks in this country to feast on—and feast they do. Low-income households in this country owe £23 billion in unsecured loans and credit cards. That is up from £19 billion just in May last year. A total of 2.2 million low-income families have high-cost credit loans such as payday loans or pawn shop arrangements. Three million people told Ipsos last year that somebody in their family had gone to an illegal lender in the last three years.
Banks do not want to lend to these people because they are seen as a bad bet. That is because of the cost of living crisis: they just cannot get hold of the money to keep things moving. Our credit union movement, which has been promised so much by so many different Governments, just cannot grow to keep up with the need. Governments have promised to invest in it but failed to do so. It has been as ripped off as those who ended up at Wonga or Klarna to make ends meet.
I pay tribute to groups such as Fair4All Finance, which provides funding for credit unions such as the London Capital credit union that works in Walthamstow, but no credit union can compete with the online lenders who are pummelling our constituents on their phones and on their websites, offering them unprotected credit to get through to the end of the month so that they can buy a pizza. Then they stick them with late repayment fees and charges before lending to them again, even though they cannot repay it, because they are stuck in a spiral of unaffordable debt. In all of this debt, the most important thing that a person can do is talk about it. That means that they need somebody to talk to, because it could be the critical difference between getting out of the hole that they are in and burying themselves even further.
The Financial Conduct Authority imposes a levy on all regulated financial services companies to pay for such support, and that includes funding the Money and Pensions Service. Others such as the citizens advice bureaux, which many of us will pay tribute to in our constituencies, and StepChange have to fundraise for themselves. Ultimately, in this environment we cannot afford to keep funding failure. We need to prevent people getting into debt in the first place and move them off the high-cost credit that causes so much of it.
However, so few people in the current environment get the help that they desperately need to get out of this nightmare. The 2018 independent Wyman review found that just 1.1 million people got debt advice, with just 13% of those considered indebted. By 2020, it was estimated that 1.7 million were getting help. The Government set a strategy of 3.7 million by 2030, but, just last year, the Money and Pensions Service only saw 2 million people. That is not through a lack of trying. Some 82% of debt advisers told MAPS that there had been a large increase in demand, while just over half of them reported a decrease in the resources to cope with it. That is the nub of the debate today.
The total funding available for debt advice in this country in 2018 was £196 million, with about a third of that coming from the levy on financial services and the rest coming either from local government or fair share creditors—the payments that people can get in a debt repayment plan to pay for services. We now know that the financial services levy is raising about £78 million, but we have no idea what is happening to the rest of the money needed, not least because local government is on its knees after 14 years of Conservative cuts. My own local authority is cutting the support that it offers to people struggling with council tax payments, let alone providing any debt advice. It is not alone. Exeter CAB has seen a £125,000 cut to its services, Woking CAB a £189,000 cut and Coventry Independent Advice Service a cancelled grant for £325,000. The numbers go on across the country.
Funding will get harder too because of the cost of living crisis, as more and more people cannot afford to make a debt repayment plan in the first place. The CAB says that half of the people it works with have a negative budget, and 66% of Money Advice Service users were also in that position. Therefore, there is a risk that we will not get the funding to get people out of this hole. The Money Advice Service needs to get involved in cases earlier, but a consultation by the previous Government last year on the future of the service said that, looking at what the overall level of debt advice should be, the funding required was out of scope.
Above all, it is scandalous, given how implicated the “buy now, pay later” companies—the Klarnas, Clearpays and Laybuys of this world—are in the debt problems in this country and the length of time it has taken to get even close to some kind of regulation of them, that they do not even contribute to this pot, because they are not a form of regulated credit. Not only are our constituents going without protection from the ombudsman when they are mis-sold products; these companies are not even paying for the damage that they do. Yet around one third of people who need debt advice have “buy now, pay later” debt.That is why I am urging the Government—especially in the light of delays in regulating companies, which had a windfall this Christmas and will have another one next Christmas—to consider a windfall tax on the BNPL companies to help pay for the debt advice that is so desperately needed.
The companies have written to me claiming that they are not against being regulated, which is odd because I was at the Labour party conference where they stood on a platform and claimed to be so. They have also said that they are happy to contribute to making donations towards debt advice, so let us take them at their word, and squeeze them as much as they have squeezed our constituents.
We also have to stop commercial companies that make millions of pounds from pretending to offer debt solutions and claiming that they are helping consumers rather than pushing them further into debt. At the very least, the Insolvency Service should regulate such companies. Frankly, I would prefer a law that ensured that excessive profits cannot be made from somebody else’s personal debts by capping the charges. Sickeningly, many “buy now, pay later” companies present themselves as a money management service. That is why I am asking the Government to develop measures on what lenders are doing not only to reduce financial exclusion but to ensure that they are not the cause of debt themselves through bad lending practices. Even America, that great bastion of communist thinking, does more. The Community Reinvestment Act gives lenders an explicit obligation to meet the needs of all borrowers in their localities, including those on low incomes, to help stop them being the main meals of the legal loan sharks in the first place.
That is why we need to ensure that the Money and Pensions Service does not become primarily a website and helpline. Tackling debt in communities means helping people in communities, especially given the variation in debt between areas. If the service is just online, that does not uphold the principle of helping those most in need, and especially the most vulnerable. That matters because of the number of people who would benefit. In 2021, the service defined those in need as people who were behind on one priority bill or facing bailiffs. It separated out those people that it thought just needed money guidance—tips on how to budget—but those people were building up arrears, and were recognised to be at a tipping point. Some 8 million people are listed as needing debt advice, but a further 13 million are at that tipping point. Any of us who have had someone come to our constituency surgery in financial difficulty know that the sooner we intervene, the more chance we have of success. With 21 million people at a tipping point, let us not let them tip; let us help them now.
Research by the Centre for Responsible Credit shows that such people are already under extreme financial pressure. They frequently borrow to make ends meet. They use “buy now, pay later”, have unauthorised overdrafts, and are already behind on their consumer payments. If we underestimate the number of people in debt because the bigger group are better at juggling, can we really say that it is not a problem to be constantly borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, Paul to pay Penelope, and Penelope to pay both of them? Millions of people in this country are one bad argument with their partner, one new school uniform item needed or one parking fine away from being unable to manage, and they have just been through a month when everyone spends, on average, an extra £700 because it is Christmas.
These people do not need us to judge them; they need us to help them. If we do not massively increase the funding for money advice services and ensure that their focus is on preventing debt in local communities, it will not just be personally devastating for millions of people but hamper our chances of getting economic growth. Ultimately, I am asking Ministers to introduce a cost-cutting measure. The National Audit Office reported in 2018 that debt problems are so detrimental to the wellbeing of the British public that they lead to higher public spending on both welfare services, such as mental health services, and state-subsidised housing to the tune of £900 million a year. That is why we ultimately need a financial inclusion committee to look at not just the costs of credit but how we stop people getting ripped off in the first place, and to be a consumer champion across the piece, whether on energy deals, finance or even local public service debt advice provision. In the end, if we join up the dots we really will save everyone money—the one thing that right now nobody has.
Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), who spoke incredibly passionately about the difficulties of debt. There is a lot of debt in my community, which appears, on the face of it, to be relatively affluent, but one of the problems is that people feel a huge compulsion to maintain that appearance. I have spoken to a lot of people on the doorstep, and in the course of the submission that we made as a constituency to the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, about the fact that people are really struggling and finding it incredibly difficult.
In areas such as mine, where there is not a perception of poverty, there are simply no services to assist people who need help. My constituency has no citizens advice bureau anywhere, no law centre—nothing. When people have difficulties, they therefore do not know where to turn. We need to do the best we can to improve civil legal aid. Citizens advice bureaux were partly funded by local government, which was cut, and partly through the legal advice work they did that was charged at legal aid rates. Unfortunately, since those are now so difficult to work under, all those advice services have been decimated.
My local citizens advice bureau spoke to me—I say local; it is not in the constituency, though it can occasionally do some in-person transitory work—about how important it is to see people face to face. It said vulnerable people, older people and others might in theory have online access, but actually cannot go through a complex system to resolve their debt without that consistent face-to-face assistance. We need to aspire not just to improve telephone and online services, but to ensure that in-person advice is provided.
My hon. Friend briefly touched on the quality of advice that people are receiving and the fact that although the Financial Conduct Authority regulates the products that people are being sold around debt reduction—they are products—there is a real problem of mis-selling them, despite the theoretical regulation. Unfortunately, regulation is only as good as the enforcement. It is important that we keep discussing the matter and that we bring real change to the advice landscape because our residents need us to.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) on securing the debate. I very much recognise and have seen the work she has done over the years to raise the profile of responsible consumer credit practices and effective debt advice. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) for her contribution and specifically for raising the experience of her constituents.
Credit, when offered responsibly, can be an essential tool for people who have to manage unexpected costs or who need to smooth their cash flow. As a Government, we want to support consumers in having access to credit when they need it. But, at the same time, we are determined to ensure that access to credit comes with robust protections to ensure that lending is affordable and consumers are protected when things go wrong. That is why in October last year we published a consultation on a proposed regulatory regime for “buy now, pay later” products. The regime will introduce better protections for millions of consumers and will bring “buy now, pay later” firms into the regulatory perimeter of the FCA. That in turn will mean that firms offering “buy now, pay later” products will be required to pay specific annual FCA fees and levies. Among those is the financial guidance levy, the proceeds of which fund free debt advice services.
As I turn to the importance of debt advice, I pay tribute to the thousands of debt advisers across the country for the critical work they do to provide support for those in need.
Ms Creasy
We all value the debt advisers. As my hon. Friend has just said, “buy now, pay later” companies do not yet contribute to the levy that pays for those people, but the companies themselves have said that they would make voluntary contributions. Would the Treasury consider approaching them to get that money ahead of their being part of the regulatory landscape, so that we can have more of these brilliant debt advisers?
James Murray
I am sure that Treasury officials and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), will be in close contact with the sector about any proposals they have. It is important to emphasise that because of the regulations we are consulting on for the new regime, that will mean that “buy now, pay later” firms will be required to pay those specific fees and levies, which will help fund free debt advice services. We know that funding those services is important because intervention through debt advice services not only prevents financial difficulties from escalating, but protects people’s overall mental health and wellbeing. More widely, there are positive effects for families, communities and the economy at large.
As a new Government, we are committed to supporting national and community-based services through the Money and Pensions Service, or MAPS as it is commonly known. Those services provide advice to hundreds of thousands of individuals and families in need in England. In December, MAPS published its first debt advice impacts report, which showed that across 2023-24 people accessing debt advice through MAPS-funded services gained an estimated £48 million of extra income. That underlines the fact that for many people, advice not only allows them to deal with their debt problems, but helps them to find a way forward with more money in their pockets. Eighty-seven per cent of people who received MAPS-funded debt advice said they would recommend the service to someone in a similar situation.
Outside of England, the UK Government provide funding through the financial services levy to the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As debt advice is a devolved matter, the devolved Governments have responsibility for delivering those services within their nations and for tailoring provision to the needs of their local communities.
My hon. Friends spoke about the gap between those who need debt advice and those who are currently accessing it. The Government recognise that gap and the need to tackle it. Funding levels, which my hon. Friends mentioned, are regularly reviewed to reflect demand, inflation and evolving needs. The MAPS debt advice budget for the upcoming financial year will be communicated in the usual way in the spring, and I will ensure that my hon. Friends are informed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow mentioned the MAPS consultation last year on the future of its debt advice commissioning strategy. MAPS published its response to that consultation in October, setting out its commitment to increasing debt adviser wellbeing, further building advisers’ skills and delivering digital transformation across the debt advice sector. As part of its efforts to address unmet demand for debt advice, MAPS has also launched its debt advice modernisation fund, a grant initiative designed to support projects aimed at enhancing and modernising debt advice services in the not-for-profit sector. Projects are currently under way and will be completed by the end of March.
My hon. Friends touched on the wider issue of financial inclusion. I assure them that the Government are taking further steps to ensure that individuals can access the financial services they need.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
In my constituency, the Whitmore Reans Welfare Centre, a voluntary organisation, signposts individuals to the debt advice that they need. In the past, the centre received funding for a part-time or full-time caseworker, but it is finding it increasingly difficult to provide the kind of one-to-one advice mentioned earlier, which is so useful for residents. Can the Minister give any advice on how to help organisations of that nature so that constituents can be signposted to, and given, one-to-one advice?
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that constituency case and highlighting the important work that that organisation does for his constituents. I cannot comment from the Dispatch Box on individual funding decisions, but he underlines the importance of tailoring to local need. Although there may be a national priority to ensure that people are provided with debt advice, individual local debt advice agencies will need to tailor their services to the needs of their communities. He is an excellent advocate for his constituents in that regard.
Alongside the debt advice services that the debate has focused on, it is important, as I was saying, that individuals can access the financial services that they need. That is why the Government announced in December our intention to develop a financial inclusion strategy that will aim to further tackle barriers to individual and household ability to access affordable and appropriate financial products and services. The strategy will be supported by a committee that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury convened for the first time in December, which will consider the problem of debt.
I will turn my attention briefly to the work that the Government are doing to support vulnerable individuals and businesses repaying debt to the public sector. The Government debt management function functional centre, based in the Treasury, convenes the debt fairness group—a collaboration with the debt advice sector that identifies opportunities to continuously improve public sector debt recovery processes. The functional centre’s work includes debt management toolkits to support public sector bodies dealing with those facing physical and mental health challenges, and to help them identify and support the 8.7 million adults in the UK who have experienced economic abuse.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow once again for raising this important matter. I have no doubt that she will continue to be a champion on the issues that we have discussed. The Government remain committed to providing accessible debt advice and promoting financial inclusion. We are committed to ensuring that everyone has the support they need to manage their finances effectively and build a more secure future for themselves and their family.
Question put and agreed to.
Employment Rights Bill (Seventeenth sitting)
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Would everyone please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We will now 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 the declaration of interests, as set out in the code of conduct.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Mundell. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I seek your guidance on the status of a document circulated to Members by the Scrutiny Unit. It says it is submitted by a Professor Mitie, but I believe that the document is in fact from Mitie, the organisation, and perhaps we do not know its author. Could I ask that we be told who the author is? It is Professor Somebody Else, I suspect. The document also has tracked changes in it, and I seek your guidance on whether those are comments inserted by the Scrutiny Unit or, perhaps, by the author. It is sometimes difficult to know when documents are circulated at the last minute.
The Chair
Thank you, Sir Ashley, for giving notice of that point of order. The issue you have raised is obviously on the record. It will be raised with the Scrutiny Unit and there will be a report back to the Committee on the outcome of that inquiry.
Clause 72
Enforcement of labour market legislation by Secretary of State
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 72, page 79, line 15, at end insert—
“(4A) Accordingly, in the case of the exercise by an enforcement officer of an enforcement function of the Secretary of State, any reference in an enactment to the Secretary of State in connection with that function is to be read as, or as including, a reference to that officer or any other enforcement officer.”
This amendment ensures that, where an enforcement officer is exercising an enforcement function of the Secretary of State by virtue of clause 72(4), references in legislation to the Secretary of State in connection with that function will include references to enforcement officers, so that the legislation will apply in relation to the enforcement officer as it would apply to the Secretary of State if the Secretary of State were exercising the function.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Mundell. I start by making the customary reference to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Clause 72 is the first in relation to the fair work agency, and it is one of the building blocks of the agency. I will explain the main elements of the clause, as that will help us to understand the amendment. The clause confers an overarching function on the Secretary of State to enforce certain legislation set out in part 1 of schedule 4, which the clause introduces. The clause provides flexibility for the Secretary of State in how to deliver that overarching enforcement function. It enables them to appoint enforcement officers to carry out the function on their behalf, and it provides that enforcement officers will be able to exercise any of the enforcement functions of the Secretary of State and will have the enforcement powers conferred on them as set out in the terms of their appointment by the Secretary of State.
As I said, the Secretary of State has the function of enforcing the legislation set out in part 1 of schedule 4. The legislation contains references to the Secretary of State having functions and powers in connection with the enforcement of the rights set out in that legislation. It is important that those references can be read as references to the enforcement officers the Secretary of State appoints to act on their behalf; otherwise, enforcement officers may not be able to properly exercise the enforcement functions of the Secretary of State. That would make their appointment, and potentially their enforcement activity, less effective.
Government amendment 84 inserts a new subsection after clause 72(4) to ensure that references to the Secretary of State are read as references to enforcement officers where necessary. The practical effect is that the legislation will apply to enforcement officers as it would to the Secretary of State. This is a technical change, but I hope that Members will see that it is necessary.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair once more, Mr Mundell.
Government amendment 84 looks to us like a drafting correction. We will not rehearse the arguments we have had so many times in the Committee about drafting corrections, but I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the powers in the Bill, which are directly related to the amendment, for enforcement officers to enter and search business premises are any wider in scope than current enforcement powers and, if so, how and why.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for not rehearsing the arguments, as we may end up having them every five minutes, given the number of technical amendments we will deal with today. He raises an important question about the enforcement powers and powers of entry. There are a number of clauses that deal with that. My initial understanding is that, generally speaking, we are not seeking to widen the remit of current enforcement powers. I will endeavour to write to him if there are any changes or exceptions to that. It may be something that becomes apparent when we debate the clauses in question.
Amendment 84 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Clause 72 is important, as it sets out the principles of a major part of the Bill. The UK’s labour market enforcement system is fragmented. The enforcement of core rights such as the minimum wage, domestic agency regulations and the gangmasters licensing scheme is split between three different agencies. That often means that workers do not know where to go when they think they might not have received what they are due. That makes enforcement ineffective. It is not fair for workers or businesses.
Clause 72 is a vital building block in the creation of the fair work agency. It is worth noting from the outset that the FWA will be established as an executive agency of the Department for Business and Trade, which means that it will not have its own distinct identity in legislation. The Bill therefore vests responsibility for enforcement of labour market legislation in the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State intends to discharge those responsibilities through the fair work agency, which will be created in administrative documents.
Clause 72(1) places responsibility for enforcing a set list of labour market legislation on the Secretary of State and introduces part 1 of schedule 4, which sets out the list of relevant labour market legislation that the Secretary of State will be responsible for enforcing. There is a general power in clause 118(3) to make regulations that commence different aspects of the Bill at different points. Exactly when the Secretary of State will take on responsibility for enforcement will depend on the detail of those commencement regulations. However, creating the fair work agency is about more than simply moving things around; the agency will also take on the ability to enforce workers’ right to paid holiday and their entitlement to statutory sick pay.
Clause 72(2) explains that part 5 of the Bill confers powers on the Secretary of State and enforcement officers to carry out the purpose of enforcing the labour market legislation in schedule 4. Clause 72(3) makes it clear that an enforcement officer includes anyone whom the Secretary of State has appointed to carry out enforcement of that legislation on his behalf, and clause 72(5) clarifies that enforcement officers appointed by the Secretary of State have only the powers conferred on them when they are appointed. Practically speaking, that means that whether the Secretary of State or an enforcement officer is carrying out this work, they will have the enforcement and investigatory powers they need to do the job effectively. Those powers are set out in later clauses.
Clause 72(5) is also a particularly important safeguard. As I have already said, the responsibility for enforcing legislation and the powers to carry it out will be vested in the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State will then confer them on the enforcement officers he appoints. However, the FWA’s remit will also include the serious issue of modern slavery and labour abuse, for which certain specially trained enforcement officers will have extensive police-style powers, as set out in section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Certain officers in the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority are trained to use those powers, which are subject to additional oversight, including by the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The powers should continue to be reserved for tackling the most serious issues handled by the FWA. That is why we have included clause 72(5), through which the Secretary of State will specify what powers enforcement officers will have access to when appointing them. We will ensure that powers are conferred only on officers who are sufficiently qualified to use them and who genuinely need them to do their job.
Sir Ashley Fox
The Minister is talking about granting officials of the state extensive powers currently reserved to police officers. Can he tell us how many additional officials will be granted those additional powers?
Justin Madders
What we are doing is transferring existing powers and responsibilities from the existing agency. There are no new police-style powers being created for these officers; it is simply a transfer over to the fair work agency.
Clause 72 is key to delivering the much-needed upgrade to the enforcement of workers’ rights so that it is more effective and fair for workers and businesses. It brings together enforcement functions currently split between several different enforcement agencies and gives the fair work agency the flexibility to respond to a rapidly changing labour market. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Greg Smith
A lot of the detail is in the clauses that follow this one; as the Minister said, this is very much a building-block clause. Although I totally understand and appreciate the rationale for taking enforcement powers that are currently fragmented across multiple different agencies and consolidating them into one, the devil is always in the detail.
Although it might seem sensible to consolidate the powers that are currently so spread out into one agency, this is very much a centralisation of power. The crux of clause 72 is about directly providing the Secretary of State with the overall function of enforcing labour market legislation. Whenever I see such provisions in any legislation, I cannot help but be reminded of the late, great President Reagan’s famous quote about the nine most terrifying words in the English language:
“I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater suggested in his intervention on the Minister, the serious detail is about the practical workings of the fair work agency as it is set up. What will be the total number of enforcement officers, employees and ancillary staff required—admittedly, some will be brought across from other agencies—to form it? What will be the cost to the taxpayer of putting that together? How many people are we actually talking about? I think that, as opposed to the powers that they will hold, was the crux of my hon. Friend’s intervention.
As I said, we accept the rationale for bringing these powers together under one agency, but whenever such powers are granted to a Secretary of State, no matter what the field, there is always uncertainty and scope for never-ending expansion of the new agency, and of the size of the state, to do what is, in many cases, important enforcement work—I do not doubt that. Given the presumption that the Bill will become an Act of Parliament and that the agency will be set up in the way envisaged in clause 72, it would be good to have clarity about the plan for just how big the agency will be and whether the Secretary of State will put any cap on that from the get-go. How far does the Minister envisage the agency going?
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to work under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I broadly welcome the bringing together of powers under the fair work agency. I note that the Secretary of State is due to publish an annual report, but I am sure that businesses in Torbay would be interested to know where in the Bill the critical friend is to hold the Secretary of State to account and ensure that they are being light of foot and driving the agenda we all want to see in this area, so I would welcome the Minister’s sharing that.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
As is customary, I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the GMB.
I warmly welcome this clause and the subsequent clauses, and the establishment of the fair work agency. I remind the Committee of the evidence we heard of the broad support for the agency, including from Helen Dickinson, the chief executive of the British Retail Consortium, who said:
“I think everybody is supportive of and aligned on proposals like a single enforcement body.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 99, Q95.]
Jamie Cater, the senior policy manager for employment at Make UK, said:
“The important thing for levelling the playing field is the fair work agency, and making sure that we have an approach to enforcement of labour market policy and regulation that is properly resourced and does have that level playing field.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 54, Q53.]
Jim Bligh, the director of corporate affairs for the Food and Drink Federation, said:
“For me, it is about enforcement and having a really strong, well-resourced enforcement agency.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 55, Q53.]
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. As is customary, I draw attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles. I will make two brief complementary points.
First, the establishment of a single enforcement body was one of the core recommendations of the Taylor review. We were told over the last two Parliaments that an employment Bill was coming. Now that it is here, it is welcome that that recommendation is being acted on.
Secondly, in the Australian system of industrial relations, the Fair Work Commission is a long-standing and effective enforcement body that has survived multiple changes of governing party, so there are good international comparators to draw on, as well as the support we heard in the evidence sessions. The resourcing questions that have been raised are valid, and I am sure that those of us who come at this from a trade union background and point of view also take a close interest in the resourcing of the fair work agency. I make those two additional points in support of this measure.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I want to add my support in principle for the idea of a single labour market regulator. I have written about that in the past in different ways and can claim a small amount of credit for the commissioning of the Taylor review into the gig economy when I was working in 10 Downing Street. These issues are very important to me. Hopefully that will reassure the Minister and Labour Members of my cross-party credentials when that might be necessary.
We can all think of ways in which different kinds of labour market exploitation—non-payment of the national minimum wage or living wage; breaches of terms and conditions, health and safety or holiday rights; and illegal working, among many other examples—can be difficult to address if the laws are tough but the enforcement is poor. Those on both sides of the Committee can agree on that.
I want to add to the questions that have already been raised. I think the Minister said that the idea is that no additional powers will be granted and that this is just a consolidation. My understanding is that the fair work agency will not be a single monolithic agency; it is more about different strands of work being brought under a single leadership. If that is the case, presumably the different agencies that exist will do so until this legal change comes into effect. Presumably, the powers of the officers in each of those agencies differ in certain ways. Will that remain the case under the one body, or will there be interoperability and transfer of officers within the different sections under the single regulator? Or is the idea that the officers across those different entities will all assume the maximum powers that exist at the moment so that they can operate across all the different responsibilities of the new agency? I think that would still mean a net increase in powers across those people. What work has been done in the Department to give us an idea of the numbers we are talking about? If the Minister could answer that and then write to us with some more detail and statistics, I would be grateful.
Justin Madders
It is pleasing to hear generally broad support for this measure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield pointed out, and as the hon. Member for West Suffolk will know better than most, this was previously a Conservative party manifesto commitment, and we are pleased to be able to move it forward.
Some detailed operational questions were asked. At this stage, how the agency will work in practice is still being fleshed out. The current understanding in the impact assessment is that this is about the consolidation of existing resources and having a single point of leadership. Members will recall that, in her evidence to the Committee, Margaret Beels, the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, talked about how her role would be much easier if she were able to combine the powers of different agencies.
The shadow Minister asked whether we will require extra staff. That will be part of discussions with the Treasury. As he will know, there is a spending review on the horizon and Departments have been asked to look at savings. Clearly, we hope that the combining of resources will lead to some efficiencies, but there is certainly a view from a number of stakeholders that enforcement is not at the level it ought to be—
Greg Smith
I fully acknowledge and appreciate the Minister’s point about negotiation with the Treasury, but even if we take it as read that it is right to bring powers into a single enforcement agency, there is always a cost to creating anything new, even if it is a consolidation. Surely, the Department for Business and Trade has a cost for that. There is legislation live, in front of us right now, that seeks to create the agency, so surely he must know the broad cost of setting it up and consolidating those powers.
Justin Madders
Yes, the impact assessment sets out the one-off set-up costs. I am sure the shadow Minister can spend the lunch break looking at the detail. In terms of the current enforcement framework, as I say, there is a view that more needs to be done. Of course, we will be adding holiday pay and social security to that, and there is a power to add further areas. We know that generally, when resources are combined, we can deliver more—the sum is greater than the parts.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay, asked about the critical friend. This Government are always ready to have critical friends—more on the “friend” side than the “critical” side. We will come shortly to a clause about an advisory board, which will have a broad range of stakeholders able to take that role.
Greg Smith
Does the Minister not agree that for any power held by any Secretary of State in any Department, the critical friend is a very simple concept? It is called Parliament—it is all of us.
Justin Madders
Indeed it is, and the usual parliamentary scrutiny will apply, but I was talking specifically about the role of the fair work agency. There will be that role, and no doubt as more detail emerges there will be more parliamentary opportunities to talk about the role and functions of the agency.
My hon. Friends the Members for Worsley and Eccles and for Birmingham Northfield talked about the broad support for the agency’s establishment, as indeed did the hon. Member for West Suffolk. I have a list of all the supportive witnesses at the oral evidence sessions, and it is a broad and impressive cast. It includes the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the British Retail Consortium, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, the Food and Drink Federation, the Co-op, Margaret Beels, and of course all the trade unions. There is support across the board for this single enforcement body.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. There are a few points about the creation of the agency that I would like the Minister to address. I am broadly supportive of synergies and of the rationalisation of public bodies, particularly to ensure that the taxpayer is getting value for money, but have the Government considered the cost of this new body and whether it will result in savings for the taxpayer? Will they consider locating it outside London so that it is more broadly reflective of the country at large?
Justin Madders
As a regional MP—a north-west Member—I am always looking to see where we can get more Government agencies out into the rest of the country. It is probably too early to say, but those kinds of decisions are being looked at.
At the moment, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs deals with minimum wage enforcement. Moving such a specific task across to another body will take some time, so there may well be a period during which HMRC continues to undertake that work, albeit that it is within the remit of the fair work agency. Such operational details will be discussed and dealt with in due course.
The hon. Member for West Suffolk made a point about the powers of individual officers. Initially, we envisage that officers will move into, effectively, their existing roles. It will be a matter for operational consideration in due course whether it is beneficial to extend people’s remits. It will not be required of anyone without sufficient training and safeguards in place, but as the agency develops, it may well be considered advantageous to broaden the role of enforcement officers. One of the rationales for the body is that there are often several aspects to an employer’s breach of obligations, so we want the fair work agency to be able to tackle these things as a whole. However, that is an operational matter that will be dealt with in due course. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 72, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Legislation subject to enforcement under part 5
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 169, in schedule 4, page 127, line 29, leave out paragraph 3 and insert—
“3 Section 151(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (employer’s liability to pay statutory sick pay).
3A Regulations under section 153(5)(b) of that Act (requirement to provide statement about entitlement).”
This amendment clarifies the specific obligations relating to the payment of statutory sick pay which will be enforceable under Part 5 of the Bill.
Justin Madders
As we have discussed, the current enforcement system for workers’ rights is fragmented. By creating the fair work agency, we intend to bring enforcement into one place. We have been clear that we also want the fair work agency to enforce individual rights to statutory sick pay, because we want to upgrade the enforcement of workers’ rights and stand up for the most vulnerable in our workforce, including those who are unable to work owing to sickness. That is why part 1 of schedule 4 to the Bill, as introduced on 10 October 2024, includes part 11 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992—one of the main pieces of legislation setting out the statutory sick pay regime—in the body of relevant labour market legislation. Government amendment 169 further clarifies the obligations concerning the payment of statutory sick pay under the Act and regulations made under it, which will be enforceable under part 5 of the Bill.
However, there is a wider body of statutory sick pay legislation containing details about the entitlements bestowed on workers and the duties of employers. After further work, we noted that some of those provisions needed to be included under the fair work agency. That led us to amendment 170, which will add the following legislation to part 1 of schedule 4: regulations made under section 5 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, in so far as they relate to statutory sick pay, which deal with claims for, and payment of, benefits; section 14(3) of the Act, which establishes the duty on employers to provide employees with certain information about their sick pay entitlement; and regulations made under section 130 of the Act, in so far as they relate to statutory sick pay. Those provisions will be considered relevant labour market legislation, which makes them part of the Secretary State’s enforcement function. We will proceed with them once the fair work agency is ready to enforce them effectively. Amendments 169 and 170 are therefore necessary for the fair work agency to deliver its remit on statutory sick pay.
Greg Smith
Amendment 169 clarifies the specific obligations relating to the payment of statutory sick pay that are enforceable under part 5. Similarly, amendment 170 will ensure that those additional obligations relating to statutory sick pay that are imposed on employers by the Social Security Administration Act 1992 are enforceable under part 5. This goes back to our old friend, drafting errors being corrected that should really have been sorted out before the Bill was presented to Parliament in the first place.
Justin Madders
We will probably have this conversation a number of times. It is probably a little harsh to say that this was an error, but it would be fair to say that, given the complexity of social security legislation, not every provision was identified when the Bill was first introduced.
Amendment 169 agreed to.
Amendment made: 170, in schedule 4, page 127, line 30, at end insert—
“Social Security Administration Act 1992
3B Regulations under section 5 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (regulations about claims for and payments of benefit), so far as relating to statutory sick pay.
3C Section 14(3) of that Act (duty of employers to provide certain information to employees in relation to statutory sick pay).
3D Regulations under section 130 of that Act (duties of employers), so far as relating to statutory sick pay.”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment ensures that additional obligations relating to statutory sick pay that are imposed on employers by the Social Security Administration Act 1992 are enforceable under Part 5 of the Bill.
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 118, in schedule 4, page 128, leave out lines 11 to 16.
This amendment is consequential on NC20 and removes those regulations from the list of legislation subject to enforcement under Part 5 of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 119, in schedule 5, page 130, leave out lines 16 and 17.
This amendment is consequential on NC20 and removes an enforcement authority within the meaning of regulation 28 of those Regulations from the list of persons to whom information may be disclosed under Clause 98 of the Bill.
New clause 20—Revocation of the Working Time Regulations 1998—
“(1) The Working Time Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1998/1833) are revoked.
(2) The following regulations are also revoked—
(a) the Merchant Shipping (Working Time: Inland Waterways) Regulations 2003 (S.I 2003/3049);
(b) the Fishing Vessels (Working Time: Sea-fishermen) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/1713);
(c) the Cross-border Railway Services (Working Time) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1660);
(d) the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Hours of Work) Regulations 2018 (S.I. 2018/58).
(3) In consequence of the revocations made by subsection (1) and (2)—
(a) omit the reference to regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations in Schedule A2 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (tribunal jurisdictions to which section 207A applies)
(b) omit section 45A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (protection from suffering detriment in employment: working time cases);
(c) omit section 101A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (unfair dismissal: working time cases);
(d) omit section 104(4)(d) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (assertion of working time rights);
(e) omit section 18(1)(j) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (which refers to regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations among proceedings to which conciliation is relevant);
(f) omit section 21(1)(h) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (jurisdiction of the Employment Appeals Tribunal in relation to the Working Time Regulations);
(g) omit the reference to regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations in Schedule 5 to the Employment Act 2002 (tribunal jurisdictions to which section 38 applies);
(h) omit the reference to regulation 28 of the Working Time Regulations in Schedule 1 to the Immigration Act 2006 (person to whom director etc may disclose information);
(i) omit paragraph 141(h) of Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (specific reserved matters), but this omission does not confer any jurisdiction on the Senedd or Welsh Government.
(4) The power of the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments under section 113(1) must be exercised to make such further consequential amendments as are necessary in consequence of subsections (1) and (2).”
This new clause revokes the Working Time Regulations 1998 together with other Regulations which give effect to the Working Time Directive in UK law, and makes consequential provision.
Amendment 117, in clause 118, page 105, line 20, at end insert—
“(3A) But if the provisions of section [Revocation of the Working Time Regulations 1998] have not been fully brought into force before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, that section (so far as not already in force) comes into force at the end of that period.”
This amendment is consequential on NC20 and provides that the revocation must have effect within a year of the passing of this Act.
Greg Smith
I rise to speak to amendments 117, 118 and 119 and new clause 20, which stand in my name and in the name of my hon. Friends on the Committee. I make it clear that they are probing amendments; it will become clear over the next couple of minutes why we seek to probe the Government on the issue.
The amendments would repeal the working time directive within one year of the Bill’s coming into force. Our reason for tabling them is not that we intend to abolish entitlement to holidays, lunch breaks and so on—far from it, and nobody is suggesting that. However, the working time directive has had a troubled history. One example is the difficulties that occurred between the Commission and member states when the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that employers—all of them public health and emergency services—did not calculate time spent on call as working time, when they should have done. The CJEU consistently declared that practice incompatible with the directive, arguing that inactive time spent at the disposal of the employer must be counted in its entirety as working time. Then, in 2019, the Court ruled:
“Member States must require employers to set up an objective, reliable and accessible system enabling the duration of time worked each day by each worker to be measured.”
The result of that judgment was never formally brought into British law, but as a result of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, it became part of retained EU law.
Last year, the Conservative Government legislated to clarify that businesses do not have to keep a record of the daily working hours of their workers if they are able to demonstrate compliance without doing so; to amend the WTR so that irregular hours and part-year workers’ annual leave entitlement is pro-rated to the hours that they work; to introduce an accrual method for calculating holiday entitlement for certain workers; to revoke the covid regulations—it seems odd that we are still saying that—and to introduce rolled-up holiday pay for irregular hours and part-year workers. Consultation requirements under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 to allow smaller businesses to consult directly with employees would be another measure. That is just the start of how it might be possible to simplify the working time directive. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s thoughts on how well the working time regulations are working, and on whether any further changes might be made for the benefit of businesses to enable growth in this country.
Justin Madders
The working time regulations have had a relatively long history in our legal framework. They provide vital rights: a maximum working week of 48 hours, rest breaks of 20 minutes every six hours, rest periods of 11 hours each day and at least 24 hours each week, and 28 days of annual leave each year. The regulations implement the EU working time directive; the then Government deliberately designed them to provide maximum flexibility for both employers and workers. For example, workers can choose to opt out in writing from the 48-hour week maximum. We believe that the regulations have benefited millions of workers and their families over the years. They afford workers a better balance between work and other responsibilities, as well as improvements in health and wellbeing.
A 2014 review by the previous Government of the impact of the working time regulations on the UK labour market found that since 1998 there had been a decline in long-hours working in the UK and a general trend towards shorter working hours, which is probably not a surprise. The findings also suggested that the impact of the regulations was mainly through increased employment of workers doing shorter working weeks, rather than through a reduction in total hours worked. Annual leave entitlements have increased since the introduction of the working time regulations; many workers now enjoy a more generous leave entitlement than is prescribed by law.
Limitations on working hours and entitlement to a minimum number of days’ holiday can contribute to improvements in health and safety. Most employers accept that a minimum holiday entitlement contributes to physical and psychological wellbeing. Reductions in stress and fatigue caused by excess hours can provide many benefits, including less pressure on health services and better performance at work, with fewer accidents. By establishing minimum standards, the working time regulations also support a level playing field that discourages competition that relies on poor working conditions and a race to the bottom.
New clause 20 would revoke the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Hours of Work) Regulations 2018, which provide for adequate rest for seafarers and support the management of onboard fatigue and the wellbeing of seafarers. Revoking the regulations would negatively affect the ability of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to enforce safe and healthy working conditions for seafarers.
The new clause would also revoke the Fishing Vessels (Working Time: Sea-fishermen) Regulations 2004, which require the UK to implement the International Labour Organisation’s work in fishing convention, which underpins the safe operation of vessels. Fishing is one of the most dangerous sectors in the UK, with 50 injuries per 100,000 workers compared with a UK average of 0.4. We believe that the 2004 regulations are critical to ensuring that workers take the appropriate hours of rest to prevent fatigue-related incidents.
The new clause would also revoke the Merchant Shipping (Working Time: Inland Waterways) Regulations 2003. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is in the process of conducting a post-implementation review of those regulations. The initial responses to the consultation have indicated a generally positive view from stakeholders.
The new clause would also revoke the Cross-border Railway Services (Working Time) Regulations 2008, which provide enhanced rights and worker protections for those engaged in cross-border rail services, such as train crew for Eurostar services through the channel tunnel. The revocation of the regulations would erode those enhanced protections.
The Government believe that the minimum standards in the Working Time Regulations 1998 and other sector-specific working time regulations have supported millions of workers and their families by enabling them to better balance work and other responsibilities. The Government have no plans to revoke the working time regulations or any of the other sector-specific regulations.
I understand what the shadow Minister says about whether we consider the regulations to be beneficial to businesses, but he will know that there was ample time under his Government to undertake those reviews. Indeed, one was undertaken just over a decade ago, as I said. We have no plans to erode workers’ rights in this area; indeed, one of the fair work agency’s main functions will be to enforce rights to holiday pay, which evidence to the Committee suggests are not being enforced properly.
The shadow Minister says that he has no intention of revoking the working time regulations and that his amendment is probing, but I can only speak to what is before the Committee. If he had tabled an amendment seeking a review of the operation of the working time regulations, that might have been more appropriate in the circumstances. This feels to me like a dog-whistle amendment, so I am pleased to hear that he will not be pressing it.
Greg Smith
I am always pleased to delight the Minister in these debates. It was a probing amendment, and I can confirm that we will not be pressing amendments 117 to 119 or new clause 20 to a Division. However, I will briefly comment on the Minister’s response. I entirely respect him for it, but it was a full-throated defence of the status quo.
Something that goes deep within my view of politics, of government and of public administration is there is always room for improvement in pretty much everything. I say that as much about measures passed by previous Conservative Governments as about those passed by current or past Labour Governments. I refuse to accept that something is as good as it possibly can be and is working as well as it possibly can in the interests of businesses and workers alike. There is some disappointment from the official Opposition that the Government do not seem to want to look again.
Justin Madders
Does the shadow Minister not accept that his party undertook this exercise, which is why regulations were introduced last year to amend the working time regulations?
Greg Smith
I fully and totally accept that, but it is our job as the official Opposition, here and now in January 2025, to press the current Government on further measures that could be taken to work in the interests of everybody in our country—workers and businesses alike. Perhaps I accept the Minister’s point; perhaps we could have tabled an amendment to call for a review. Who knows? Perhaps on Report we might. But the fundamental position that I come back to is one that does not just accept the status quo, but is always challenging, always reviewing and always seeking to make things better in the interests of everyone.
When the Minister goes back to the Department and prepares for the remaining stages of the Bill in the main Chamber and in the other place, may I gently urge him to consider in the round, with the Opposition’s support, whether there are tyres to be kicked and measures to be improved in the operation of the working time directive? May I also urge him to ensure—now that we are a sovereign country once more, having left the European Union—that this Parliament can make improvements should it so wish? I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 85, in schedule 4, page 128, line 13, at end insert—
“( ) regulations 13 to 15E (entitlement to annual leave, etc);”
This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to enforce the entitlements to annual leave conferred by the Working Time Regulations 1998.
Government amendment 85 will add to schedule 4 the additional holiday pay and entitlement regulations: regulations 13, 13A, 14, 15, 15A, 15B, 15C, 15D and 15E of the Working Time Regulations 1998. It will enable the fair work agency to take enforcement action in relation to incorrect payment or non-payment of a worker’s holiday pay and incorrect payment or non-payment in lieu of annual leave entitlement, ensuring that a wider range of complaints can be dealt with more effectively. I commend it to the Committee.
Greg Smith
This is another example of a tidying-up exercise that we really should not have to be discussing in Committee. It should have been sorted before the Bill was introduced.
Amendment 85 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 23—Review of the effectiveness of enforcement of labour market legislation—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish an independent review providing for—
(a) an assessment of the effectiveness of enforcement of, and compliance with, relevant labour market legislation requirements as specified in Part 1 of Schedule 4 of this Act;
(b) an assessment of the performance and effectiveness of following bodies in enforcing labour market legislation—
(i) Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority;
(ii) Employment Agencies Standards Inspectorate;
(iii) His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; and
(iv) Health and Safety Executive; and
(c) recommendations on strengthening labour market legislation enforcement.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report of the review in subsection (1) not more than 18 months after the day on which this Act is passed and before a new single labour market enforcement body is established.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a review of enforcement of labour market legislation and to report findings to Parliament before a new labour market enforcement body is established.
Justin Madders
The UK’s labour market enforcement system is fragmented, as we know. The enforcement of core rights such as the minimum wage, the domestic agency regulations and the gangmaster licensing scheme is split between three different agencies, so workers often do not know where to go when they think they might not have received what they are due. That makes enforcement ineffective.
Clause 72 is a vital building block of the fair work agency. Clause 72(1) will place on the Secretary of State a responsibility to enforce a set list of labour market legislation. It introduces part 1 of schedule 4, which sets out the list of relevant labour market legislation that the Secretary of State will be responsible for enforcing— the national minimum wage, domestic agency regulations, the gangmasters licensing scheme, parts 1 and 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the administration of the unpaid employment tribunal award penalty scheme.
Creating the fair work agency is about more than simply moving things around. That is why we have also taken steps to enforce workers’ rights to paid holiday and statutory sick pay. We tabled two sets of amendments to part 1 of schedule 4 to ensure that the fair work agency delivers the policy intent in relation to enforcing holiday pay and statutory sick pay. As we have discussed, our amendment on holiday pay will ensure that the FWA can take action in relation to incorrect payment or non-payment of a worker’s holiday pay and incorrect payment or non-payment in lieu of annual leave entitlement; our amendment on statutory sick pay will ensure that all relevant statutory sick pay provisions that contain entitlements for workers or impose duties on employers are in scope of enforcement.
Part 2 of schedule 4 grants the Secretary of State a delegated power to make affirmative regulations to add new legislation to part 1 of the schedule. The Secretary of State can use the power to bring in scope legislation that relates to the rights of employees and workers, the treatment of employees and workers and requirements on employers, and legislation on trade unions and labour relations. It is a broad power but a necessary one: if we are to deliver the policy intent of genuinely upgrading enforcement, the fair work agency needs to be able to respond to changes in the labour market. We believe that a power to make affirmative regulations, which Parliament will of course have to approve, will ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny for any further changes.
New clause 23 is well intentioned, but it is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. It would impose a lengthy and redundant review process that largely duplicated the statutory duties that are already undertaken by the director of labour market enforcement. She already oversees the enforcement landscape and provides an annual strategy and annual report on the effectiveness of the activities of the bodies that will make up the fair work agency. New clause 23 would do nothing to add to those mechanisms. In fact, it would slow down the creation of the fair work agency.
I turn to clause 75—
Justin Madders
Okay. I have nothing further to say, except that the shadow Minister’s new clause 23 is a duplication of existing requirements that would add nothing to the process.
Greg Smith
I hear what the Minister says about slowing things down, but it would be remiss of me not to comment that if the Government had perhaps taken their time a bit on the drafting of the Bill, we would not be spending so much time in this Committee considering the absolute deluge of Government amendments that tidy things up that should have been right in the first place. Sometimes it is best not to rush things. Sometimes it is better not to dive in head first and just go for the first thing available, but to be cautious, to review and to fully understand all the implications that new legislation such as this will have in the real world.
That is what new clause 23, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends, seeks to double-check. It seeks to ensure that the Government are getting this right—not in our interests or those of anyone in the House of Commons, but in the interests of businesses and workers in the real world, trying to get on with their daily lives, get their jobs done and get their businesses growing and providing the growth and prosperity that we all want to see in the country.
As I have said previously, we do not have a problem in principle with the establishment of a new body to oversee the enforcement of labour market legislation. I have made that clear, and hon. Friends who have spoken have made it crystal clear. But we also made a challenge in the previous debate, and that is what new clause 23 is all about. It is about ensuring that we fully understand the scope, cost and effectiveness of this new body.
Any new body, be it a Government body or in the private sector—although the creation of new bodies in the public sector tends to be slower and often cost more than the private sector would manage—will take time and resources, and we would like to be reassured that this is a good use of time and resources. I repeat that our instinct is that it probably is. Our instinct is that it does seem to make sense, but we can never rely on instinct or on that which might look good on paper as the absolute cast-iron test. It is about the real evidence.
Laurence Turner
We heard from the hon. Gentleman earlier in the main Chamber about sustainable aviation fuel; I wonder whether he might share with us the shadow ministerial equivalent that he seems to have discovered, because we are covering a huge amount of ground. I just say this to him. We did have the Taylor review, which looked at these matters, including the functioning of the individual enforcement agencies, so I am just wondering: does he think that something has changed, in terms of their effectiveness, since then? We have already had an assessment of the nature that he is calling for.
Greg Smith
Yes, Mr Mundell. I am genuinely struggling to find the connection between my questions in transport orals this morning on sustainable aviation fuel and this Bill. I will gladly offer to have a coffee with the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield to discuss my passionate view on synthetic fuel in the future, but it really is not relevant to this Bill.
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s latter point, about previous reviews, but new clause 23 is specifically looking at the creation of this new body and is about ensuring that that is the right thing to do and that the cost of it will actually bring the benefit that the Minister and other Government Members have explained that they believe it will. It is incumbent on all of us, whether we sit on the Government or Opposition Benches or for the smaller parties, that we challenge everything put in front of us. Any culture in any organisation that does not challenge what is put in front of it is often weaker for it. That is what new clause 23 is seeking to do.
Inherent in that, notwithstanding the Taylor review, is the aim to ask and double-check whether the rationale takes into account how effectively labour market legislation is currently being enforced and understand what research this Government—not former Governments, but this one—have undertaken on what will be done more effectively or efficiently with the creation of this new body. We would like the Government to assess how effectively the labour market legislation that will be enforced by the new body is currently working in that fragmented sense that the Minister spoke about earlier, and how effective the enforcement of it is, before setting up any new quango.
Generally speaking, new quangos fill me with dread and fear, but this one may be worth while. However, we need the evidence. Will the Minister expand on how matters will change for businesses through the new labour market enforcement authority? What will feel different for them and what changes might they need to make as they prepare for it? New clause 23 tries to get to the heart of that.
Steve Darling
I know from my surgeries and casework in Torbay that discrimination is sadly alive and well. I ask the Minister to reflect on some of the evidence from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which talked about the provision leading to fragmentation and the possibility of some of its standard work falling between two stools. What reassurances can the Minister give that the good work will proceed appropriately either through the fair work agency, or in a partnership approach with the Equality and Human Rights Commission?
Sir Ashley Fox
I want to speak in support of new clause 23 and to ask the Minister whether he is familiar with Parkinson’s law. It states that the number of workers in any public administration will tend to grow over time, regardless of the quantity of work done. The corollary is that work expands to fill the time available for its completion.
Although Conservative Members are in favour of the creation of the fair work agency, there is a risk that, over time, it will seek to have more staff and more power, will consume a great deal more of taxpayers’ money and resources, and will impose more on employers’ time, without great result. That is why a review is necessary. We want to ensure that any new authority is lean and efficient. We also want the Government to take the same approach to regulations.
Unfortunately, the Bill is a hefty document. It will impose £5 billion-worth of costs on employers, which will probably result in fewer people being employed, higher inflation and lower growth. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for the Opposition to ask the Government to reflect after 18 months and ascertain whether they can find anything in this weighty tome that they could do better or more efficiently.
The working time directive is immensely complicated and imposes burdensome record keeping on employers. In the past, it has resulted in retained firefighters in rural areas having to count the time when they sit at home, not doing anything, as working time. It has been a difficult and troublesome measure, and perhaps my party should have done more to simplify it when we were in office, but that is not an excuse for the Government to say, “Because you didn’t do enough, we intend to do nothing.” It is reasonable for us to ask the Government, at the end of 18 months, to take another look and see whether they can do anything to reduce the burden on businesses.
Justin Madders
I am beginning to wonder whether the Opposition’s support for the fair work agency is as strong as I thought. They now appear to want to make sure that creating it is the right thing do, despite its featuring regularly in Conservative manifestos and despite the support of the breadth of stakeholders who gave evidence to the Committee. The current Director of Labour Market Enforcement made it clear in her evidence to the Committee that the creation of the fair work agency would make her role much easier and more effective. She spoke about the recommendations in her most recent report:
“The ones that relate to having a better joined-up approach, to greater efficiency and to better sharing of information among bodies are the things that I think the fair work agency will do a lot better.” ––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 153, Q159.]
I think that almost half of the recommendations from her most recent report contained an element of that.
The Chair
For clarity, the question on new clause 23 will be put at a subsequent point in the proceedings.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 73
Enforcement functions of Secretary of State
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Clause 73 specifies which functions are considered enforcement functions of the Secretary of State for the purposes of part 5 of the Bill. It defines enforcement functions widely and then carves out certain functions that are not enforcement functions.
Clause 73(1) specifies that the enforcement functions of the Secretary of State include the following: any functions granted under part 5 of the Bill; functions in the relevant labour market legislation that they are responsible for enforcing; and any other functions that they perform to support enforcing labour market legislation.
Clause 73(2) goes on to set out exceptions. It lists specific functions that are not enforcement functions for the purposes of part 5 of the Bill. These are generally functions that relate to the arrangements for state enforcement of labour market legislation, and the overall governance of the fair work agency. These overarching governance functions include: appointing officers under clause 72; delegating functions under clause 74; setting up the advisory board under clause 75; publishing the annual reports and enforcement strategies under clauses 76 and 77; providing for transfer schemes to move staff into the Department under part 1 of schedule 7; and powers to make subordinate legislation.
The effect of clause 73 becomes clear when it is read in conjunction with clause 72. First, the enforcement functions that are listed in clause 73(1) can be performed by enforcement officers appointed under clause 72. Under clause 72(4), the powers of an enforcement officer include the power to exercise any enforcement function. Those powers can be limited further by the terms of the appointment of those officers.
Clause 74 gives the Secretary of State flexibility about how they carry out the functions of labour market enforcement. It provides the option to delegate functions to another public authority. Clause 74(1) gives the Secretary of State the power to make arrangements with the public authority so that it can exercise the delegable function. It also enables the Secretary of State to make arrangements to appoint a public authority’s staff as enforcement officers. The Secretary of State can delegate the enforcement functions listed in clause 73(1), all of which have been highlighted already. Those functions relate to arrangements for state enforcement of labour market legislation or the overall governance of the fair work agency. The Secretary State can also delegate powers relating to the licensing of gangmasters under sections 7 or 11 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. The arrangements the Secretary of State makes with public authorities can also include an agreement to make payments in respect of the performance of any function by either the public authority or their staff.
Clause 74(5) means that delegating an enforcement function does not strip the Secretary of State of responsibility or control in enforcing labour market legislation. The Secretary of State can still carry out functions even when they have arranged for another public authority to do that on their behalf.
The Bill is about bringing enforcement and employment legislation into one place in order to make enforcement more effective and efficient by ensuring the better use of resources. It is about creating the right powers to carry out investigations and take enforcement action where necessary. However, it does not set out a specific approach to implementing that more joined-up enforcement, because operational flexibility will be the key to the success of the fair work agency. The clause helps to provide that flexibility by enabling the Secretary of State to delegate certain functions to other public authorities or to make arrangements for staff of other bodies to be appointed as enforcement officers. Both clauses are integral to the effective functioning of the fair work agency in the future.
Greg Smith
On the face of it, the clauses are not problematic: they are quite clear, and it is important that those things that are considered as enforcement functions are clearly defined. That is all well and good—until we get to clause 74(5), which states:
“Arrangements under this section do not prevent the Secretary of State from performing a function to which the arrangements relate.”
Therefore, a body with certain powers—admittedly in the Secretary of State’s name—is created; essentially, a quango is put in place, and people are given the clear job of carrying out the enforcement functions in the Bill. However, if the Secretary of State is not prevented from performing one of those functions, what is the mechanism by which they can overrule the quango they themselves set up to perform them? Of course, the ultimate buck must stop with the Secretary of State, but it is a pretty established convention that where a quango is set up and has powers delegated to it—I think of Natural England within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and many other quangos—it is very rare for a Secretary of State to intervene, overrule and perhaps come to a different conclusion from that quango.
We will not oppose the clauses, but I would be grateful if the Minister could reflect on the circumstances in which he believes clause 74(5) would come into effect, to make clear the procedures a Secretary of State would need to follow to bring that subsection into effect.
Steve Darling
I broadly welcome the proposals in the clauses, and I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of the issues outlined by the shadow Minister.
Justin Madders
I hear what the shadow Minister says. He is possibly over-egging the pudding or taking us on a ride on the ghost train in terms of what clause 74(5) means. It simply means that if the Secretary of State delegates powers to another body, they are still the responsible person for the overall operation. This is not about overruling different bodies; it is about where the final responsibility lies. I hope I have put the hon. Gentleman’s mind at rest to some extent.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 73 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 75
Advisory Board
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
I know you have been eagerly awaiting this clause, Mr Mundell. It concerns an important part of the fair work agency, and something that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson touched on earlier. The agency has a big job on its hands to restore trust among workers that they will get the rights that they are entitled to and that Parliament has laid down. It also important that the agency is trusted by businesses, and that they know they will be treated fairly and that if they follow the law, they will not be undercut by those who seek to avoid it. That is an important job for the fair work agency and it is important that we get it right. It must reflect the concerns of businesses and workers.
The Low Pay Commission has served the country well since the last Labour Government created it to advise on the national minimum wage. That is because it is a social partnership, comprising equal voices of workers, businesses and independent experts, and can reflect the perspectives of all those bodies when making recommendations. We want the FWA to replicate that success.
The clause requires the Secretary of State to create an advisory board for the fair work agency. Subsection (2) specifies that the board must consist of at least nine members appointed by the Secretary of State. Subsection (3) provides that board members must hold and vacate their position in accordance with the terms and conditions of their appointment. Subsection (4) provides for the advisory board to have a social partnership model, requiring equal representation of businesses, trade unions and independent experts.
We know this is a complex area that is constantly changing, but we believe that the model and approach that has proved so successful with the Low Pay Commission should be replicated here. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I hear what the Minister says in his explanation of the clause. Often, advisory boards are perfectly good and useful bodies, but I return to my earlier point that where a power rests with a Secretary of State, the accountable body to which any Secretary of State must submit themselves is the House of Commons, where they are a Member, or the House of Lords, in the rare case that they sit in the other place. Parliament is the advisory body—the critical friend—that the Secretary of State should submit themselves to.
However, accepting that an advisory board is going to be established, I want to ask the Minister about its make-up. While the Bill seems to be quite clear, there are some gaps, and some unanswered questions that the public, businesses, employees and the trade union movement will no doubt wish to have answered.
Probably the clearest definition in clause 75(4) is that in paragraph (a):
“persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of trade unions”.
I think we can all understand that that means representatives of the trade union movement.
Greg Smith
There is my first question, prompted by my hon. Friend: does that include right hon. and hon. Members of Parliament who themselves are members of trade unions? Could that be the case?
We are less clear on paragraphs (b) and (c). Paragraph (b) states:
“persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of employers”.
That is a far less easily defined body of people. On the one hand, I can hear some potentially arguing that that is the representative bodies that gave evidence to the Committee, such as the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors. That would be a legitimate answer, until somebody came forward and made a compelling case that, as an individual employer, they should be considered to sit on the board.
Greg Smith
I will be delighted to in one second, when I have finished my train of thought.
Can someone be classed as independent if they are an academic or a university professor, perhaps with considerable knowledge of and expertise in employment law and matters relating to the Bill—someone we should all respect—but also a member of a trade union? Does their membership of a trade union count towards whether they are independent? Would that be at odds with paragraph (a)?
Michael Wheeler
I apologise for interrupting the egging of the pudding—we were definitely in the “over” area of the egging. Does the shadow Minister accept that despite what we have heard, and despite the picture that he is trying to create, this model works? It is not novel; we have the Low Pay Commission. It is an established fact. Despite the many layers and convolutions that we see being built in front of us, we are actually considering something quite straightforward here.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for what appears to be his support for the British egg industry. I encourage him to eat as many British eggs as possible and to support our farmers.
Greg Smith
I always bow to your advice, Mr Mundell. I will try to save the Minister the embarrassment of having that recorded in Hansard.
Let me try to return to my point. While I accept that advisory boards of Government Departments often follow this formula, we have a particular definitional problem with this one. The problem is whether, in the example I gave before the intervention of the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles, the independence of a seemingly independent expert—most reasonable people would say a university academic, professor, doctor or whoever would normally fall into that category—would be influenced if they were a member of a trade union, and whether in that case their membership of the board would be compliant with the provision for an “equal number” of independent experts and those representing the trade union movement on the board.
This is an important problem for the Minister to acknowledge. He must be very clear to the Committee whether the word “independent” in paragraph (c) would disallow anyone who is a member of a trade union from being a member of the board under paragraph (c), for fear of contradicting paragraph (a).
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I refer the Committee to my membership of the GMB and Community unions. The shadow Minister is keen for us all to stress our trade union membership, and we do so at the start of every sitting. He makes the point about trade union membership potentially impacting independent experts, but he will be aware that many university professors are funded by private limited companies to support their research, just as some Opposition Members are supported by private limited companies and employers for campaign purposes, none of which is declared in this Committee. Would he not say that might impact those professors’ independence too? Would that not need to be declared to ensure that the numbers are balanced?
Greg Smith
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. I believe in freedom; I have no problem with any hon. or right hon. Government Member being a member of a trade union. The point here is clarity and transparency. We have a Bill in black and white in front of us that refers to equal numbers but fails to define whether a member of a trade union could sit as an independent expert or would have to be categorised under subsection (4)(a) as representing the interests of trade unions. This is a matter of information on which the Committee and the general public deserve to have clarity before we allow this clause to become part of primary legislation in our country. As in all walks of life, there will be points of debate on that. I want to hear from the Minister’s own mouth whether he deems it to contradict the “equal number” provision. We could dance on the head of a pin all day, but when we are seeking to pass legislation, clarity is very important, and I look to the Minister to give it.
Steve Darling
I am concerned about the heavy weather that colleagues on the Opposition Benches are making of this. For me, this measure is about driving a positive culture in employment, and the board’s balance is entirely appropriate. I welcome the clause.
Sir Ashley Fox
I have a number of concerns about the establishment of the advisory board for the enforcement of labour market rules. I do not believe that such an advisory board is necessary and I am convinced that its creation would represent an expensive and bureaucratic exercise that would be redundant at best and a tool to disguise the Government’s intentions behind a veil of unnecessary consultation at worst. Let me explain why.
Let us first address the central issue: the need for advice. It is not as if there is a shortage of expert opinions on labour market matters; far from it. If the Secretary of State is seeking guidance from trade unions, he need look no further than the extensive and loud representation of trade union interests on the Benches behind him. There seems to be no shortage of trade union representatives in key positions, be it MPs with close ties to the unions or those with—
Michael Wheeler
Does the hon. Member accept that there is a difference between “member of” and “represents” when it comes to trade unions?
Sir Ashley Fox
Yes, I do. Indeed, “funded by” trade unions is another distinction. The point I am making is that this advice is available for free. There is no need for the Secretary of State to commission a board and pay representatives of trade unions to give him advice. The notion that three members of trade unions are needed on the advisory board seems, to put it bluntly, quite redundant. The Secretary of State can obtain that advice from any number of trade unions, their experts, or any of the MPs that sit on the Government Benches, who will all freely give it. Let us not forget that there are already plenty of independent experts contributing to various public bodies and providing high-level advice to the Government—there is certainly no shortage of them dotted throughout Whitehall.
If the Government require business perspectives, they certainly need not search too far for that advice either. If they wanted to, they could listen to the CBI or, if they preferred, to the Federation of Small Businesses, which provide ample insights and recommendations on policy matters relating to labour and employment. Those bodies represent businesses large and small, and have extensive networks of experts available to advise on any issues regarding the labour market. The problem—I suspect the Federation of Small Businesses would agree—is that the Secretary of State does not listen to them, so what difference would it make if he were to put one of them on a board of nine or 12? Do we need more voices from the same sectors giving advice?
Who might we see the Secretary of State appoint to this board? I am sure Sir Brendan Barber would get a look in, or perhaps Baroness Frances O’Grady. I wonder what Len McCluskey is up to these days—I am sure he has vast experience in employment rights matters.
Sir Ashley Fox
Mr Mundell, you are as fortunate as Mr McCluskey.
I am sure that those are just the independent experts that the Secretary of State will be considering appointing to this board. This highlights another crucial point: the Government designation of independent experts is incredibly vague. The Government define “independent expert” as anyone who is neither a trade union representative nor an employer representative. There is no requirement in the Bill for someone to have any particular expertise; they just must not fall into one of those two categories. Nowhere does it say that that expert cannot be a member of a trade union; nowhere does it say that they cannot be a former leader of a trade union; nowhere does it detail what qualifications or experience these experts are expected to bring. Let us not forget that these experts will be paid substantial sums of money—potentially hundreds of pounds per day—and the Government want us to take it on trust that they will be appointing the best people for the job.
As is often the case with such bodies, it is not a risk, but a total certainty that the advisory board will be appointed disproportionately to represent one end of the political spectrum. I suspect the Government will make every effort to ensure that those appointed align with the views they already hold—or, if we have a board of nine, that at least eight of them are firmly in the camp of the Labour party. The most likely outcome in my view is that this board will be packed with individuals whose perspectives on labour markets are perfectly aligned with Government policy and with the trade unions that this Government represent. It might be more straightforward for the Government simply to ask the TUC for instructions on how to go ahead, rather than to go through this cumbersome and expensive process. It would certainly cost the taxpayer less, and I would argue it would be more honest too. The fact is that this board’s purpose seems more to provide a cover for a Government agenda that is already in place than to genuinely provide diverse input. It looks like an expensive way to present the façade of consultation without delivering anything meaningful at all.
If the idea of this surplus of readily available advice was not bad enough, we have not started to talk about the cost of setting up this quango and the board. Having served on two public bodies, I know that advisory bodies are expensive and time-consuming ventures that require significant administrative resources in terms of staff, time and finance. Not only do the members of those bodies need to be compensated—perhaps the Minister will advise us whether they will be paid £300 a day, or £400 or £500 a day—but there is also the cost of setting up the selection process, conducting interviews and managing the day-to-day operation of the body. We are talking about at least nine members being appointed—probably more—which will consume considerable amounts of civil service time and taxpayers’ money. The selection process alone will involve a long list of procedures: advertising positions, longlisting, shortlisting, interviewing, and ultimately appointing the individuals—all, inevitably, to end up with the appointment of the nine people that the Secretary of State wanted to appoint in the first place.
What will this board ultimately do? It will advise the Secretary of State on drafting a strategy. We all know how these things go: the result will be a glossy document full of attractive photographs, distributed widely to people who will never read it, and it will have little or no practical impact on the ground. It will be yet more time and money wasted by this Government. We do not need more reports or strategies; we do not need an advisory board. Labour market rules are already there and they need to be enforced. The person responsible politically is the Secretary of State. He should take responsibility for the political decisions he makes in enforcing those laws, and not hide behind an advisory body.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Anna McMorrin.)
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Third sitting)
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. To those to whom I have not already had the opportunity to say so, happy new year.
Let me first set out a few housekeeping arrangements. Please switch off all electronic devices. We do not want phones ringing; I hope mine is off. No food and drink is permitted during sittings, apart from water. If anybody needs anything else, will they please leave the room and obtain it from the usual places? If Members have speaking notes, they are always useful to Hansard, particularly if they refer to a name or a business in a constituency or anything like that. That just about deals with that bit of it.
We are about to begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
On a point of order, Sir Roger. Good morning; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I rise on a point of order about the groupings for our discussions today. They are normally provided in good time, but at about 9 o’clock last night my team were provided with two versions that differed slightly: one from the Government and another from the Clerk. That did not give adequate time for the groupings to be properly considered. As you know, Sir Roger, this Bill is really important to me, but it is also important to the House and to our constituents. It aims to revolutionise their health and wellbeing. It is really very important that we get it right.
Another set of groupings has now been provided this morning. It was not delivered until about 9.30 am, and it is different from both the sets delivered last night. I think only the Minister, the Government Whip and I are the only Committee members who were MPs before July last year. I seek your guidance, Sir Roger, on how we can ensure, particularly for new Members, that there is proper time to scrutinise and appraise each clause and each group properly before the debate.
The Chair
Exceptionally, this is a matter for the Chair—normally, points of order have nothing to do with the Chair at all.
First, I have a note prepared by the Clerks, which I will read because it is relevant to part of what has been said. The Clerks in the Public Bill Office work on behalf of the Chairs—my colleagues and me—to prepare a provisional selection and grouping of amendments. It is very important that that is accurate. For those who have not served on a Bill Committee, I will come on to why that is done, which may help further downstream to explain the process of line-by-line scrutiny.
This is a very big Bill. A significant number of amendments have been tabled. Not entirely unusually, the Committee took oral evidence on Tuesday. Inevitably, such situations generate the late but timely—in the sense of being within the time limit—tabling of amendments.
Where the Clerks have to preside over the oral evidence sessions as well as trying to do all the rest of the work, it inevitably places a great strain on the system. It is no criticism whatever of the Clerks, who are formidable in the work that they do, that this has pushed it right up against the wire.
I know that the Government and, I believe, the Government solicitors and the Opposition received notice of the provisional selections fairly late last night. That is regrettable. It is always the case in such Committees that wherever possible all members, particularly the Government Minister and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, should get material in as timely a fashion as possible. That is a given, but there are exceptional circumstances, and these were exceptional circumstances.
I can only apologise on my own behalf—because my colleagues and I are ultimately responsible for the selection—for the fact that the grouping was late. I appreciate that that has created some difficulties, although not insuperable ones. If anything arising from that requires attention, we will deal with it as we go along, because part of our job is to be as flexible as we reasonably can.
I will seek advice on the hon. Lady’s second question about the groupings.
Dr Johnson
Further to that point of order, Sir Roger. There is a second point that I want to raise; I have given notice to the Chair. Because of the aforementioned delay in getting the groupings, I have not had time to scrutinise all the clauses of this very big Bill, as you have described it, but it strikes me as unusual that amendments 75 and 76 have been linked with clause 1.
In my experience, it is unusual to discuss amendments to one clause while considering another. My amendments 75 and 76 would amend clause 69 on page 36. Clause 69 is essentially a relative of clause 2, in so far as it tries to make things equivalent across the United Kingdom. I therefore wonder whether as Chair you might agree that amendments 75 and 76 would instead be best considered at the same time as clause 2.
The Chair
I thank the hon. Lady; that is very helpful. I fully understand what she is saying. This is an arcane process and it is an art, not a science. Personally, I am more than willing to consider grouping amendments 75 and 76 under clause 2 rather than clause 1. Because the selection list has been published, that requires the leave of the Committee. If the Committee is happy to do so, I am minded to accept the suggestion.
As I hear no objections, the hon. Lady has won her case. Amendments 75 and 76 will therefore be taken under clause 2 with amendments 58 and 59.
Dr Johnson
It is a point for the Chair, and it is procedural. I have not seen this sort of thing happen before. Normally, we agree the groupings and then they just flow.
I have not had the opportunity to go through all the pages and pages of the Bill and see whether there are other issues like the one with amendments 75 and 76. Will there be a further opportunity to amend the sequencing as we go?
The Chair
There will be a further opportunity to raise a point of order. It will be up to whoever is in the Chair at the time to decide whether to take the kind of action that, on the Clerk’s sound advice, I have just taken. I appreciate that this is a complex Bill and we may well find that one or two amendments are more comfortably located under other clauses. If that is so, sensibly and flexibly, we will endeavour to accommodate that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
On a point of order, Sir Roger. The loop system in this room does not appear to be working, at least not for my hearing aid. I do not know whether somebody can get it switched on or, if not, whether Members could please amplify when they speak.
The Chair
That request, I understand, has been remitted. We will do the best we can. Will hon. Members be kind enough to ensure that they speak clearly for the sake of the Minister and anybody else in a similar position? Exceptionally, I am more than prepared to make sure that the person speaking is addressing the Minister rather than the Chair, as would normally be the case, because sometimes in these circumstances it helps to see somebody’s lips. Again, I can only apologise that the system ain’t perfect.
I am well aware that there are hon. Members present who have not taken part in the Bill Committee process before. First, on code of dress, it is fine if anybody wishes to take their jacket off. You have the permission of the Chair to do so. You are supposed to seek the consent of the Chair before doing so; you have that consent.
Hon. Members who wish to intervene may do so in the same way as on the Floor of the House. It is up to the Member who has the Floor whether to give way, but it is customary in Committee. Unlike on the Floor of the House, it is not uncommon for a Member to seek to intervene more than once on the same subject for further clarification, if necessary. That is a given. I trust that Members are aware that—again, unlike on the Floor of the House—they are permitted to speak more than once during the debate on each grouping.
That brings me on to the groupings, about which we have had quite a lot of discussion already. This is an arcane process. Groupings on amendments and new clauses are tabled out of sequence, but in recognition of the subject matter under discussion. You will find that there are groupings with a lead amendment, which is the only one that will initially be moved. It is not uncommon for hon. Members to say, “Hang on a minute, I want to move that other amendment.” The answer to that is, “Later.” You move the amendment when we reach the appropriate point in the Bill; amendments are not necessarily moved immediately. If anybody wishes to press an amendment that is listed, but that is not immediately called as the lead amendment, will they please let the Chair know? It is not our job to try to prevent you from causing a Division if you choose to do so, but we do need to know. Otherwise, it may not get called.
Government amendments and some new clauses will be called in sequence as we work through the Bill. Although they may be debated this morning, they might not be called to be voted on—divided on—for two or three weeks. If you are in any doubt, ask. That goes for anything else as well. This is a difficult process to master. Whoever is in the Chair will be more than willing, if we do not know the answer, to take advice—the Clerk always does know—and make sure that you get the answers you want. In other words, if in doubt, ask. Do not sit there floundering.
That was intended to be helpful. I do not know whether it was or not. We will now commence line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill.
Clause 1
Sale of tobacco etc
The Chair
We begin with the group led by amendment 17. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), who tabled all the amendments in the group, is not a member of the Committee and therefore cannot move them. Is there anybody present who has taken ownership of the amendments and wishes to move the lead amendment on behalf of the hon. Member?
Dr Johnson
I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
and insert
“under the age of 25”.
This amendment makes it an offence to sell tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers to a person under the age of 25, rather than to people born on or after 1 January 2009.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 18, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out
“shown on that document was before 1 January 2009”
and insert
“showed that the purchaser was not under the age of 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 22, in clause 5, page 3, line 8, leave out
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
and insert
“under the age of 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 23, in clause 6, page 3, line 30, leave out
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
and insert
“under the age of 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 24, in clause 6, page 3, line 32, leave out
“a anwyd ar neu ar ôl 1 Ionawr 2009”
and insert “dan 25 oed”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 44, in schedule 5, page 132, line 2, leave out
“a anwyd ar neu ar ôl 1 Ionawr 2009”
and insert “dan 25 oed”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 48, in schedule 5, page 132, line 7, leave out from “berson” to end of line 8 and insert “dan 25 oed (“B”)”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 45, in schedule 5, page 132, line 12, leave out from “person” to end of line and insert “dan 25 oed”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 46, in schedule 5, page 132, line 38, leave out from “rhoi” to “a” in line 39 and insert
“yn 25 oed neu drosodd”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 47, in schedule 5, page 133, line 2, leave out from “person” to end of line 3 and insert “dan 25 oed”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 39, in schedule 5, page 133, line 16, leave out
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
and insert
“under the age of 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 40, in schedule 5, page 133, line 21, leave out
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
and insert
“under the age of 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 41, in schedule 5, page 133, line 26, leave out
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
and insert
“under the age of 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 42, in schedule 5, page 134, line 9, leave out
“born before 1 January 2009”
and insert
“over the age of 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 43, in schedule 5, page 134, line 14, leave out
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
and insert
“under the age of 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 25, in clause 50, page 25, line 30, leave out
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
and insert
“under the age of 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 26, in clause 50, page 25, line 33, leave out from “substitute” to end of line 34 and insert
“under the age of 25 (‘the customer’) to be aged 25 or over”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 27, in clause 50, page 25, line 37, leave out
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
and insert “under 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 28, in clause 50, page 26, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 29, in clause 50, page 26, line 28, leave out from “substitute” to end of line 29 and insert
“under the age of 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 30, in clause 50, page 26, line 30, leave out from “substitute” to end of line 31 and insert “under 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 31, in clause 50, page 26, line 33, leave out from “substitute” to end of line and insert “under 25.”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 32, in clause 68, page 35, line 28, leave out
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
and insert
“under the age of 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 33, in clause 68, page 35, line 37, leave out
“shown on that document was before 1 January 2009”
and insert
“showed that the purchaser was not under the age of 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 38, in clause 72, page 37, line 28, leave out
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
and insert
“under the age of 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Amendment 49, in title, line 2, leave out
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
and insert
“under the age of 25”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.
Dr Johnson
The amendments do not stand in my name, and they are not amendments with which I agree, but they relate to a very important part of the Second Reading debate that goes to the heart of the principles behind the Bill. I have moved the lead amendment so that the debate can be heard in full and so that hon. Members can establish for themselves whether they wish to support the amendments.
I will refer to these amendments as the Maguire amendments, if that helps, as they were all tabled by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, who is not on the Committee. It is, of course, the Whips who choose who goes on the Committee—[Interruption.] Sorry, can you hear me?
Dr Johnson
Thank you. I am aware that the Whips choose who gets to go on Committees. Sometimes that is a blessing; sometimes it can be less welcome, particularly if it is a long Committee that goes on for months. For someone who is passionate about a cause, but is not aligned with the Whips’ view and is not chosen for a Committee, it can be frustrating not to have something discussed that they believe important. We are all here to represent our constituents and to think carefully about the legislation in front of us. Although the amendments were tabled by a Member who is not a member of my party, and I do not actually agree with them, I want to ensure that they get a proper hearing.
Amendments 17 and 18 would amend clause 1, which will introduce a prohibition on selling tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers to any individual born on or after 1 January 2009. The Government’s intent is to create a tobacco-free generation by progressively restricting access to tobacco-related products for younger age groups as they age. This is a measure that was first discussed in the Khan report and was brought forward in the previous Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which was introduced by the Conservative Government under my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who wanted to ensure that we eliminate smoking as far as possible, for people’s health, but that we would not impose a criminal penalty on people who already smoke and thereby criminalise an addiction that is so difficult to give up. That is the reason for the rolling sale.
Under clause 1, sellers will be required to verify the buyer’s age using acceptable identity documents, which are listed as being passports, UK or EU driving licences or proof-of-age identity cards, known as PASS cards. If the seller relies on valid-looking ID showing that the buyer was born before 1 January 2009, or if they can demonstrate that they took all reasonable steps to avoid an offence, they have a legal defence against prosecution. Violating the clause is an offence punishable by a fine of up to level 4 on the standard scale; I am sure we will come on to what that means later. It is currently capped at £2,500.
This measure is part of a broader strategy to combat smoking by reducing access among younger generations and curbing the initiation of tobacco use. By enforcing strict age verification and imposing financial penalties, the clause aims progressively to eliminate tobacco use, contributing to long-term public health improvements.
New clause 17 would leave out
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
and insert in its place
“under the age of 25”.
That would make it an offence to sell tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers to a person under the age of 25, rather than to a person born on or after 1 January 2009.
The Chair
Order. For the sake of clarity, we are referring to amendment 17, not new clause 17.
Dr Johnson
Thank you, Sir Roger. I am very grateful for your guidance. I think spending much of the night trying to get to grips with the various drafts has left me a little tired. I appreciate the difference. As you said, the process is somewhat confusing, but at least we are moving through it steadily.
Amendment 17 would significantly alter the scope of clause 1 by replacing the birth date-specific restriction of 1 January 2009. Instead of targeting individuals born on or after that date, the new provision would make it an offence to sell tobacco products, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers to anyone under the age of 25. That modification would shift the focus from creating a tobacco-free generation to implementing a uniform age limit similar to the one that we have already.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
My hon. Friend knows that we disagree on the principle of clause 1, and my objection is primarily to creating two tiers of adults. One of the benefits of the Bill, as it is currently written, is that it is at least a time-limited measure. In other words, when that generation dies out, every adult will be one tier again. With amendment 17, however, we will effectively have two tiers of adults forever, so a 19-year-old will always—or until we change the law again—be able to drink but will not be able to smoke, and that will be set in stone. Does my hon. Friend agree that, even if she thinks we should create two tiers of adults for public health purposes, we should try to delimit that as much as possible, and therefore the principle of the amendment should not be accepted by this Committee?
The Chair
Order. Another thing colleagues might notice is that that was quite a long intervention. Customarily in Committee, as opposed to on the Floor of the House, it is not unusual for a Chair to allow a fairly long intervention, because quite often that obviates the need for a speech later. Be aware of that flexibility.
Dr Johnson
Once again, Sir Roger, I am very grateful for your guidance to the Committee. I was explaining the change in amendment 17, and my hon. Friend, like the very wise chap that he is, brings something forward that I had not really considered, despite my attention to this Bill over some time—and Members will be very much aware it is something that I have taken a long interest in.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: some people argue that the Bill creates two tiers of adults—some who are allowed to smoke and some who are not. In fact, that is exactly what it does. Eventually, of course, people get older and older. I saw that the oldest person in the world sadly passed on in the last week or so, and she was 116. I am not quite sure about the age of the current oldest person in the world, but I suspect their age is similar. Therefore, I suspect that it will take quite a long time before my hon. Friend’s ideal of all adults being treated the same is once again achieved. I suspect that I will certainly be long gone before it does, and I anticipate that the rules we are proposing will last the rest of our lifetimes here today.
This modification shifts the approach from creating a tobacco-free generation to implementing a uniform age limit that applies universally, regardless of the buyer’s birth year. That simplifies enforcement because sellers would need only to confirm whether a buyer is under 25, and they would not need to do the mental arithmetic in their head that says, “Okay, that is their birthday, but how old would that make them?” The Minister, in his questions on Tuesday, raised the point repeatedly with one of our witnesses about whether it is simpler to have a date of birth or an age. My understanding is that a lot of tills nowadays will give a prompt to the person working behind the till to say, “If you are born before or after this date, that is where the 18 cut-off is.”
Dr Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the promotion—I shall mention it the Chief Whip and see how that goes!
Sadik Al-Hassan
My training and experience as a pharmacist over two decades involved working with systems such as tills that teach people how to ask for age verification. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Minister is spot on and that actually this is a moot point, because the software, support and training is already there across the country, including in independent shops, and age verification is quite easy to do?
Dr Johnson
I think it is straightforward to have an age and a date of birth to check. It could become more confusing if we ended up with a range of age-restricted products and the age for each of them was different, as that would require people to look at a whole spreadsheet of dates of birth.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Software systems I have worked with already have the facility to differentiate by product, including for razor blades and alcohol products. That already exists across retail and in a variety of retail premises.
Dr Johnson
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention highlights the fact that in Parliament we benefit from the experience of so many different people. Each of us comes to this place with our own history, backstory and experience of working in a whole range of different professions and jobs. That is one of the reasons why we go through these Bills line by line. It may seem to some extent slow and plodding to go through things so methodically, but that means that each person can, as he has, bring their experience forward and explain the ways that tills and such things work, which is really beneficial. I thank him for that intervention.
Jack Rankin
I slightly disagree with the hon. Member for North Somerset. It seems to me that over time, we have been getting more consistent in our understanding of what an adult is. Obviously, I am quite a young man, but when I turned 16, I could buy a lottery ticket, I could get married without my parents’ permission and I could join the Army. I could then learn to drive at 17. Many of those have been regularised in the last few years, so the age for buying lottery tickets is now 18 and one cannot get married before 18 either. That is part of ensuring consistency about what an adult is.
It may well be true that pharmacies have such technology, and I understand why, but most cigarettes are bought in small newsagents and I would not necessarily expect them to have the same technology. We should be supporting consistency in what an adult is—that is the direction in which legislation has been moving—and not creating added complexity.
Dr Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. I do not know whether any Member present has worked in a small corner shop and could tell us whether they have the same level of technology. Perhaps the Minister or his officials know whether the same level of technology is used in shops across the board. I am afraid that I do not know the answer to that.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?
Dr Johnson
Yes; if my hon. Friend knows the answer, I would be delighted to hear it.
Gregory Stafford
I do not know the answer to that question, although I suspect that many such shops do not. Although I agree with my hon. Friend about the thrust of the Bill, something that does concern me comes not from the retailer point of view but the consumer point of view. At the moment—please do not disabuse me of this view—when I go and buy a bottle of wine or a pint of beer, I am very rarely, if ever, IDed. But I accept that if, on the rare occasion that I am IDed, I do not have a form of identification, it is not the biggest problem in the world. Most of the time, however, people can see that I am over the age of 25 or over the age of 18, so it does not happen.
If the Bill were to go forward in its current form, every smoker would essentially have to carry a form of ID all the time. Some, especially the older generation, might not have a suitable form of identification and some—if they are, like me, a civil libertarian—might not want to carry ID, so how do we get around that point in the Bill to ensure that we do not end up having ID cards for older people by the back door?
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Some people are averse to carrying ID—it is not something that bothers me personally, but I am aware that for some people it is a sticking point. In a previous debate before the election, the former Member for Norwich North, Chloe Smith, made the point that not all adults will be affected by this legislation, but only a relatively narrow band of them.
The last time I was carded for ID, I was 38. I was not buying the typical basket of a 17-year-old; I was buying flowers—orchids—and a bottle of champagne for someone’s housewarming, as well as some strawberries, because she had phoned to ask me to get some when I was on the way, as she was running out at the housewarming party. I was IDed, so I was not able to buy the champagne for her, because the supermarket would not let me. That was disappointing for both of us, but I accepted the fact that if ID could not be shown and they genuinely believed that I looked under 25, that was the law and it had to be accepted. That is not universally the case, and I am aware—as we heard in evidence—that retailers can sometimes receive significant verbal and occasionally violent abuse when they ask for ID in that way.
Andrew Gwynne
The shadow Minister is having a good morning, having not had a particularly great evening last night. With no disrespect to the hon. Member for Windsor, who made this point in his intervention, by the time that the age of sale is legally his age, we hope that smoking prevalence in that age group will be next to zero, and therefore it will not be an issue.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for his intervention, although I am not sure what he is implying about the age of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor—
Dr Johnson
Wisdom or age, but I shall be cautious not to answer too closely.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I accept the view that having to provide ID will be inconvenient and frustrating for some people, but all the expert witnesses on Tuesday pointed out that many smokers do not wish the younger generation to continue smoking. I think that most of them would probably be of that view that the slight infringement of their civil liberties in having to carry ID is a small price to pay for the knowledge that they are preventing smoking from being taken up.
Dr Johnson
The hon. Gentleman is right that the measures have broad support. Certainly, the pollsters who have investigated people’s views of this legislation—that proposed by the previous Government and the legislation as it is now, with some tweaks to it—have found the public to be overwhelmingly positive. We legislate because we are elected by those people. On the basis of their opinions and given that policing in this country is done by consent—
Jack Rankin
On the civil liberties point, I disagree with my hon. Friend entirely, as she well knows. The point about civil liberties is that they need protecting not when the majority agree, but when the majority do not agree. The hon. Member for Winchester made the point that all the experts agreed. We listened to a cohort of experts who were from a variety of fields, but they were also all in some way paid for by the state and had some vested interest in the Bill—they were not retailers, consumers and so on— [Interruption.] We had one person out of 15. It was really not a well-balanced affair at all, so I disagree with that point.
Dr Johnson
I think that comes back to the issue of choice. The chief medical officer said that the only choice we make is the choice to have that first hit of nicotine; after that, our choice is taken from us by the profound addiction that we experience. One of the challenges with stopping smoking is that people get powerful cravings. Despite their overwhelming desire to stop, the cravings drive people to have a cigarette that they do not really want or would rather not have because of their addiction.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
May I de-aggregate the two separate, distinct points about the age that will be defined on a driving licence or passport versus the concept of having ID?
On the first point, most identity documents will contain a defined birth date, which makes it easier for a retailer or sales individual to check the date. They do not contain an age, per se, but they have the date of birth, which creates an easier means of assessment.
The second point about having ID is a separate, distinct issue. In some countries in Europe, they put identity cards on the back of credit or debit cards, for instance. The question of how we would define that identity is a separate element or, perhaps, a separate amendment to the clause that may expand the list of identity that would be bona fide, but we nevertheless use the concept of identity already in many cases to purchase products.
If we are against identity cards or any form of identity, how are we supposed to look at any product with regard to sales, including ones that we might be challenged on, such as when the shadow Minister was purchasing her orchid in a venue? We accept the premise of identity when we sell any licensed product at the present time, so we are merely extending the same premise.
Dr Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful contribution. I should be clear that I do not have an issue with carrying my driver’s licence or ID with me, although I am aware that some people genuinely do. If he wants to intervene again, I would be interested to hear whether that means that he is comfortable with voter ID, because his party, prior to the general election—I appreciate that he would not have voted on it, because he was not—
Dr Johnson
I merely make the point that ID is used for purposes other than to buy cigarettes and tobacco, Sir Roger.
I want to return to a point raised in an earlier intervention about the group of people who would be asked to carry ID. If somebody’s birthday is, like mine, in 1977, it is sadly unlikely that anyone will think that I was born in or after 2009. The cohort affected will be those born around 2006 or 2012. I do not see this as an ID for old people through the back door, because, as I view it, there will be a cohort of people within five or even 10 years on either side of the 2009 boundary who will find themselves required to carry ID if they wish to smoke. If they do not wish to smoke or use any tobacco, cigarettes or smoking products, they will not be affected.
Jim Dickson
Sorry. Does the hon. Lady accept that the changes that have resulted in significant decreases in smoking prevalence over the last 20 years have all been about imposing additional burdens on those who wish to smoke, such as on where they can smoke and how they can buy the products, which are now in lockable cupboards rather than out on display in shops? Asking someone who wishes to smoke to carry ID is an increased burden—a very small one, but an increased burden none the less—and it is all part of the policy family that has enabled us to reduce smoking prevalence from between 25% and 30% 20 or 30 years ago to 12% now, and that will hopefully help us reduce it to 5% or 0% in the future.
Dr Johnson
It is certainly the case, as I am sure we will come to when we discuss clause 1 itself in more detail, that where tobacco control measures have been brought in—on place, price, display or age group—they have led to a fall in smoking, which is a welcome and intended outcome.
I have been lumbered with a lot of interventions and I did not get to answer one point in full, which was on the issue of adult consistency. Amendment 17 would create two groups of adults—those aged between 18 and 25, who would be unable to smoke or use tobacco products, and those over 25, who would. The previous Government sought to say, “This is when you become an adult—when you turn 18. Before that, you are a child, and we will use child protection and safeguarding measures, so you cannot get married or buy a lottery ticket.” We sought to create consistency across the board, because consistency helps people to understand what the law is, which makes it easier for them to follow it and give a greater level of consent to it.
Let me turn back to the amendments. I cannot speak directly for the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, who tabled the amendments, but one of the reasons that has been given to me for increasing the age to 25 is that people normally begin smoking when they are young. Most people begin before they are 16, and many more before they are 21. That means that in principle, if we raised the age to 25, we would find that people did not start smoking in any great numbers, because their brain and their thinking process would be more mature, so they would be less likely to start. It is also the case that if someone starts smoking at a younger age, they are more vulnerable to the addictive properties of nicotine, as we heard in the impact assessment and in medical evidence.
Tristan Osborne
One of the challenges with introducing an age restriction of 25 is that a 19-year-old can smoke today, but that rule would suddenly take away a right that they previously had. However, the proposal on the table is for a sliding scale, whereby they will never have had the right to smoke. We are not taking away a right that someone might have had previously. Does the hon. Lady accept that there is a slight difference between having an age restriction of 25 and a sliding increase in age?
Dr Johnson
The hon. Gentleman is exactly right, in my personal view, to say that. As we heard before, the previous Government wanted to ensure that in bringing forward a Bill, they were not going to criminalise people with an addiction to a product that they could not quit, and therefore leave them in a situation where they could no longer buy the product they needed to feed that addiction. Obviously, we want them to stop, but we do not want to make them stop by making them criminals. So, yes, I would be concerned that sticking in a sudden increase to 25 would mean that any smokers legally accessing tobacco products between the ages of 18 and 25 would find themselves somewhat stuck. That is not something I would wish to see.
Gregory Stafford
As a point of clarification, what the proposals in the Bill, and indeed the amendment, deal with is the selling of tobacco products, not the consumption. So when we are talking people not being able to smoke, they would be able to, but a retailer would not be able to sell them tobacco products. I say that just so we are clear what we are talking about.
Dr Johnson
Under this clause, it is true that somebody would not be able to purchase tobacco, but clause 2 means that somebody cannot purchase tobacco on behalf of somebody else. It would not be possible legally for somebody under the age of 25, if the clause was amended, or somebody born after 1 January 2009, if it was not, to buy tobacco, but it would also be illegal for them to use it because, under clause 2, which provides for proxy purchase, the person who gave the younger individual tobacco would themselves have broken the law.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Can we acknowledge that youth initiation often starts before the age of 18? Moving the age to 25, as this amendment proposes, would not automatically shift the dial on when youth initiation starts by seven years. The Bill permanently demarcates a smoke-free generation that we are specifically targeting.
Dr Johnson
When Parliament brings in any law of any kind, most people will follow it—the vast majority of the public are law-abiding citizens who want to know what the law is and obey it. However, whatever law we bring in, there will always be people who will disobey it. Even if cigarettes were completely banned, people would buy them. Many products—cocaine and heroin, for example—are banned, but some people still access and purchase them, so the Bill would not eliminate the issue completely.
Perhaps I could answer the hon. Gentleman with a couple of statistics. According to the Government impact assessment, 66% of smokers begin smoking before they are 18, and 83% before they are 20. Yet the research shows that three quarters of those smokers, were they to have their time again, would prefer never to have started smoking.
The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the age of sale for cigarettes was previously 16 and that a previous Government made it 18 instead. The effect was reviewed by scientists at University College London in 2010, and we saw a fall in smoking in all age groups. That is in line with what we have seen across a lot of the western world: smoking rates have declined. Actually, if we look at the difference between the younger and the older people, that fall was 11% in those in the 18 to 24 age group, but 30% in those aged 16 to 17. That meant that the age group targeted by the ban was much more likely not to start smoking. That is the start of the smoke-free generation, and we hope that a similar pattern will be seen and roll forwards.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
On that point, according to Cancer Research, about nine in 10 people start smoking before the age of 21. Surely, if we increase that to 25, by default we are preventing more people from starting by that point. Going back to enforcement, I think that 25 is more of an age by which we have caught the youth and stopped them from starting.
Dr Johnson
I understand that opinion, and I guess that is what is behind amendment 17, which was proposed by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. The evidence—certainly that which we heard on Tuesday from the chief medical officer and others—suggests that raising the age as far as 25 will help, and the Government’s impact assessment says they considered that option; they thought it would help to reduce smoking levels, and I think that that is true. However, it does bring the risk of either creating a great delay in bringing these measures in, because we want to wait until all current 18-year-old smokers are 25, or criminalising people who are currently legal smokers. If we still ended up with people starting smoking at 25, we would have not created that smoke-free generation, because we would not have brought those rates of smoking down as close to zero as possible. Given the harms caused by smoking—I am sure we will go through them in the debate on clause 1—it is important that we do all we can to reduce the number of smokers.
Jim Dickson
On the point made the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire, a common maxim applied to our public policy on harmful substances is that we permit. Even having a permission to smoke and buy cigarettes after the age of 25 means that society is effectively saying that that is fine to do, albeit harmful. We do not do that with very many other harmful substances, so it would seem odd to do it with cigarettes.
Dr Johnson
I think this comes down to the libertarian argument. Someone can be an adult either because they are over the age of 25, as per amendment 17, or because they are born before 1 January 2009, as per clause 1, unamended by amendment 17. Essentially, whichever type of adult someone is, we would normally say, “If you are an adult, you make an informed choice about which substances to take and what risks you want to take with your life.” But two thirds of people who take cigarettes will die as a result.
There are other substances that we do ban, and there is a scale. There is the libertarian who would have us make all drugs—whether cannabis, cocaine or heroin—free for everyone to use and to buy as they choose. That is not a position I subscribe to, but it is a position that some subscribe to. There are also those who would go further and ban many more substances, such as certain foods that are particularly sweet or fatty but otherwise enjoyable. There is a spectrum, and I think—society probably agrees—that the judgment is that tobacco is very harmful to those who consume it, and potentially to those around them, in a way that does not offer them any significant benefit. I am a doctor, and when we prescribe medication, we look at the risk balance between the benefits of the substance that we are giving somebody and its potential harm. However, with smoking, as far as I can tell, there are no real benefits, other than an emptier pocket—because an individual has spent so much money—worse lungs and worse health.
Sarah Bool
Just to play devil’s advocate, there will be some who will say that they have a cigar from time to time, and that will be caught by this legislation. Cigars are not used in the same way as cigarettes, and they are not seen to be as highly addictive. People do not chain smoke cigars. Is it fair in that instance to remove their liberty to smoke a cigar? I am just pointing that out as a non-smoker.
Dr Johnson
I will come back to that point when we get to the debate on clause 1 and tobacco products. It is an important point, but I am aware of the Chair’s tolerance, and the discussion at the moment is on amendment 17.
On the rise in age of sale, I talked about research that UCL did in 2010. Further research done in 2020 looked at the effect of raising the age of sale from 16 to 18 and found that the rates of ever smoking—people who had ever had a cigarette—had declined more among those aged 16 to 17 than among those aged 18 to 24. That supports the position that if access is restricted for younger people, they are less likely to smoke, which goes back to the point that most people are law-abiding citizens and wish to follow the rules. Restricting sale also emphasises the dangers to people in their own minds, which is a point we will come back to in the discussion on vapes.
Let me move on to amendment 18, which is linked to amendment 17. It would leave out the words
“shown on that document was before 1 January 2009”
in clause 1 and insert the words
“showed that the purchaser was not under the age of 25”.
This is a technical point to allow the ID to reflect the principle of who is allowed to purchase tobacco. It is a broad shift. In the view of the proposer, transitioning from a birth date-specific restriction to a general age-based restriction simplifies compliance for sellers by focusing on the current age. In my view, it actually makes it more complicated, because there is more mathematics to do in one’s head. If one is fortunate enough to work in a pharmacy, as the hon. Member for North Somerset discussed, it requires two dates in the computer, which is more difficult than one.
Sarah Bool
I understand the point about the potential complexities, but there is a risk on enforcement that whenever anyone goes to buy cigarettes in the future, they will have to have some form of ID. That creates a distortion: someone could just be assumed to be over the age of 25, whereas under the Bill they will always have to be checked.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is making a point about ID for purchasing things. It is reasonable to ask people to have ID when they go and collect a parcel, to make sure that they are getting a parcel for the right address. In my view, it is reasonable—I do not think my hon. Friend voted for it, but I suspect she would support the idea—to provide ID in order to vote to maintain our democratic process. Having ID to buy an age-restricted product does not seem overly burdensome. I accept that it makes it more difficult for people below that age, because it provides a hurdle for them to overcome, in terms of potentially accessing some sort of fake ID. Most people want to obey the law, and that is an extra step in breaking the law that they would have to take, which they would not wish to do. I think we may have to agree to disagree on this point.
Amendment 22 would amend clause 5, substituting the words
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
with the phrase
“under the age of 25”.
That is consistent with the changes that would be made by amendment 17 to clause 1. Amendment 23 would make a similar amendment to clause 6, again changing the date. The other amendments in this group are amendments 24, 44 and 48, which is in Welsh—I trust that it says the same thing, but since I do not speak any Welsh, I cannot be clear on that. This group also includes amendments 46, 47 and 39 to 43. Again, they all seek to change the thrust of the Bill away from a rolling smoke-free generation to a fixed age of 25.
The Chair
Before we proceed, I shall not be in the Chair this afternoon, but I would be grateful if the shadow Minister could indicate whether she wishes to press amendment 18 as well as amendment 17, whether it is only amendment 17, or whether she may decide in due course not to press either. That is a matter for later, but it would be helpful to know if she wishes to press either.
Dr Johnson
It was my intention to ensure that the debate, even if it is on issues I do not support, got a hearing and that Members of the House who wished to contribute were able to do so. The purpose was to allow the amendments to be debated. I do not intend to push any of them to a vote.
Jack Rankin
I would like to support those amendments, if that changes anything, Sir Roger.
The Chair
We will have a debate first. The hon. Gentleman is in a position to push the amendment to a Division if he chooses to do so, but not yet.
The only other thing I need to know before I call the Government Whip, which I assume is my next move, is to say that, ordinarily, when I am in the Chair, we have a thing called a clause stand part debate at the end of each clause—on the question that the clause, as amended, if it is amended, stand part of the Bill. I have always taken a fairly relaxed view: you can have a debate on clause stand part or you can debate clause stand part during all the amendments, but you cannot do both; you cannot have two bites of that cherry and just say the same thing all over again.
Ordinarily, under these circumstances, my impression already would be that by the time we have been through all these amendments, there would be no need for a clause stand part debate. I would then move straight to putting the question that the clause stand part of the Bill, but—I am afraid it is a big “but”—in this instance, the clause stand part debate is linked with two new clauses and two more stand part debates, so we will have to have it at the end. I would urge—and I expect that my colleague who takes over in the Chair this afternoon will wish to observe this—that we do not repeat the arguments that have been made on clause 1 stand part during the bigger debate at the end. I hope that is clear. If not, Members should, again, seek advice.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I have a few preliminary announcements to make. Members should send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Today, we will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication. In view of the time available, I hope we can take those matters formally and without debate. I call the Minister to move the programme motion standing in her name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 11.30 am on Thursday 9 January) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Thursday 9 January;
(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 14 January;
(c) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 16 January;
2. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 16 January. —(Emma Hardy.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Emma Hardy.)
The Chair
We shall now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list for today’s sittings is available in the room. It shows how the clauses and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order in which they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list show the order of debates. The decision on each amendment, and on whether each clause should stand part of the Bill, is taken when we come to the relevant clause.
A Member who has put their name to the 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 within that 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 will need to indicate if they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they will need to let me know in advance. I am sure that is clear to everyone.
Clause 1
Rules about remuneration and governance
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—
“(1A) The Authority must use its power under subsection (1) to issue rules which require—
(a) the interests of customers, and
(b) the environment,
to be listed as primary objectives in a relevant undertaker’s Articles of Association.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 18, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
“(ca) requiring the management board of a relevant undertaker to include at least one representative of each of the following—
(i) groups for the benefit and interests of consumers;
(ii) groups for the benefit and interests of residents of the areas in which the undertaker is operational;
(iii) experts in water and sewerage policy and management; and
(iv) environmental interest groups.”
Government amendment 1.
Amendment 19, in clause 1, page 2, line 8, at end insert—
“(e) preventing a relevant undertaker from employing any individual who has been employed by the Authority in the preceding three years.”
Government amendment 2.
Amendment 21, in clause 1, page 4, line 35, leave out from “force” to the end of line 40.
Clause stand part.
Tim Farron
Happy new year to all colleagues. It is good to be in this place and it is a great pleasure to serve under your guidance as Chair, Mr Vickers. I put on the record my thanks to the Minister for her engagement, and to the Committee Clerks and the Minister’s team for being immensely constructive throughout this process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Witney will speak to amendment 22, and I will make remarks on amendment 18, which, with your permission, Mr Vickers, I will press to a vote if the Government are not minded to accept it. I will also voice my concerns about amendment 2 and I give notice that we will vote against it.
Among the challenges that we face is the complete and utterly justified lack of trust in the water sector—water companies in particular, but also the regulatory framework. Amendment 18 was tabled to ensure that some of the people appointed to the boards of water companies, whatever their structure otherwise, have a connection to the benefit and interests of the consumers within the region; will benefit the residents within the areas in which the undertaker—the water company—is operational; and are experts and campaigners on environmental and sewage policy matters.
I am sure that Members on both sides of the House have people in their communities equivalent to the ones I will briefly mention. People from groups such as the Clean River Kent campaign, the Eden Rivers Trust, the South Cumbria Rivers Trust and the Save Windermere campaign, in addition to citizen scientists and others who represent local interests and have great expertise, ought to be on the boards of the outfits that run our waterways in future, and that should be in the Bill.
The amendment would bring the expertise and accountability that we are seriously lacking, and it would build trust, which our water companies are also lacking. We think that the case for it is self-evident, because those bodies and others around the country self-evidently have the expertise, authority and tenacity to add huge value and to ensure that our water companies deliver for the communities they are meant to serve, not just their shareholders.
Government amendment 1 seeks to undo an amendment added by my hon. Friends in the other place. Our concern is that if the Government insist on it and we do not have a much tighter timescale, that will basically undermine the regulation and leave it open-ended so that we cannot be certain that we would be able to enforce the things that the Bill seeks to do in a timely fashion. To ensure that the Bill does what it is supposed to do, we should not cut the water companies any slack.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I rise to explain amendment 22. On 11 July, the Environment Secretary issued a press release on the reform of the water industry that stated:
“Water companies will place customers and the environment at the heart of their objectives. Companies have agreed to change their ‘Articles of Association’—the rules governing each company—to make the interests of customers and the environment a primary objective.”
However, that commitment is not currently in the Bill. The amendment simply seeks to bring that commitment into this legislation.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers.
On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I rise to challenge the Government on their plans in Government amendments 1 and 2. Before I go into the detail, I will make some general comments about the clause that are pertinent to the amendments.
The Opposition worry that the Bill, rather than taking original and new measures to tackle these issues, is purely an attempt to copy and paste the work done by our previous Conservative Government. In fact, many of the measures have already been copied from previous measures that we introduced in government.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
In the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, we took evidence from the chief executive of Ofwat, who was clear that the bonus that the boss of Southern Water, Lawrence Gosden, received this year would not have been paid had the previous Conservative Government brought the measures in this Bill before the House. The Conservatives had 14 years to change the rules, but they failed to do so.
Dr Hudson
With the greatest respect, I sat on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the previous Parliament, and we took evidence from the chief executive of Ofwat on some of the key measures that the Conservative Government brought forward. Our Government gave Ofwat teeth and powers, and we need to make sure it uses them.
As detailed in the explanatory notes, Ofwat already has wide powers to set the conditions of water company appointments and licences. The Conservatives worked hard to strengthen its ability and power to do that since this issue came to the fore in order to drive the regulatory change that was vitally needed to tackle the scale of the crisis that came to light.
I again remind Members on both sides of the House that when Labour left office in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were monitored; when we Conservatives left office, 100% of outflows were monitored. We found the scale of the sewage problem and were the first party to start to address it. The Conservative Government’s Environment Act 2021 gave Ofwat the power to consider, when deliberating about dividends, the environmental performance of a company and its credit rating, whereby Ofwat could stop the paying of dividends if it felt that the firm faced financial risks as a result of its actions.
Charlie Maynard
The hon. Gentleman said that 100% of outflows are monitored, but I am afraid that is not correct. In fact, 100% of the 14,000 storm outflows are monitored—he did not mention storm—but 7,000 emergency overflows are not currently monitored. On the other aspect that he just mentioned, Ofwat was entirely devoid of looking at the balance sheets of the companies under the Conservatives’ watch. That is the root of all our trouble, and it would be beneficial to acknowledge that.
Dr Hudson
If the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard, he will see that in my speech on Second Reading and just now I said “storm overflows”. I gently remind the third-party spokesman that in the coalition Government the Liberal Democrats had a Water Minister who did absolutely nothing on this issue.
Dr Hudson
I was referring to the hon. Gentleman’s colleague.
It is therefore worrying that although the previous Administration went to great lengths to ensure that water companies were financially resilient, this Government are doing quite the opposite with Government amendment 1. That amendment, which will leave out lines 4 to 8 of clause 1, would amend the requirement for rules made by Ofwat under the clause to specifically include rules on financial reporting. That could not more clearly delineate the Conservative approach that the Labour party so derided—it promised the British people that it would do things differently—from the actual approach that Labour has taken in power.
Government amendment 1 undermines not only the hard efforts of the previous Conservative Government in taking the issue seriously, but the efforts of the cross-party consensus that secured the commitment to having financial reporting rules made by Ofwat in the Bill. That cross-party coalition, which included my Conservative colleagues in the other place, forced the Government to ensure that the original commitment would be in place in the Bill. Labour voted against the commitment and is simply seeking to overturn a clear cross-party consensus for Ofwat to be given powers to set rules on financial reporting.
Ensuring that Ofwat can view a water company’s financial structuring will help it to scrutinise and have an understanding of how the company is operating. It will also ensure that the consumers who have been let down by the water industry for far too long are protected. With close financial monitoring, water companies will face the necessary scrutiny to reduce the risk that ordinary consumers are left without a supplier. Financial mismanagement poses great risks, so every sinew must be strained to prevent it; financial reporting is key to ensuring that that takes place. The financial resilience of the water companies is not a hypothetical issue, but a paramount concern right now.
As recently as November, Ofwat’s monitoring financial responsibility report identified 10 companies that needed an increased level of monitoring and/or engagement concerning financial resilience. Seven of those companies were placed in the elevated concern category, meaning that some concerns or potential concerns with their financial resilience have been identified. Three companies were placed in the highest category of action required, meaning that action must be taken or is being taken to strengthen the company’s challenges with financial resilience, and therefore they need to publish additional information and report on improvements at a more senior level with Ofwat.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his Government had 14 years to reform Ofwat, during which time they did absolutely nothing?
Dr Hudson
I respectfully disagree with the hon. Member. We passed the Environment Act 2021, we gave Ofwat and the Environment Agency more teeth and, as I have said, we were the first party to start measuring and collecting the data that meant we could act on this issue. Moving forward, we are trying to ensure that Ofwat and the Environment Agency use the teeth given to them by the previous Conservative Government to make our waters better. To suggest with Government amendment 1 that Ofwat should not be concerned with financial resilience rules quite simply sends the wrong message to the public, so I urge the Government to reconsider. The Opposition will seek to push Government amendment 1 to a vote.
Catherine Fookes
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I take the opportunity to welcome the measures in the Bill, particularly those in clause 1, and to thank the Minister for her really swift work. We know all too well the damage that has been done by water companies and agricultural pollution across the UK. That damage has only been exacerbated by years of Conservative failure, allowing for record levels of illegal sewage dumping in our rivers, lakes and seas.
In my constituency of Monmouthshire, we have the majestic rivers the Wye, the Usk and the Monnow. Armies of citizen scientists, co-ordinated by the wonderful Save the River Usk group in Usk with Angela Jones, have been monitoring the river over the past few years. Sadly, it is getting worse and worse. The levels of phosphate pollution in the River Usk are the worst in all the nine Welsh rivers that are special areas of conservation—SACs.
This Labour Government have only been in office for six months, yet we are already taking more action to tackle the scourge of sewage than the Conservative party did—indeed, more than the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrat party did—when they were in government. Instead of obfuscation and delay, we are getting serious action to end the disgraceful behaviour that we have been discussing. That is especially evident in clause 1, which seeks to ban bonuses for water bosses unless high standards of protecting the environment are met. Water bosses must also involve consumers in decision making. In addition, the clause ensures that failing water bosses will no longer be able to be water bosses. This action is essential if we are to hold water company bosses to account and ensure that they act in the best interests of the public and the environment, rather than in the interests of their own pockets.
I am pleased that in Wales we have the not-for-profit water company Dŵr Cymru. Sadly, however, that status has not stopped the company from leaking sewage. In 2023, we had 2,383 sewage dumping incidents in Monmouthshire, which is 2,383 too many. In 2022, chief executive Peter Perry took home £332,000 and a further £232,000 in bonuses, while in the latest financial year Ofwat had to step in and stop the company from paying out £163,000 of bonuses from customers’ money.
I am sure that I am not alone in recognising the injustice of such bosses’ being paid hundreds of thousands of pounds in bonuses while polluting our environment. It is clear to me that significant Government action and regulation is needed, and the clause delivers it. It finally ensures that the polluter pays. I support it wholeheartedly.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I am pleased to see you in your place, Mr Vickers.
I am not going to speak to the Government amendments; I merely repeat the very good arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest. At this stage, however, I will just express a couple of concerns that I have about amendment 18, tabled by the Liberal Democrats.
I understand the rationale or the intention behind amendment 18; we all want the water companies to pay closer attention to the interests of their consumers. I note in passing that they already have a statutory duty—a consumer-focused statutory duty—but the actions taken by the Conservative Government over the past 14 years to ask questions about the state of sewage discharges and to get information about them, so as to take effective action to bring them to an end, bring with them an additional need.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale highlighted a loss of trust in the water undertakers, and I agree with him on that. There has been a significant loss of trust as their poor behaviour, which was uncovered by the Conservative Administration, has been met with considerable outrage—justifiable outrage—by the Government and by members of the public.
However, I fear that there will be some significant unintended consequences associated with the drafting of amendment 18, relating to the legal obligations of a board member. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred to those new positions being on the boards of companies. There are legal obligations that apply to all board members and I question whether the representatives of consumers and of the voluntary organisations that have been so active in this area over the past few years would really want to be exposed to the legal obligations of being a member of the board of a plc, because those obligations are significant and onerous.
Charlie Maynard
It is fairly standard on boards today to have directors and officers insurance; indeed, all board members have it. What is the problem with the new people also having D&O insurance?
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for that intervention. However, it seems an odd way to proceed if it is recognised that there is a risk to voluntary members who join boards, exposing them to personal obligations, such as a fiduciary duty of care. There is also a legal duty of loyalty to the organisation, which such volunteers might find quite difficult to stomach. There is a duty of obedience to the organisation as well. It seems odd at this drafting stage to say, “We recognise that there is a risk, but don’t worry: you can take out insurance and you’ll probably be okay.” It seems odd to introduce an amendment in an imperfect form, rather than perfecting it.
Charlie Maynard
First, it is up to each individual to sign up or not; they do so of their own free will. Secondly, this is standard insurance which almost all boards have in the UK and internationally nowadays, which protects board members. It would not be specifically for those board members; it would be for all board members. To say that that is a concern, and that we should not make this provision on those grounds, seems odd.
Jerome Mayhew
I have expressed my concerns. It would be perfectly possible to achieve the object, which I share, of improving the voice of the customer in water companies, or of improving the implementation of the existing obligation on water companies to take account of the consumer interest. I do not think that the current drafting is the best that we can do. I raise these concerns so that they may be properly considered.
Helena Dollimore
I thank the Minister for all her work in introducing this Bill so quickly in the new Parliament. It is a Bill that my constituents in Hastings and Rye desperately need. As I have said many times in this House, our constituency of Hastings, Rye and the villages has suffered hugely at the hands of Southern Water. Litres of raw sewage has been pumped into the sea. Our town centre has been flooded twice, leaving homes and businesses under sewage water, and our taps have run dry twice in less than a year. We in Hastings and Rye felt the impact of 14 years of Conservative failure to crack down on water companies’ bad behaviour.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I agree with many of the hon. Lady’s points. Many of our constituents are feeling the same effects, but does she not agree that the reason why the Bill has been introduced so quickly in this Parliament with so few new ideas in it is that most of the work was done by the previous Government?
Helena Dollimore
I think Opposition Members are slightly confused about the record of the Government of the past 14 years, of which both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives were a part at different points. My constituents in Hastings, Rye and the villages would find the hon. Gentleman’s assertion that the last Government fixed the crisis in our water companies very bizarre indeed. I draw his attention to the powers that this Government are introducing to ban bosses’ bonuses when they fail our constituents. The last Government left thousands of outlets unmonitored, and when there were monitors, they were reporting to the water companies themselves. What this Government are doing differently is not allowing the water companies to mark their own homework; we are saying that monitors should report directly to Government, not the water companies.
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Lady says that it was the last Government who allowed the water companies—the undertakers—to mark their own homework. Does she not recall that it was actually the Labour Government in 2008 who specifically changed the rules to allow water companies to do just that in relation to their environmental performance?
Helena Dollimore
I am yet to hear an apology from the Conservatives for their failure to put monitors on any outlet in my constituency, their failure to make those monitors report to Government at all, and their failure to address the severity of the sewage scandal that has caused so much disruption for my constituents, for local businesses and for so many people up and down this country.
I pay tribute to campaigners in so many of our constituencies. Many are in the Public Gallery and they have done so much work exposing this scandal for what it is. We would not be discussing the scale of this scandal were it not for their hard work. In my constituency, Clean Water Action Group campaigners go out regularly of their own accord and out of their own pockets to test the water to expose what Southern Water is doing in our community. I pay tribute to them.
What we are discussing today is a measure to ban bosses’ bonuses, because it is so important that we do not see what we have seen over the last 14 years of Conservative Government—the continued failure to prevent Southern Water from rewarding bosses with bonuses. Laurence Gosden, the chief executive of Southern Water, received a bonus last year when we had seen repeated failure in Hastings and Rye under Southern Water’s watch. As I said earlier, the chief executive of Ofwat confirmed to the Select Committee that had the measures in the Bill been put in place last year by the Conservative Government, the bonus would not have been paid. Laurence Gosden only received that bonus because of the failure of the Conservatives to act when they had 14 years to do so.
Helena Dollimore
I will make some progress, because I know that we need to make progress in the debate.
In conclusion, I thank the Minister for her work on bringing the Bill before the House so quickly. I know that this is just the start of the change that we need to deliver on our water companies. This Government are acting where the previous Conservative and coalition Governments failed, and are working to clean up our water system.
Charlie Maynard
I have a question for you, Mr Vickers. This is my first Bill Committee and I am trying to understand how everything works. There are six amendments to clause 1, and our task is to do line-by-line scrutiny. My ambition is to understand why the Government support or reject each of those amendments. At the moment, in our debate of clause 1, we are swimming quite happily between those amendments. I would love your advice, Mr Vickers, as to how we work to understand what the story is on each amendment in turn, because I am not clear on that.
The Chair
There will be an opportunity to force any amendment to a Division, if the hon. Member wishes. We are attempting line-by-line scrutiny—I think it is more like a debate on Second Reading, but that is by the way. Does that answer your question? The Minister will respond.
Charlie Maynard
Perhaps, since I am standing, I will make the other two points I want to make.
We have touched on Government amendment 2 already, but I think it is important. I was very pleased to see the wording coming in about bonuses. Proposed new section 35B(3) of the Water Industry Act 1991 says:
“Rules made for the purposes of imposing the prohibition mentioned in subsection (2)(a) (“the pay prohibition”)”.
That is the ban on bonuses. While the explanatory statement says that it is to prevent the need for a statutory instrument—which the Liberal Democrats support and seek to do in further amendments—the impact of the Government’s change is also to remove the requirement for the rules to be published by Ofwat within six months. That we find very odd.
I take it in good faith that the Government are keen to have the measures implemented, so we do not understand why they would take the timeline out. The Government want to ensure that it happens, but as currently stated, they are removing the timeline. Taking it on good faith that Ofwat will publish the rules is less strong than keeping in that commitment to six months.
I will correct the hon. Member for Epping Forest on our amendment 21. Our amendment relates to the same aspect of the Bill as Government amendment 2. However, we want to retain the need for Ofwat to publish the rules on bonuses within six months but remove the option for that to be kicked into the long grass by requiring the Secretary of State to lay a statutory instrument to bring them into effect. By taking out that provision, we remove that risk. That is the purpose.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
As a new Member, it is a privilege to serve on a Bill Committee under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers—I hope I will get all of it right. I felt particularly moved to speak on these amendments and clause 1, given some of the earlier comments. I was a bit worried that we had been transported by the Opposition back to a previous Conservative age, because we seem to be being told that water customers have never had it so good—as one of their predecessors said—because of all the action that was taken.
There has been a lot of talk about teeth. I ask the Minister to confirm that the Bill is about the dentistry that is needed to put more teeth into the water sector. When she responds, will she identify whether the clauses that the Government have tabled help to address some of the very real anger that my constituents feel about the way they have been ghosted and treated by the big water companies and the behaviour of some of the senior leadership? Representing a seat with Anglian Water, which I think applies to some other Members present, I place it on the record that there is real frustration at the performance and actions of such a large company when at the same time as more than 3,000 hours of sewage were being dumped into rivers around my area, the fens and John Clare county, we saw the Anglian Water chief executive receiving £1.3 million in a package of pay and bonuses, despite that poor performance. The anger and the desire and drive of this Government, but also the public, to see action is palpable, so I very much welcome the Bill and I seek clarity on that. It is absolutely right, as the Government have outlined, that we have a fast Bill to get these teeth and this emergency dental treatment delivered quickly, so that we can come back and put the braces on for the rest of the water sector—[Laughter.] I think I am running out of places where that analogy can go; it is getting very dangerous.
When we get the Cunliffe report and others, we will look at some of the bigger issues for the water sector, but I am very concerned by that £1.3 million. I serve as a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye that when we directly asked Ofwat whether it had the dental tools to challenge and put the surgery on to the water companies, Ofwat was very clear that it did not. I specifically asked the chief executive and leadership of Ofwat about another bête noire of the debate, which is Thames Water. Up until March 2024, in those three months, the chief executive gave themself a £195,000 bonus. Since 2020, we have seen £41 million given to water company chief executives in bonuses and incentives, so can the Minister reassure this Committee that the clauses that the Government have put forward will help to restore trust and put in place initial measures so that we can get on with this, end the delay, take action and start to put right the problems that the Government have inherited, and then look at the wider issues when we get the report later in the year?
Tim Farron
I will just have a quick canter through three things that I should have talked about earlier. My apologies, Mr Vickers, and thank you for your indulgence. I will speak to amendments 21 and 19 and new clause 26 briefly.
I reiterate the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney about amendment 21. I have great respect for the hon. Member for Epping Forest, but I think he has misunderstood. As my hon. Friend said, our amendment seeks to ensure that we do not run the risk of kicking into the long grass the taking of action against bonuses by sticking that provision anywhere other than in the Bill. We were not planning to divide on it, but we will be happy to be the ones voting in favour of immediate action rather than kicking it into the long grass, if that is what he wishes to do.
I do not want to bore anybody about the coalition, but it has been mentioned—give me 20 seconds on it, Mr Vickers. The privatisation of the water industry was where all this went wrong. All the parties that have been in government in the 35 years since then share some responsibility. Just for the record, it is worth stating that DEFRA had no Liberal Democrat Minister in it at all for the majority of the coalition period. For 18 months, my great friend Dan Rogerson served in that position. That was the time during the coalition, by the way, in which we undid some of the foolish capital costs that were made at the beginning of the coalition. It is the opposite of the truth to say that we did nothing; we actually did the only thing that did happen during that time. It is also worth bearing in mind—people might remember—that we were in the EU then and properly regulated, and things were different. That is the end of that defence.
Dr Hudson
His recollection is perhaps different from many people and the public at large regarding the Liberal Democrat record on water. His party seemed to jump on this bandwagon once the Conservatives were the party that actually started measuring the scale of the problem.
Returning to amendment 21, the hon. Gentleman has the word “Democrat” in the name of his party. I do not know why they are so scared of having democratic and ministerial accountability by having a very simple clause in the Bill that would provide for a statutory instrument being laid so that the Secretary of State for DEFRA would have some accountability for that. I take on board the point about the first part of paragraph 5 in terms of the first six months of the Bill, but with the amendment would remove two thirds of that clause, which was put in with cross-party consensus in the other place. I am surprised that they are scared of democratic accountability.
Tim Farron
Well, that is bizarre. With total respect for the hon. Gentleman, he completely misunderstands. We are seeking to put this on the face of the Bill and not kick it off to a statutory instrument. That seems the opposite of anti-democratic—or, indeed, democratic.
Let us move on to the other issues I would like to briefly mention. New clause 26, which is in this group—
Tim Farron
In that case, I will speak to amendment 19, which is about revolving doors. Amendment 19 seeks to prevent a revolving door between water companies and the regulator. In July 2023, the chief executive of Ofwat stepped down to very swiftly pick up the role of interim chief executive of Thames Water. An analysis by The Observer in 2023 found 27 former Ofwat directors, managers and consultants working in the industry they helped to regulate until shortly beforehand, with about half of them in very senior posts.
Some work that the Liberal Democrats did in the last 18 months found that the director for regulatory strategy at the country’s largest water firm, Thames Water, was previously an Ofwat employee. Meanwhile, a senior principal at Ofwat moved directly from Thames Water, where they worked on market development. We also found links between Ofwat and Southern Water, Northumbrian Water and South West Water, including directors who work on regulation. The amendment tries to prevent that revolving door, which clearly brings in a potential conflict of interest. It also builds the quite justified absence of trust. I can feel an intervention brewing—go for it.
Jerome Mayhew
I am not against the principle of this—in fact, I am strongly in favour of it—but I have some practical questions. I wonder whether this would bump up against individuals’ human rights and restraint of trade arguments in the courts. I must confess that I was previously a barrister. That was a long time ago, so I have dangerously little knowledge now, but it was certainly the case that the courts would habitually not enforce a restraint of trade clause on a contractual basis that was in excess of 12 months. I know that this would be legislation, but to have such a wide-ranging blanket prohibition for such a long period against all employees, irrespective of the role they undertook and the role that they might in future undertake with a water company, might be challenged successfully under human rights legislation. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has considered that in his drafting.
The Chair
I remind Members that interventions should be short—much shorter than the last two. I have been very generous.
Tim Farron
I appreciate that, Mr Vickers. I am very grateful for the helpful and constructive intervention the hon. Gentleman just made. Look, this is not an amendment we are seeking to press to a vote, but it is an issue that is clearly very serious in terms of the quality and safety of regulation. We are perfectly happy for the Government to use all the legal might they have available to find a way of amending the Bill on Report to deal with the issue in a way that builds confidence and prevents obvious conflicts of interest.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. This is an important topic and Committee, but before I talk about that, I wish gently to remind the hon. Member for Epping Forest that the Conservative party was in power for 14 years. I know the general election defeat was historic—quite enormous—but I do not think the bump to the head should have caused such an enormous loss of memory about what was achieved, or not achieved, over the past 14 years. Residents of Bournemouth East are incandescent about the state of water infrastructure and the sewage that they are enduring as a seaside town. It is no surprise that as a consequence, when I was campaigning in the general election and knocking on doors since, people raised this hot topic with me.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
As a fellow Member from a coastal town, I echo my hon. Friend’s point about the anger and frustration on the doors from residents in Weston-super-Mare. Over the past decade the quality of water on the three main beaches has got worse and worse, and the bathing water at all three is now classified as poor. The anxiety among every sector of the community is really high, and political point scoring aside, the situation is dire. This week raw sewage was spilled on Uphill beach because of the crumbling infrastructure. I urge the Government—I am pleased we have grasped the nettle—to take on the big challenges.
Tom Hayes
I thank my hon. Friend for his important intervention. It is great to see him championing his constituency, and it goes to show why Labour won in so many seaside and coastal towns. The people of those towns and cities trusted Labour to bring forward a Bill such as this as quickly as we have done, and this is just the start of change. As we have heard, more legislation will come forward, but so that we do not delay and wait for the full package, the Minister is bringing forward this action rapidly to respond to the urgent case that is being made on doorsteps all around our country, particularly in our seaside towns.
I have constituents who are livid about the fact that while infrastructure has crumbled, no investment has gone in, and money has gone out the door in bonuses and shareholder payment dividends, bills are rising. That is not just water bills—bills on a whole host of things contribute to the significant cost of living crisis that so many in our country have felt. I welcome the efforts of this Government, and I congratulate the Minister on all the hard work that she and her officials have been undertaking. I very much look forward to seeing further development of our programme of investment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, and if I may I will start by wishing everyone a happy new year. I thank members of the Committee for the engagement with the Bill they have shown, and I also thank all the environmental groups, everyone who submitted evidence, and Members in the other place for the work they did on the Bill.
I am pleased to be back debating this vital piece of legislation. As I set out on Second Reading, the Bill will drive meaningful improvements in the performance and culture of the water industry as part of wider efforts to ensure that water companies deliver for both customers and the environment and, as has been mentioned in the debate so far, act on the real anger and mistrust we feel towards our water sector at the moment.
However, the Bill is one part of the Government’s ambitious and long-term approach to fundamentally transforming the water sector. As Members will be aware, in October 2024 the Government announced an independent commission, which will be the largest review of the water sector since privatisation. The commission has a broad scope and will consult experts in areas such as the environment, public health, engineering and economics, as well as customers and investors. It will look closely at financial resilience as one of its key areas—I know we all care about that.
I reassure members of the Committee on the timeline; the commission will report to the Government by quarter 2 of 2025. The UK Government and the Welsh Government will then respond and consult on proposals that they intend to take forward, and we expect those to form the basis of future legislation.
Emma Hardy
We expect the commission to report to the Government in June. I reassure the hon. Member that when I respond at the end of every session, I will go through each and every amendment in turn.
I turn to Government amendments 1 and 2 to clause 1. The Government have carefully considered all non-Government amendments made in the other place and how they fit within the wider plans for reform of the water sector, including the amendments tabled by Lord Roborough and Lord Cromwell. I thank them, and indeed the other place, for their careful consideration of the Bill, particularly for the constructive way in which they worked with the Government during the Bill’s passage through the Lords. That collaborative approach enabled the Bill to be strengthened, for example, through the introduction of new requirements relating to the implementation of measures in pollution incident reduction plans. However, the Government have determined that the amendments from Lord Roborough and Lord Cromwell are not necessary and should be removed from the Bill.
Government amendment 1 concerns financial reporting. During the Bill’s passage through the other place, it was amended in such a way that required rules made by Ofwat under clause 1 to include reporting requirements on company finances. The Government strongly agree with the need to ensure water company finances are closely monitored, especially given the current financial issues experienced by some companies. However, having considered the Lords amendment in detail and having had further discussions with Lord Cromwell about the intent behind his amendment, we feel that it is duplicative of existing processes as well as conditions in water company licences.
Ofwat already has processes in place to monitor where a company may be heading towards financial difficulties. It is already a condition of water company licences that companies are required in their annual report to publish by a set date financial performance metrics, including interest on their borrowing, financial flows and analysis of their debt. Based on those reports, Ofwat sets out its observations on financial resilience across the sector in its “Monitoring financial resilience” report. Ofwat is also alive to the potential for financial engineering to occur outside of regulated companies and is thoroughly monitoring the financial position of all water companies. The Lords amendment would therefore duplicate existing requirements, with the potential to create confusion in what is already a complex regulatory landscape. This is important: we also retain concern about the potential for the Lords amendment to pre-empt forthcoming reforms following the independent commission led by Sir Jon Cunliffe. On that basis, the Government have tabled Government amendment 1 to remove Lord Cromwell’s amendment from the Bill.
Helena Dollimore
During the debate, we have heard a lot of words from the Opposition parties, but we had very little action during their 14 years in Government. We on the Government Benches have raised clear examples pointed out by Ofwat where it has not had the necessary tools to ban bonuses when it wanted to do so with Southern Water. While we are on that topic, I express my surprise that the hon. Member for Waveney Valley has not turned up to this sitting of the Committee.
Emma Hardy
I have to say that it is slightly disappointing that we do not have a full contingent for such an important Bill Committee, which matters so much to people up and down the country. There could be personal reasons, so let us reserve judgment, but it is a little surprising to me too.
Dr Hudson
The Minister said that she worries that the amendment from Lord Cromwell would duplicate things. Actually, it is quite a simple amendment that achieved a lot of cross-party support in the other place. If it duplicates things, a bit of repetition is not a bad thing to ensure annual financial reporting by water companies. It would not create confusion: repeating this important matter on the face of the Bill would just create clarity, so we urge the Government to reconsider.
The Chair
Just for the record, I am advised by the Clerk that Adrian Ramsay has sent his apologies, as he is ill.
Emma Hardy
I am pleased that we have that on the record. This is an important Bill, and I encourage everyone to attend.
I believe, first, that the Lords amendment is duplicative of the work that Ofwat is already doing and, secondly, that it will pre-empt any forthcoming reforms from the water commission.
David Reed
We have heard repeatedly that this is just the start of the legislative process to bring our water companies back to heel. Will the Minister please explain what she thinks the Bill lacks and what she hopes to do in the future to strengthen and add to it?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to look into the future before we have had the water commission. To clarify—just so there is no misunderstanding—the commission will not amend this Bill but will produce another piece of legislation that looks at everything.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The review will be very wide ranging. We are talking in great detail about the regulators’ powers, and there are four regulators. I assume—I think the Government have made this clear—that the review will look at how water is regulated, right down to how many regulators there are and how they operate, so that is completely up for grabs. We are prejudging what may be in that review, but that will be for Sir Jon to work out for himself. I feel like this is something that may be covered in the review, but will the Minister please confirm that regulation is all up for grabs?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Information will be coming out shortly about how each and every Member across the House can contribute to that review.
Government amendment 2 seeks to remove the amendment that requires rules made by Ofwat under clause 1 to be brought into force by statutory instrument within six months of the Act’s coming into force. Alongside my amendment, I will also address amendment 21—I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for tabling it—which is largely in line with the intention behind mine.
Although the Government understand the need to ensure the rules relating to remuneration and governance are subject to efficient scrutiny, this additional process risks compromising Ofwat’s independence, which must be protected. The necessary secondary legislation would be prepared by the Government, and therefore would represent significant Government interference in the independent regulatory process. That kind of interference has the potential to have adverse effects on investor confidence. The consultation requirement in clause 1 already provides the Secretary of State and other interested parties with the opportunity to raise major concerns with the regulator on the content of the rules. We are confident that Ofwat will continue to work constructively with the Government and other stakeholders to determine a robust and appropriate set of rules.
Emma Hardy
I will finish what I am saying. I might answer the hon. Gentleman’s question in my upcoming remarks—who knows?
The additional requirement for the rules to be confirmed for affirmative resolution statutory instruments could also risk delaying the introduction of the first set of rules. That is counter to the other aspects of Lord Roborough’s amendment, which requires Ofwat to publish the first set of rules within six months of Royal Assent. I reiterate that the Government expect Ofwat to have the rules in place as soon as possible. Indeed, Ofwat has already concluded its initial policy consultation on the rules, demonstrating its commitment to meeting the Government’s expectations. I highlight the fact that Ofwat today submitted to the Committee written evidence of its statutory consultation on the proposed timelines for introduction of the rules, demonstrating its commitment to getting this done as quickly as possible. I urge all hon. Members to have a look at that evidence.
Charlie Maynard
I will just express disappointment. The Bill currently sets a deadline of six months, which is not exactly a moment in time; six months is a long time to get something done. I respect what the new Government are doing by trying to go after the bonuses and hold people to account, but to take a step back and say, “Actually, we are going to weaken the Bill”, which is what amendment 2 is doing—the Government are taking out the deadline—is retrograde and a real mistake.
Emma Hardy
I strongly disagree that this amendment weakens the Bill or is retrograde. Instead, it is doing things effectively. If we were to put a six-month deadline in the Bill and rush to get the rules done in that period of time and there were complications, we would risk leaving a loophole that could be exploited by companies that have exploited loopholes for an incredibly long time and become rather apt at doing so. With respect, I would rather do it properly.
Dr Hudson
The Minister says that she would like to do this properly. We all agree around this House on the scale of the problem, the public outrage at some of the things that have happened with water companies and the fact that we are trying to address and improve our water quality. I am therefore curious why both the Government and the third party are shying away from giving the Secretary of State and the Department the democratic powers and accountability to pass statutory instruments, which, as we all know, can be done very quickly. We have talked about dental analogies. I am an equine vet; I have rasped many teeth in my time. It would help ministerial oversight to see that the dental work is being done properly.
Emma Hardy
I am desperately searching for a dental analogy. I have already outlined to the hon. Gentleman that we tabled this amendment to protect the independence of Ofwat, protect investor confidence and ensure that rules under clause 1 are effective and in place as soon as possible. It is therefore necessary to remove Lord Roborough’s amendment. I again urge hon. Members to look at the written evidence supplied by Ofwat today. On that basis, and considering the arguments I have put forward for removing the six-month deadline for the rules to be published, I ask the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale not to press amendment 21.
Turning to amendment 22, also tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, public trust in the water sector has been severely damaged and the number of serious pollution incidents is increasing. At the same time, companies are paying out millions in bonuses. I therefore fully support the intention behind the amendment and agree on the importance of ensuring that customers and the environment are put at the heart of companies’ objectives. That is why the Secretary of State announced immediate action to improve the performance of the water industry in his first week in office. That included an agreement that companies would update their articles of association to make the interests of customers and the environment a primary objective. I am pleased to inform the House that a number of companies have already made that change, and DEFRA is working to ensure that all companies implement it as soon as possible.
This is a Government of service, focused on improving people’s lives, and it is important that consumer interests are represented at the heart of decision making. That is why, under clause 1 of the Bill, Ofwat must make rules requiring consumer involvement in corporate decision making. Companies will be required to put in place arrangements to involve consumers in decisions that have a material effect on consumer interests. I trust therefore that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is reassured by the steps being taken by Government and he feels able to withdraw amendment 22.
David Reed
There is a lot of additional work being pushed towards Ofwat. Could the Minister confirm whether Ofwat has the internal capacity to meet that workload? If not, is there a ringfenced budget in DEFRA to allow Ofwat to employ more people?
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful question. Yes, we obviously have regular conversations with Ofwat to ensure that it is capable of delivering everything here. There is an impact assessment on the table in the room, if the hon. Member would like to look at exactly how that all works out.
Amendment 18, also tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, speaks to the representation of customer views and those of wider groups. The Government are clear on the importance of elevating the voice of consumers in water company governance and decision making. That is why—as I have mentioned—under the Bill, Ofwat will set rules requiring water companies to have arrangements in place for including consumers in company decision making.
In October last year, Ofwat published a public consultation on the rules on remuneration and governance and how they will apply. The proposed options put forward by Ofwat include giving a non-executive director the responsibility for oversight of consumer interests on the board and providing opportunities for consumer panel representatives to meet with the CEO on a regular basis. Furthermore, companies already have a range of environmental obligations that they should be meeting, and experts in water and sewage policy should already be considering those obligations to inform board-level decision making. I trust the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is therefore reassured by the Government and Ofwat’s approach and is content that amendment 18 is not needed.
I will now take a little time to discuss clause 1 itself and the importance of it standing part of the Bill. As hon. Members know, clause 1 provides Ofwat with new powers to set rules on pay and governance in the water sector and requires that Ofwat make rules on four topics. I have already spoken about one of these, consumer representation. The legislation also provides Ofwat with new powers to issue rules on remuneration and governance, and requires that Ofwat set rules that make the payment of bonuses contingent on companies achieving high environmental standards. As the independent regulator, it is more appropriate for Ofwat to determine the performance metrics to be applied when setting the rules for performance-related pay.
In addition, Ofwat must also make rules covering the fitness and propriety of chief executives and directors. That means that it will be required to set standards of fitness and propriety that chief executives and directors must meet in order to be appointed by water companies or stay in post. People holding those senior roles will be held accountable against those standards and, if they fail to meet them, companies may need to take corrective action or ultimately remove executives from post if necessary. Ofwat’s initial policy consultation outlined some proposed standards of fitness and propriety that included ensuring that individuals have sufficient knowledge of the duties of water companies, are financially sound and have not been the subject of regulatory investigation. Collectively, those rules on remuneration and governance will help to drive meaningful improvements in the performance and culture of the water industry and form a central part of the Bill.
To pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye about whether the rules go further than the previous Government’s, the short answer is yes. The legislation will provide Ofwat with legal powers to ban bonuses, whereas currently it can only set expectations, and it will require Ofwat to set rules prohibiting the payment of bonuses in certain circumstances. Executives will no longer be able to take home eye-watering bonuses where companies fail to meet standards on environmental performance, financial resilience, customer outcomes or criminal liability. We will go further by requiring Ofwat to set rules requiring water companies to ensure that directors and executives meet the highest standards of fitness and propriety, and that customers are involved in company decision making that impacts consumers.
Finally, turning to amendment 19, also tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, I would like to reassure the hon. Member that both the Government and Ofwat take the handling of actual or potential conflicts of interest very seriously. Ofwat employees are already bound by a range of robust rules and processes that support the management of conflicts of interest, including when leaving the organisation. Failure to comply can result in disciplinary action. That includes the civil service business appointment rules, duties of confidentiality and the Official Secrets Acts.
Tim Farron
The underlying issue here is a cultural one—I do not think I am alleging corruption. For example, one can look at fines outstanding. Ofwat set fines for, I think, four water companies; at the last check just before Christmas, many months later on, not a penny of the fines had actually been collected. There is a sense of a lack of urgency and a lack of understanding of the anger felt towards the water industry. When we have this revolving door, there may be no corruption at all, but there is a kind of watering down—no pun intended—of the culture of being a watchdog. There is a level of compliance, and it is apparent.
Emma Hardy
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s intention, which fits within the bigger picture of how we change the culture and improve trust in the industry. On these specific points, there is already legislation in place. However, I take his wider point that there is no trust and a lot of anger, and we need to do something around the culture of how these organisations work.
Given that existing measures are already place and Ofwat’s forthcoming fit and proper person rules should encompass conflicts of interest, the amendment is unnecessary. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it. I hope that hon. Members will support the Government’s amendments and that all members of the Committee are satisfied that clause 1 should stand part.
Tim Farron
We would be content not to press any of the amendments bar amendment 18, which we will seek to push to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 18, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
“(ca) requiring the management board of a relevant undertaker to include at least one representative of each of the following—
(i) groups for the benefit and interests of consumers;
(ii) groups for the benefit and interests of residents of the areas in which the undertaker is operational;
(iii) experts in water and sewerage policy and management; and
(iv) environmental interest groups.”.—(Tim Farron.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Tim Farron
I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 2, page 5, line 9, after “occurrence” insert “and impact”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 9, in clause 2, page 5, line 10, at end insert—
“(2A) A pollution incident reduction plan must, in particular, state how the undertaker intends to reduce the occurrence of pollution incidents in national parks that are attributable to its system.”
Amendment 25, in clause 2, page 5, line 27, after “occurrence” insert “and impact”.
Amendment 24, in clause 2, page 5, line 29, at end insert—
“(ea) the use the undertaker plans to make of nature-based solutions for reducing the occurrence and impact of pollution incidents,”.
Amendment 6, in clause 2, page 7, line 14, at end insert—
“(5) An implementation report must be published on the relevant undertaker’s website in a form which is publicly accessible.”
Clause stand part.
Tim Farron
I will speak to amendments 23 and 25 first, as they are connected, then amendment 24, and then amendments 9 and 6, which were tabled by those on the Conservative Front Bench. I think amendments 9 and 6 are both fine and helpful, and we would be supportive of them.
In amendments 23 and 25, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney, we are referring to impact. There is reference in the Bill to an incident reduction plan, to reduce occurrences and to have reports about occurrences. Our concern is about much more than occurrences; it is about impacts. We know, for example, that a spillage into the River Kent, River Eden, Windermere or Coniston may last a certain amount of time, but we do not know about the volume. We may have a trickle over a day or a deluge over a half-hour period.
It is important to understand the impact not only on marine life, fish stocks and biodiversity, but on things such as leisure activities. As an occasional wild swimmer myself, and as somebody who knows a lot of anglers, canoeists and sailors in my constituency, it seems wrong that we should not put front and centre, not just a greater awareness of and action on incidents, but a look at the impact—the measured impacts on biodiversity, wildlife, livestock, farmers and the tourism economy in places like the Lakes, which is the biggest visitor destination in the country after London. I would be very grateful if amendments 23 and 25 were taken on board by the Government.
Amendment 24 relates to nature-based solutions and looks at incident reduction plans. As the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management put it:
“Nature-based solutions…can help address many of the water sector’s challenges while also providing significant benefits for people and planet, such as water quality improvement, flood risk reduction, carbon sequestration, climate resilience, nutrient neutrality, biodiversity enhancement, community engagement, and public health and wellbeing.”
Indeed, nature-based solutions are also a vital source of funding and income for farmers. Examples include natural flood management techniques, such as wetland restoration, tree planting across catchments of areas of unproductive land—not of productive agricultural land, I hasten to add—and building resilience to flooding; the construction of treatment wetlands and reed beds to treat waste water and improve water quality; the creation and restoration of ponds and pondscapes; climate mitigation and adaptation; and the building of resilience to drought.
Finally, the multiple benefits delivered by working with nature also create opportunities for blended finance by drawing in private investors or gaining income from buyers and ecosystem services. That further increases taxpayer value for money at a time when the delivery burden on the water industry, and therefore customer bills, is at a record high. Investment in nature-based solutions will help to ensure that water industry spending supports the delivery of the maximum environmental and social benefits.
Amendments 23, 24 and 25 are about assessing the damaging impact of pollution incidents in our lakes, coastal areas and rivers in my communities and across the country. Through amendment 24, they also try to provide practical solutions that will help to address those issues. They are meant to be helpful amendments and I hope that the Government will take them on board.
Dr Hudson
I rise to speak about amendments 6 and 9, proposed by His Majesty’s Opposition. I hope that they are self-explanatory amendments that are quite simply about the core concept of accountability, which was at the heart of the previous Government’s mission to improve our water system. We must remember that at the heart of every failure that damages our waterways, it is the Great British public—those who rely on our waterways as consumers and as members of communities served by them—who are let down and denied the rights to pollution-free water systems to which they are entitled.
Amendment 6, which would require water companies to publish their implementation reports accessibly online, gives the public a tangible and visible sign by which water companies can be held to account for the promises they make and the actions they say they will take. It is a vital step in trying to restore the trust that water companies may be seen to have lost in recent years with the public through their inadequate actions to deal with this issue, as people have seen and as hon. Members have articulated today on both sides of the House. It is very much about having not just words and promises but explicit standards to judge water companies by, and it would form a kind of contract between the companies and their consumers, who would then know what to expect from their individual company.
His Majesty’s Opposition have no objections to the principle of clause 2 and its requirement that water companies publish an implementation report, nor in the specific details that companies would be expected to produce in proposed new section 205B of the Water Industry Act 1991. In fact, we welcome the Government’s willingness to listen to the concerns from Conservative peers, including Lord Roborough, and peers from other parties in the other place to strengthen clause 2, including the requirement for implementation reports to be drafted by water companies in the first place and ensuring that the requirements for pollution incident reduction plans also include water supply system-related incidents, not just sewage-related incidents.
However, we believe that amendment 6 would go even further to strengthen that proposal and advance the accountability that we all want water companies to have. Requiring implementation reports to be published online in an accessible way sets out an explicit and clear definition to water companies of how they are expected to publish any such plans, as the clause requires, and demonstrates how water companies must comply with the law in unequivocal terms.
In stressing accessibility, amendment 6 would end the ambiguity that can sometimes exist for the public, which means that it is often too easy for companies to hide away behind protocol and procedure. By making such information available to consumers, we would ensure that there could be no hiding in murky waters on this vital issue and the concrete commitments to improving our waterways.
Water companies can also benefit from the chance to make reflections on their progress available in full sight of the public. In all walks of life, sometimes people’s efforts to make good on promises cannot come to full fruition for reasons beyond their control. If genuine reasons arise for not meeting targets, there can be full transparency for the public as to why, so they can understand more about the nature of the industry and the issues involved in protecting the quality of our water system. In other words, full transparency is in everyone’s interests.
A 2023 review commissioned by Ofwat about the importance of open data was clear that open data provide great benefits in a range of areas when it comes to the water industry. In terms of the environment, it highlighted that open data from sewage overflow monitoring were beneficial to the creation of the predictive analytics tools used in Wessex Water’s intelligent sewers competition, which helped to identify sewage blockages much earlier than they otherwise would have been. That demonstrates an explicit link between the work of recent years to require data monitoring in the water industry, such as on storm overflows—I reiterate that 100% are monitored thanks to the work of the previous Conservative Government—and improvements in the water industry’s tackling of pollution. That is in addition to the improved accountability and the responsibility that data publication places on water companies to get the issue right.
The report highlighted, however, that at the time there was a trend towards companies sharing data with their key partners, rather than making information completely and clearly available for unrestricted public access. The report therefore explicitly recommended that companies in the water sector should look at the data they had been sharing only with specific groups and partners, and take steps to make available those data where they can.
Amendment 6 would solve the problem of information reports before it could even arise—upstream—by unequivocally stating that water companies must publish implementation reports on their websites that would be accessible to all members of the public, not just those with the time and influence to ask for such data. We talked about citizen science: this will give those data to the people to analyse and hold water companies to account. The Conservatives will therefore be pressing amendment 6 to a Division.
I am conscious of time, Mr Vickers. Are you going to call stumps in about 20 seconds?
Dr Hudson
On that note, I will move on to amendment 9, which would make it a requirement for pollution incident reduction plans to include how an undertaker intends to reduce the occurrence of pollution incidents in national parks attributable to their water system. The Opposition tabled the amendment to strengthen the existing plans that the Government have put forward, so that no stone is left unturned in ensuring environmental protections from our water companies. The amendment ensures that water companies make it clear how they will work to reduce pollution incidents in national parks in a system that a water company operates in.
National parks are an area that the previous Conservative Government took great efforts to protect in their legislative programme on protected landscapes. We worked to encourage water companies to invest in peat restoration, and allowed teams at national parks to bid for investment that improved their water environments. The history of recent work on national parks goes beyond just the most recent Government, with the Glover review being published in July 2019. In a response to that review, the Conservatives highlighted their commitment to national parks and water quality, such as through developing the natural capital and ecosystem assessment, which combined data science, citizen science and earth observation technology to inform water quality improvements as a priority target; and ensured that capital and natural capital reporting were embedded into the management plans of protected landscapes.
Jerome Mayhew
I will speak primarily in support of amendment 6. I pay tribute to the former Member for Ludlow, the right hon. Philip Dunne, who throughout the previous Parliament was the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I sat. The EAC’s work on water quality and the seminal report that we produced started this huge public interest in water quality and led to the legislative changes in the Environment Act 2021, among other things.
One of the key lessons we learned from the work that we did on the EAC was the need for transparency of data and information, which can unlock the power of citizen science. We visited the citizen scientists working on the River Windrush, who had difficulty analysing the data that was then publicly available but very hard to find to work out whether storm overflows were being used in the way the water companies were describing. Their very detailed, hard-to-do work exposed the shocking misuse of storm overflows.
As those citizen scientists understood, an event duration monitor is a very simple piece of equipment: it is either on or off. It is set on the outflow of the storm overflow tank. When it detects flow on that channel, it turns on, and when that flow ceases, it turns off. What it does not do, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale rightly pointed out, is measure volume. It also does not measure what is passing. It says that something is passing or not passing, but it does not measure volume or quality. That leads me to support amendment 6, tabled by the loyal Opposition, and to question not the intention behind the Liberal Democrat amendments—amendments 24 and 25 and those to clause 3, which I suspect we will talk a bit more about—but the effectiveness of having new machines that measure volume, in addition to whether it is on and off, but not quality.
A better solution may be the one that the Environmental Audit Committee recommended all those years ago—I stand to be corrected, but I think we wrote that report in 2021. It called for the upstream and downstream monitoring of water quality, typically in the outflow river, so that in addition to a signal that there has been an event, there is close to real-time reporting of the comparative water quality upstream and downstream of a discharge outlet. That would simplify the technical requirements of having to install a whole load of new equipment, which other amendments from the Liberal Democrats anticipate, at an unknown cost and implementation speed. Instead, it would look at the actual real-time impact on a particular water body.
Amendment 6 would require the publishing of the information on the undertaker’s website. I am surprised that that was not part of the Bill in the first place and, given that it was not, that the Government have not adopted the amendment. All it does is to apply consistency to the legislative programme. Section 81(2) and (3) of the Environment Act 2021—I know the Minister is familiar with it, but just in case she is not—require the publishing of event duration monitor data within an hour and in a format that is readily accessible by the general public. The loyal Opposition’s amendment is simply trying to ensure consistency between what we already require for EDMs on undertakers’ websites and this area.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Jeff Smith.)
Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Amendment 9, in clause 2, page 5, line 10, at end insert—
“(2A) A pollution incident reduction plan must, in particular, state how the undertaker intends to reduce the occurrence of pollution incidents in national parks that are attributable to its system.”
Amendment 25, in clause 2, page 5, line 27, after “occurrence” insert “and impact”.
Amendment 24, in clause 2, page 5, line 29, at end insert—
“(ea) the use the undertaker plans to make of nature-based solutions for reducing the occurrence and impact of pollution incidents,”.
Amendment 6, in clause 2, page 7, line 14, at end insert—
“(5) An implementation report must be published on the relevant undertaker’s website in a form which is publicly accessible.”
Clause stand part.
The Chair
No one was trying to catch my eye before we broke for lunch, so I call the Minister to respond.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
Before I start my response to this group, I just want to note that there has been considerable discussion on the monitoring of the volume of discharges during this debate. In the interests of time, I will respond to those points when we debate amendment 13 next week, if that is agreeable to everyone. I thank hon. Members for tabling the amendments relating to pollution incident reduction plans.
On amendments 23 and 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, we agree that companies should seek to reduce the impact of pollution incidents in their pollution incident reduction plans. That, of course, is the core purpose of the plans. That is why the clause requires water companies to set out the measures they will take to reduce the frequency and seriousness of the pollution incidents and their causes. The impact of a pollution incident on people and the environment will be taken into account when the undertaker determines how serious it is, as required in the pollution incident reduction plan. In fact, it would be impossible to determine whether something was serious without looking at the impact the pollution was having. These amendments are therefore not needed, and I ask the hon. Member not to press them.
I thank the hon. Member for Epping Forest for tabling amendment 9. The Government agree that national parks form a vital part of our environmental heritage and must be protected. For that reason, the Government have committed to strengthening the statutory purpose of national landscapes and national parks to give them a clear mandate to recover nature. We will also strengthen through new regulation the role that public bodies, including water companies, must play in delivering better outcomes for nature, water, climate and access to nature in these special places.
Ofwat made significant funding available to water companies in the price review for 2024 to support work to reduce pollution in national parks. As an example, Ofwat approved four storm overflow schemes related to improvements in the Windermere catchment, with potential to include 12 additional schemes via the large scheme gated process. We do not believe it is necessary to include a specific reference to national parks in clause 2. All sites, including national parks, are already in scope of the duty. Creating a statutory hierarchy of priority sites risks deprioritising other important areas such as bathing and shellfish waters. For those reasons, the Government will not support the amendment.
I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for tabling amendment 24. The Government agree that nature-based solutions are an essential tool for tackling the root cause of sewage pollution, while also delivering significant ecological benefits. That is why, in line with the Government’s strategic policy statement, Ofwat has allowed companies to increase the use of nature-based solutions with £3 billion-worth of green schemes in water companies’ final determinations for price review ’24. Although the benefits of nature-based solutions are clear, we believe their use is better supported through drainage and sewerage management plans than through pollution incident reduction plans.
Pollution incident reduction plans are intended to set out the steps that companies intend to take to reduce the frequency and severity of pollution incidents. These issues are often best addressed by monitoring and maintenance measures such as burst pipe detection, checking pumps and re-lining sewers. Drainage and sewerage management plans are intended to address the resilience of the whole sewerage network over a long period of time. That is why the Government have introduced a duty through the Bill for sewerage undertakers to consider nature-based solutions in their drainage and sewerage management plans. That will ensure that nature-based solutions are considered at the very start of the investment planning, increasing their development and potential future delivery. The amendment is therefore not needed, and I ask the hon. Member not to press it.
Regarding amendment 6, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Epping Forest, I agree that improving transparency and accountability is key to the success of pollution incident reduction plans. That is why clause 2 already requires water companies to publish the implementation report alongside the pollution incident reduction plan. Details of where and how to publish the plan and the implementation report, and in which format, may change over the years as technology and best practice evolve, so that is best addressed in the guidance that the Environment Agency is producing about how to fulfil the duty.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; she is being generous with her time. The problem with the position she is taking now is that it is at variance with the Government’s position and with section 81 of the Environment Act 2021. If she is right about the efficacy of leaving it to the Environment Agency to publish such information, buried in its website or its regulations, should she not also amend section 81 of the Environment Act so as to have consistency?
Emma Hardy
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, which is that people need to have access, clearly and simply, to as much information as possible. My point is that if we put such details into law in the Bill, the way in which we want people to access such information may change—technology or best practice may evolve—and we will have to resort to altering legislation using statutory instruments. That is why I think it is better that we look to the guidance produced by the Environment Agency as the best way to present that information, while continually evaluating how we do so. I completely understand the essence of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, however, because we all want information to be transparent and clear for everyone, and certainly not buried on a website.
To conclude, I will briefly speak to why clause 2 should stand part of the Bill. The occurrence of pollution incidents is unacceptably high and has not reduced in the last four years. Water companies must reduce pollution incidents as a matter of urgency. Currently, sewage companies in England produce pollution incident reduction plans on a non-statutory basis. These plans vary in standard, content and frequency, and that makes them hard to scrutinise. It is particularly difficult to identify the progress that companies have made on the actions that they committed to in these plans. More transparency and greater accountability are needed.
That is why the clause will require both water supply companies and sewerage companies in England and Wales to publish annual pollution incident reduction plans to address matters such as the seriousness of pollution incidents and their causes. These plans will need to set out the actions that the water companies intend to take to reduce pollution incidents, and an assessment of the impact that those actions will have.
In addition, the Secretary of State will be able to direct water companies to include other matters in the plans as needed. Moreover, companies will be required to produce an accompanying implementation report detailing the progress they have made with the measures to which they committed in the previous year. Companies must clearly explain the reason for any failure to implement their plans and set out the steps they are taking to avoid similar failure in the future. This will create a high level of transparency, enabling the public and regulators to hold water companies accountable for making the improvements that they have committed to.
Chief executives will be personally liable for the production of these plans and must approve them before publication. If a company fails to publish a compliant plan and implementation report by the deadline each year, the company or the chief executive could be prosecuted for the offence. That could result in a fine and a criminal record. This emphasises that taking action to minimise pollution incidents should be at the core of the chief executive’s role.
We believe that this provision will ensure that the right people, with the right incentives, lead water companies through the changes necessary to drive down pollution incidents. Furthermore, regulators will be required to take companies’ compliance records in relation to implementation reports into account when carrying out their enforcement duties.
I hope that all hon. Members agree with me about the importance of clause 2, and I commend it to the Committee.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
There are no further comments from us, and we do not seek to press to a vote any of the amendments that we have tabled. We are concerned that there is not enough detail in the Bill about the impact of pollution incidents on the wider environment, much as I am grateful to the Minister for many of the comments she has made. All the same, we will not seek to trouble the Committee with a vote at this stage, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
In the interests of promoting transparency and clarity, we would still like to press our amendment 6 to a vote. To bolster, support and protect the precious integrity of our national parks, we would like to do the same with amendment 9.
Amendment proposed: 9, in clause 2, page 5, line 10, at end insert—
“(2A) A pollution incident reduction plan must, in particular, state how the undertaker intends to reduce the occurrence of pollution incidents in national parks that are attributable to its system.”— (Dr Hudson.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Tim Farron
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 3, page 8, line 10, at end insert—
“(e) the volume of discharge.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 14, in clause 3, page 8, line 13, leave out “subsection (1)(d)” and insert “subsections (1)(d) and (e)”.
Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 8, line 18, at end insert—
“(c) be published on the home page of the undertaker’s website.”
This amendment would ensure that information regarding a discharge from an emergency overflow must be published on the home page of the undertaker’s website.
Amendment 15, in clause 3, page 8, line 18, at end insert—
“(c) be uploaded and updated automatically, where possible; and
(d) be made available on the undertaker’s website alongside searchable and comparable historic data.”
Amendment 16, in clause 3, page 8, line 18, at end insert—
“(3A) The undertaker must ensure that, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, appropriate monitors are installed to collect the information required by subsection (1).”
Tim Farron
With your permission, Mr Vickers, I will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Witney to speak to the bulk of these amendments. I will focus on amendment 17, which requests that we insert into the Bill a position of Minister with responsibility for issues relating to the coast. That is something that the all-party group for coastal communities, chaired by the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), is fully in favour of.
Coastal communities face a unique set of environmental and economic challenges, which are spread across Departments. It is therefore common sense to have a Minister to bring them together under one portfolio and champion those communities in Government. The specific needs of coastal communities were raised in the annual report of the chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, in 2021, and we particularly highlight those communities. In my own part of the world, we have the Lancashire over the sands part of my constituency and south-west Westmorland, but there are also coastal communities in places such as North Norfolk, Devon, Cornwall and elsewhere. As I said, there is cross-party support, through the APPG for coastal communities, for this proposal.
Let me make a quick reference to my own constituency. Among the challenges that the communities around Morecambe bay face is the pollution of the environment around them. In 2023 alone, one treatment works in Grange-over-Sands pumped sewage into the Kent estuary channel on 79 occasions for 73 hours. Across the water in Arnside, another pumped 42 times for 147 hours.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I rise to speak in support of clause 3, which deals with defining emergency overflows and reporting requirements. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye, I have the great fortune to live on the south coast and the great misfortune of being in the area where Southern Water is a local provider.
The Chair
Order. We are debating amendment 13 specifically, so please restrict your comments to that. I call Charlie Maynard.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
Amendment 13 is about volume. It would add volume to the list in clause 3, which includes
“the location of the emergency overflow…when the discharge began…when the discharge ended.”
The Liberal Democrats seek to add the volume of discharge to that list, and that is common sense. As many Members have said, we want to know how much sewage is coming out, and we are looking for help from all Members to get the amendment into the Bill. If we are serious about solving the problems in our rivers, we need to know how much sewage is coming down.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way and for the conversation that we had over the lunch recess. One challenge with the measuring of volume is what we are measuring the volume of. The industry estimates that 97%-plus of volume from a storm event is water—it is just rainwater. How do these amendments address the measurement of what is being passed, and is this something on which we could co-operate?
Charlie Maynard
Let us talk about the spectrum of information here. We have got the number of spills, where we have no idea how long those spills went on. We then have EDMs—event duration monitors—which count the number of hours of pollution. There is then the volume of flow, and then various iterations around measuring dissolved oxygen, or whatever it might be. I do not want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. We need to make progress. Thames Water is installing flow monitors all over its network, upstream of its sewage treatment works, but not downstream. That is because it is scared of actually having to count and have in the public domain the volume of sewage that it is dumping.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) said, “If you have a coke bottle of sewage, and you don’t know how diluted it is, you still don’t want it in your bath.” Of course we want to know how diluted it is—that would be nice—but if we are serious about addressing these problems, we need to know how much is coming out of those overflows.
To quantify what has been going on over the last few years—I give the previous Government some credit—some 14,000 monitors have been installed in the last seven years, which is good news. The figure was less than 1,000, and 15,000 have now been installed on the storm overflows, but another 7,000 do not have monitors. Amendment 16 talks about where those locations are. We can have overflows at a sewage treatment works, at a pumping station or on the sewer network. I believe that everyone on this Committee wants to capture wherever that overflow is, which is what the amendment would do.
I will try to quantify some of the numbers, and I will talk about my favourite, Thames Water. Right now, Thames Water has 30 event duration monitors at inlet storm overflows at waste water treatment works. It has 183 EDMs on storm tanks at waste water treatment works and 137 EDMs at storm discharge overflows at pumping stations, and it has 320 storm overflows on the sewer network—not in a pumping station or at a treatment works. We are trying to capture all those areas, because we need to know what is going on. If we do not know what is going on, we cannot fix it.
Amendment 13 is on the volume of discharge. Amendment 14 concerns the same count, so I will not go into it in more detail. Amendment 15 relates to reporting on discharge from overflows and would add to existing stipulations about the form in which the information must be published. I will read it out: the information must
“be uploaded and updated automatically”.
Let us get rid of human involvement. We are in 2025—all this stuff can, and should, be automated.
Professor Peter Hammond has done some great research, and I am incredibly grateful to Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, which has been one of the drivers of information and campaigning in this space. Well done to Peter, Ash, Vaughan and Geoff; I give them many thanks. Peter spotted that when Thames Water monitors its sewage, it does so at the wrong times of day, when the level of sewage is at its lowest. We want to automate that so that it is monitored all the time. That means less human interaction and lower costs, and it is much more achievable.
There is a map that shows whether sewage has been dumped in the last 48 hours, is being dumped currently or has not been dumped in the last 48 hours—Thames Water was actually one of the first to put that in the public domain—but it does not give the historical information. We need the historical information in there and it needs to be downloadable, so that any citizen scientist can come along, pull the data off and act on it. Without amendment 15, we do not have that. These are very nuts-and-bolts, practical things that we want to head along.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
On the questions that the hon. Gentleman is asking around the type of monitors we have on sewage outlets, is he aware that the Environmental Audit Committee looked at this very issue in the last Parliament? It recommended the approach currently being taken by the Bill, which is to look at monitors upstream and downstream that look at the water quality. The Committee regarded that as the best way to assess this issue.
Charlie Maynard
I am very happy with looking at monitors upstream and downstream. That is fine, but I want them all to be in, and I want them done quicker. In the last seven years, 14,000 monitors were put in. As per the House of Commons Library briefing on clause 3, we are currently being signed up to a much slower installation of monitors—it does not matter if they are EDMs or flow meters. The briefing states:
“The reporting duty on discharges from emergency overflows would be phased in, with water companies expected to achieve 50% monitoring coverage by the end of the next price review in 2030 and 100% by 2035, the end of the following price review.”
Why would we go slower? That is a lot slower than what has been done over the last seven years. We should be moving much faster.
I find it rather depressing that I suspect this information came out of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Why is there this desire to slow the whole thing down if possible? We have a huge problem, so why are we not moving faster to deal with it? Frankly—I am not looking at the crew opposite—the DEFRA mindset is profoundly depressing. That’s that.
Amendment 16 covers the installation rate. What we are trying to do there is get the rate much faster. We have asked for 12 months, and I will try to quantify this; I have a business background. How much do flow monitors cost? How much they cost matters. Flow monitors are £500 to £2,000 per unit. We have 15,000 across the country, so we are talking £85 million or whatever it might be. That is if we have £2,000 as the unit cost. If we take the higher level of the unit cost and say that each of them will cost £2,000 to install, it is quite a lot of money. We did it much cheaper in west Oxfordshire and Witney. Well done to the Witney flood mitigation group. It got 10 installed for a fraction of that, so that is doable. Let us just talk £84 million. Does that sound like a lot of money? Frankly, it does not to me, and I will try to quantify that. The £84 million is between 10 or so water companies. Thames Water alone has £17 billion of debt. We are talking about £84 million. It is a fractional number, and if we are serious about fixing our problems, we have to go there.
Dr Hudson
It is a great pleasure to speak to amendment 3, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey). Today, there is a recurrent theme—transparency and clarity. We want cleaner waters and we want the data collection to be transparent and available to people so that they can actually monitor and analyse. The spirit of this amendment is, again, transparency and clarity.
Amendment 3 would, as the text suggests, make it a statutory requirement for water companies to publish the information that they have on discharges from emergency overflows on the home page of their website. Some water companies already go some way to discussing overflows of different kinds, including what they are and why they occur, but this amendment from my hon. Friend would go further by setting a clearer guideline for how transparent water companies must expect to be for every specific incidence of an emergency overflow that may occur.
We of course know that emergency overflows are those that occur particularly when technical faults or blockages in the water system arise and require overflows to help with their resolution, as opposed to storm overflows, where the system is overwhelmed by excess surface water or groundwater entering the network. The work of the previous Conservative Government tackled the issue of storm overflows—unlike any Government who had preceded them—including by, as I have said, getting 100% of reporting and monitoring of storm overflows, which was at 7% back in 2010. That was in addition to fast-tracking £180 million of investment from water companies to prevent 8,000 sewage spills in 2024, and introducing requirements for further investment, over 25 years, of upwards of £60 billion.
Moving forward, however, we need to ensure that emergency overflows are treated with a similar parity of attention. We do not want the hypothetical situation to arise whereby the problem of storm overflows, which have had so much attention in recent years, is simply shifted to emergency overflows, and technical fault is used as an unnecessary justification for emergency overflows to occur. By requiring emergency overflow information to be published on the home page of each and every water company’s website, this risk is potentially alleviated.
Although the Government may argue that the risk is alleviated by clause 3 in and of itself, this amendment goes further in its specificity about the publication of data relating to emergency overflows. By requiring the home page to be used for publication of emergency overflow data, the requirement in clause 3 that the information be published in a way that makes it readily accessible to the public would be given a definition that the Bill in its current form lacks. In other words, amendment 3 would provide explicit clarity in the Bill for water companies about the requirements for publication of emergency overflow information, without the risk of dispute down the line about whether an individual company has complied with the measure’s requirements.
On that basis, I encourage the Government to support the amendment, as it clearly does not seek to frustrate their intentions to be stringent with the water companies about duties on emergency overflows. The amendment merely strengthens the existing conditions in the clause by providing further clarity and specificity. We urge the Government to consider it.
Jerome Mayhew
I will start with the Liberal Democrat amendment to add volume measurers to storm outflows. I hope I made it clear in my earlier intervention that I am sympathetic to the amendment’s objective, but I have questions about whether the route that the Liberal Democrats have gone down is the right one. Legislating for another piece of kit—volume-measuring equipment, alongside the EDM—yes, would go some way to solving the problem, but it would not solve the real problem, which is that we need to know when a discharge is happening, the volume of the discharge, the level of sewage as opposed to water in that discharge, and the consequential impact on the watercourse into which it is being discharged.
I was grateful for the intervention of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye, who referred to the water report of the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I was one of the authors. We took a lot of evidence on the issue and we had a trip to Oxfordshire, to the River Windrush. We met the leading citizen scientists in the area and took evidence from them there and in our more formal evidence sessions in this place. The hon. Lady was right that the outcome of the combination of evidence we received was that the most appropriate form of technical solution was a measurer of water quality upstream and downstream, and for that water quality measurement to be published timeously. For that reason, section 81 of the Environment Act 2021 requires automatic publishing within 60 minutes of an event happening.
That leads me to a question. The hon. Member for Witney referred to Thames Water choosing when to measure, but with respect to him, the clause is about emergency overflows, not about standard monitoring, and under the existing legislation, Thames Water or any other water undertaker has no option as to when it measures—the EDM is triggered by the emergency event. It also has no option as to when it can publish, because it has to be within 60 minutes of the event being notified.
Charlie Maynard
Yes, of course, the EDMs are automatic; I was talking about the spot monitoring by individuals.
Jerome Mayhew
With respect, that is a separate point, because we are talking about amendments to clause 3, which is about emergency overflows. I accept the point. As with so many of our discussions this morning and this afternoon, we are all trying to get the right outcome, but this is line-by-line consideration of the Bill, which is rather boring and technical, but it is where we try to tease out some of the drafting issues and what can be improved. I am not sure that the problem that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to resolve sits naturally in this clause.
Moving on to amendment 15, again I highlight my fear that, given that the clause relates to emergency overflows, the amendment leads to a legal duplication of section 81 of the Environment Act. I do not want to do the Minister’s job for her, but from my perspective, that is a reason why we should look carefully at amendment 15 before we accept it. Of course, when I say that I do not want to do the Minister’s job for her, that is only pro tem—in the future, I definitely want to do this job for her.
The Liberal Democrats have not yet spoken in favour of amendment 16, so I will leave that until such time as they decide to. The hon. Member for Witney can come back to it.
Finally, on amendment 17, which the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale—
Charlie Maynard
Mr Vickers, may I revert to amendment 16? I am sorry; I thought I had mentioned it. I will read it out:
“The undertaker must ensure that, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, appropriate monitors are installed to collect the information required”.
That point is 12 months, so that is holding people’s feet to the fire, but we have a massive problem. This is totally doable in terms of timeline. If the Government came back and said, “No, we want 36 months, not 12 months,” then fine, I have no problem with that, but I have talked about being depressed by the desire to slow things down, and about the House of Commons Library data on giving another 10 years to install these monitors. Why are we going slow? We all say to the public that we are really serious about it; let us be serious. I thought that I had covered amendment 16, but there it is again.
Jerome Mayhew
I now rise to talk about amendment 16. My primary objection here is the overarching one: I am not convinced that this is the right technical approach, for the reasons set out in the report of the Environmental Audit Committee, and also in the Environment Act 2021. However, if I am wrong on that, I am happy to support this amendment as a probing amendment and look forward to the answer that the Minister gives; but if it were to be taken to a vote, without further information about the practicality of being able to obtain the required tens of thousands of these machines, install them and have them operational and reporting in a 12-month period, I am not sure that I, as a responsible legislator, could support amendment 16. I would need further information on whether that was a practical option.
Emma Hardy
I thank all hon. Members for their thoughts on this set of amendments. I would also like to pay tribute to all of the citizen scientists—in fact, many Members have paid tribute to them—and the incredible work that they do as volunteers, going out there to discover the true state of many of our rivers, lakes and seas. I think we can all agree that it is vital to understand the scale and the impact of sewage discharges by ensuring that water companies install monitors on emergency overflows as soon as possible and by encouraging public access to emergency-overflow discharge statements. As the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham said, I think this is about us all trying to move in the same direction.
Just before I turn to the amendments, I think there may be some confusion in the debate today about the different types of monitors and the different types of discharges being discussed. There is a big difference between fully treated waste water being released from treatment outlets and the discharge of untreated sewage from an emergency or storm overflow. I am therefore very happy to share a factsheet detailing the differences in the different types of emergency and storm overflows to help inform future debates.
On amendments 13 and 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, clause 3 requires water companies to provide information on the frequency and duration of discharges from emergency overflows in near-real time. Combined with the equivalent duty for storm overflows, which has just come into force, that will ensure that all sewage overflows on the network are monitored. That will enable regulators and the public to see, in near-real time, when a discharge from any overflow has occurred, and how long it has lasted for. Water companies will use that information to prioritise investment to mitigate the impact of the most polluting overflows, as guided by the regulator.
However, the monitors required to measure volume are much more difficult and costly to install compared with those used to monitor discharge duration. By comparing that with the cost of installing flow monitors at waste water treatment works, we estimate the cost of installing flow monitors on all 18,000 storm and emergency overflow sites in England to be up to £6 billion. Network overflows are not set up for flow monitors to be installed, which means that the majority of overflows would require complex works, such as pipework modifications, in order for monitors to record volume accurately. We do not think this added cost is proportionate to the additional value that volume information would provide, especially given that volume information alone does not provide a comprehensive account of the impact of a discharge. For example, a very small volume of very concentrated foul water could enter our rivers, which would be very damaging, or a large volume of diluted rainwater overflow. Volume cannot give an accurate assessment of impact. The measurement of water quality, as the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham has said, is required.
Charlie Maynard
Would the Minister be willing to give information on the breakdown of that £6 billion? That would be very helpful. Also, I think we are all in agreement and of course we want to know the quality. As has been said, if that is the case, surely the plan is to go there. By all means, have flow meters with the quality meters installed, rather than not going there. I think the Minister was proposing not putting in flow meters and not putting in any quality meters either, or is she planning on putting in flow and quality meters? If so, when and how?
Emma Hardy
I am very happy to give a breakdown of the numbers that we have worked out. To reiterate the point I made before the intervention, that is why the Government believe that it is the measurement of water quality that is required. Water companies have been instructed to begin installing continuous water quality monitors for storm overflows and waste water treatment works from April 2025 onwards, so they have been told to put in those water quality monitors from April 2025. That will provide further information on the impact of sewage discharges on water quality. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale will see that amendment 13 is not needed and feels able to withdraw it.
Charlie Maynard
The Minister said from 2025, which is great, but over what timeline? Is that the Library’s 10 years, or is that another timeline?
Emma Hardy
I want to make sure that I am not giving the hon. Gentleman inaccurate information, so I will find out the answer to his question and return to it, if that is okay. I do not want to give him the wrong information. The main point we are making is that it is not the volume that is having the impact; it is the toxicity. We think that, by focusing on measuring water quality, we can accurately see the damage being done to our environment by what is being discharged, and I think that is the point. If we are choosing where to put the monitors, we think that focusing on water quality and how damaging it can be is more important than focusing on how much there is.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
We talk about citizen scientists and the hard work they have to do to uncover what is going on within the data. We are talking about putting lots of different monitors on lots of infrastructure up and down the country, which is going to spew out lots of different information that is going to be quite hard to dig into. Could the Minister give a view on whether there will be an approach to the standardisation of data, to make it easier to view for people?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Member is pre-empting my responses to the next amendments on transparency, which I am just about to turn to. Before we move on from volume, I re-emphasise the point. This is something that I looked at seriously because a number of colleagues have spoken to me about it, so I really do not want hon. Members to feel like it has been dismissed out of hand—I did look at this seriously. One of the other points made to me was about lots of the pipes being different sizes. If we are going to be able to calculate the volume, we have to be able to calculate the size of the pipe, which might require standardising the size of all pipes to work out the volume coming through them, so we can measure how much is coming out at one moment.
That is where we get to the £6 billion figure; it is not just the cost of putting the monitors on but ensuring that, if we are measuring the amount of sewage flowing past something, we can understand the size of it. The hon. Member for Witney is looking at me and I can see that I have work to do to convince him of this. I am probably doing a complete injustice to the person who explained this all to me, but I will ensure that the hon. Member gets a proper explanation. The upshot of the conversation was that this is going to be really expensive, and what we all want to know is: how damaging is what is coming out of those pipes to our environment? That is why we are focusing on water quality. [Interruption.] I have had inspiration from behind me and an answer to the question of when continuous water quality monitoring will be rolled out. They have requested to begin installing continuous water quality monitors at 25% of storm overflows and sewage treatment works outlets at price review 2024. The sites selected for the first stage of roll-out have been prioritised to include sensitive sites such as chalk streams.
Jerome Mayhew
I do not want to steal the thunder of the hon. Member for Witney, but he has a good point on the speed of roll-out of the installation of water quality monitors. The 2024 price period is for five years, I believe. That suggests installation in 25% of the monitoring areas over a five-year period. If I am wrong on that, I would be very grateful if the Minister could correct me. What I am really interested in is how quickly the full network will be installed and what is preventing that from happening faster.
Emma Hardy
I feel as though we are comparing apples and pears here. The point I was making about the 25% at the next price review was around water quality monitors. The hon. Gentleman was talking about the monitoring on emergency overflows, and he was referring to the data on the speed at which they would be installed.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister may be right, but it is important that we get to the bottom of this. From my perspective, the important data is the upstream and downstream of a discharge pipe water quality monitor being installed and activated. I would be very grateful if the Minister could set out during the course of the next hour and a quarter, either because she knows it off the top of her head or because her officials can give her the answer, the timeframe for those installations and the reasons why it is not happening faster.
Emma Hardy
I think the hon. Gentleman is probably moving on to amendment 16 with his point about the speed at which these were being rolled out. We were discussing amendments 13 and 14. That is where the confusion lies in this conversation. I will address the points about speed when we move on to amendment 16 —it is all to come.
I turn now to amendments 3 and 15, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale respectively. Clause 3 already requires companies to publish information on discharges in a readily accessible and understandable format. That includes information on the occurrence, location and start time of the discharges, which must be published within an hour of the discharge starting. To meet this requirement, water companies will install monitors that have telemetry technology to communicate discharges as they occur. To the point the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham made, that information cannot be falsified. It is not based on someone coming; it is automatic communication.
Those requirements are the same as those for publishing storm overflow discharges, which is now a statutory duty enforced by Ofwat. Water companies have already published individual maps for their regions to show storm overflow discharges in near real time. In addition, Water UK launched a national storm overflow hub in November last year to centralise all discharge information from water companies on a single national map. We expect that a similar approach will be taken for emergency overflows. If further direction for companies on how to approach the duty is needed, that can be more appropriately addressed through guidance. Furthermore, validated historical information on discharges from emergency overflows will be available through annual returns published by the Environment Agency. Those will allow for long-term trends in annual data to be analysed. If there are any specific requests from groups or organisations about how they would like to see information, they are of course welcome to communicate that to me.
Charlie Maynard
We are here for another week or so. I take the point about apples and pears, but if the information is already in DEFRA’s hands, would it be helpful, if DEFRA can move fast enough—I do not know whether that is possible—to have a little grid circulated to Committee members about storm and emergency installation periods, whether that is quality, flow or EDM? With that data we could talk about it decently and honestly.
Emma Hardy
I think that might be really helpful. It has been an interesting but slightly muddled conversation. We were going to produce a factsheet to explain the difference between emergency and storm. Maybe we can include as much information as we can for Committee members by the end of Committee or before Report, if that does not put too much on my hard-working officials.
On the annual data being analysed, the proposed amendments are unnecessary and I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments. On amendment 16, which was also tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, and which is about the speed of delivery, the need to deliver the installation of monitors on emergency overflows must be balanced with practical constraints and with due consideration for the cost of rolling out so many monitors, especially as those costs are ultimately passed to consumers through water bills.
Water companies have been instructed to install monitors at 50% of emergency overflows by 2030. This represents a doubling of the previous Conservative Government’s target of 25% of emergency overflows monitored by 2030. The Environment Agency will agree with water companies which emergency overflows will have monitors installed over the next five years based on priority areas, such as those that impact designated bathing and shellfish waters. As set out in the impact assessment, we expect the roll-out of monitors at emergency overflows to cost £533 million over a 10-year period. We believe that pace of roll-out strikes the right balance of recognising the urgency—this Government are doing double what the previous Government promised—while ensuring that companies have the capacity to progress other improvements and balancing customer bill impacts.
To speak frankly, it is very important to monitor, but it is also very important to fix the causes of some of the problems that we see. There is always a balance between monitoring and fixing the problem, and we believe that we have got that balance right.
Requiring a faster roll-out of monitors could undermine the delivery of other improvements that water companies must make in price review 24—I would not want to be in a situation at the end of the price review where we monitor everything and fix nothing. That includes upgrades to wastewater treatment works and sewerage networks to reduce sewage discharges from storm overflows. Where companies can move further and faster to achieve the roll-out of monitors at emergency overflows, they will of course be encouraged to do so, but we cannot accept this amendment to require water companies to install all monitors within 12 months. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.
Tim Farron
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Witney for his detailed points and for the Minister’s replies to them. We will not seek to press the majority of the amendments to the vote. Nevertheless, we stand by all that we have said and we do wish to press amendment 13 to a vote. The reality is that duration monitors only do so much good. Asking for volume to be added to duration is not to the exclusion of quality. In fact, it is part of an attempt to try to get to the bottom of it. Again, off the top of my head, earlier last year there was a sewage overflow into Coniston Water from 22 August, which lasted just over a week, and a sewage overflow around Easter time in Windermere, which lasted a matter of hours. The former was more of a trickle—still unacceptable—and the latter was a deluge. The difference in terms of quality was significant as well as in terms of volume. We therefore ask that the Committee considers amendment 13, which we seek to press to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Tim Farron
I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 3, page 9, line 1, leave out from start to “in” and insert—
“a Minister with specific responsibility for issues relating to the coast,”.
I have made my argument in favour of amendment 17, probably at the wrong time. I do not seek to press it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Hudson
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 3, page 9, line 38, at end insert—
“141H Failure to report discharge from emergency overflows
(1) If a relevant undertaker fails to comply with its duties under section 141F—
(a) the undertaker commits an offence, and
(b) the chief executive of the undertaker commits an offence, subject to subsection (2).
(2) It is a defence for the chief executive to prove that they took all reasonable steps to avoid the failure.
(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable, on summary conviction or conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or an unlimited fine, or both.”.
This amendment would make it an offence for an undertaker to fail to comply with its duty to report discharges from emergency overflows.
In my remarks on amendment 3, I highlighted the fact that parity of attention between storm overflows and emergency flows is critical to action in regulating the water industry. With that point in mind, I move amendment 4, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, which would make it a criminal offence for water companies and their chief executives to fail to comply with their duty to report on discharges from emergency overflows.
As I stated earlier, much was done to tackle the issue of storm overflows by the previous Conservative Government, including the passing of the Environment Act 2021, which we have spoken a lot about today. That introduced the statutory duty for water companies to publish storm overflow data in England every year and a storm overflow discharge reduction plan that created strict targets for sewage pollution and demanded water company investment in the necessary infrastructure to resolve issues.
Amendment 4 would address the need to ensure that emergency overflows are subject to the strict enforcement that we have seen exercised towards storm overflows in recent years. We have seen that an emphasis on strict enforcement can work in getting the reform that we all want to see the industry practise, and indeed in improving water quality. I note and welcome the comments from the hon. Member for Witney who welcomed the progress that we have made in that area on monitoring and trying to address these issues.
The Government have set out in the Bill plans to put in place a criminal offence for failing to co-operate with or obstructing regulatory investigations. The amendment seeks to address a gap in those plans in a key area of public concern—a duty to report discharges from emergency overflows.
Despite significant steps, some water companies are not taking their responsibilities to protect our waterways seriously enough. This is a sector where the rewards for success have historically been high for shareholders and, as we have heard a lot about, for executives. It is time now for serious consequences for failure to protect our waterways and the public to sit alongside those rewards for success.
The duty to report discharges from emergency overflows is basic, reasonable and vital to public transparency. I come back to our points about transparency. There can be no defence from any water company that it does not understand that duty or why that duty matters. Given the Bill already puts in place the principle of a criminal offence for failure to fulfil a reasonable duty and establishes a criminal offence for failure to co-operate or to obstruct a regulatory investigation, the amendment would strengthen the Bill’s intent that water companies’ conduct must be subject to criminal sanction and unlimited fines.
Of course, at the same time, however, as human error and technical fault can plague many walks of life and water companies are no exception, there must be a fair and reasonable opportunity for water companies and chief executives accused of violating their duties to show that they have genuinely tried to comply with the duties of reporting emergency overflows. Therefore, subsection (2) of amendment 4 provides explicit criteria that failure to meet the duties of publication for storm overflows does not result in a criminal offence when the company has done all it reasonably could to prevent the incident from occurring.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Member for Beaconsfield for tabling amendment 4, which seeks to make a failure to publish discharge data from emergency overflows in near-real time a criminal offence.
I wholeheartedly agree that it is vital that regulators have a clear means of ensuring that water companies comply with this duty. However, clause 3 already ensures that the duty is enforceable by Ofwat under section 18 of the Water Industry Act 1991, which provides a range of tools—including significant fines—for Ofwat to bring companies into compliance. Changing the provision to a criminal offence might slow down enforcement, because criminal prosecution is typically slower than enforcement by section 18 of the 1991 Act.
In addition, we do not believe that in this case it would be proportionate to create direct criminal liability for a chief executive, particularly the potential sanction of imprisonment, because the large number of emergency overflows operated by companies, with each company operating in a different situational context, means that it is unreasonable to hold a single person to account for full compliance with the duty. By making changes such as introducing bonus bans and provisions to support prosecuting executives for obstructing the regulator, the Bill already strengthens provisions to hold executives to account for wrongdoing.
Dr Hudson
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 3, page 9, line 38, at end insert—
“141H Restriction on the use of emergency overflows in areas used for aquatic sports
(1) A sewerage undertaker must not permit a discharge from an emergency overflow in an area used for aquatic sports.
(2) In this section, an ‘area used for aquatic sports’ is a section of any body of water connected to and within a one mile radius of—
(a) the clubhouse of a rowing club affiliated with British Rowing,
(b) a Royal Yacht association training centre or the clubhouse of an affiliate member, and
(c) the properties or facilities used by any organisation that the Secretary of State deems to provides water-based sporting activities for the purpose of teaching, training or leisure.
(3) If a relevant undertaker fails to comply with its duties under section (1)—
(a) the undertaker commits an offence, and
(b) the chief executive of the undertaker commits an offence, subject to subsection (5).
(4) It is a defence for the chief executive to prove that they took all reasonable steps to avoid the failure.
(5) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable, on summary conviction or conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or an unlimited fine, or both.”
This amendment creates an offence for a sewerage undertaker to use an emergency overflow in an area used for aquatic sports.
I will try not to mention teeth in this part of our proceedings, but I cannot promise. It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in favour of amendment 10, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield —this is sounding like “Groundhog Day”, isn’t it? The amendment has a simple principle: that waters used for aquatic sports should be subject to the same protections as those used for bathing. It establishes that there should be clear consequences for water companies and their chief executives when they fail to comply with a clear duty to protect the waters in which people practise aquatic sports.
Aquatic sports are an important part of our sporting heritage in this country, but the impact of overflow discharges into our waterways and rivers is potentially creating an existential risk to some sports clubs up and down the country. We have heard reports of increased incidences of illness among participants as a direct and indirect consequence of exposure to pathogens and bacteria from sewage outflows in the waterways where they practise their water sports. That is a significant cause for concern for our rowing, sailing, canoeing and other aquatic sports clubs.
Many clubs take their duty of care very seriously indeed. They are having to put in place their own monitoring systems to protect their participating members. Training sessions, competitions and regattas are all facing potential cancellation, and participation in those sports risks becoming less attractive and less available to people. We can all agree that actively participating in sport and physical exercise is so good for not only our physical health, but our mental health. Any deterrents discouraging people from being involved in some sports are deeply regrettable.
The amendment is trying to put the safety of the waters used for aquatic sports on the same basis as those where people bathe. It is time for water companies to take responsibility for ensuring that those waters are safe to use. The amendment sets out a reasonable expectation that a water company must not discharge from an emergency overflow within a one-mile radius of an area used for aquatic sports. The definition of such an area is clearly outlined, and further discretion is provided for the Secretary of State to determine such areas where needed. The consequences for water companies and their chief executives for failure to comply with this duty are set out clearly and are consistent with amendment 4, also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Member for Beaconsfield for proposing amendment 10, which seeks to make it an offence for sewage undertakers to use an emergency overflow in areas used for aquatic sports. I will mention how much I enjoyed meeting the Clean Water Sports Alliance just last week to hear about its fantastic work to get us all up, out and active, although I have so far resisted the temptation to don a wetsuit and join in.
I agree that it is vital for us to reduce the impact of sewage pollution, so that our children and their children can make the memories that we did enjoying our waterways. However, we do not believe that the amendment is necessary. It risks duplicating existing requirements to limit pollution for emergency overflows, as well as protections for bathers that are already in place. Emergency overflow discharges are permitted only in very strict circumstances and as a last resort, such as in the event of mechanical breakdown or a downstream blockage. That factsheet on the different circumstances might help.
Should an emergency overflow discharge occur outside permit conditions, the Environment Agency is able to take robust enforcement action, including fines and criminal prosecution. The measures in the Bill will increase transparency around emergency overflow discharges, shining a light on where they should not be happening.
Tim Farron
I want to point out something that is probably blindingly obvious, because I want to support the hon. Members for Epping Forest and for Beaconsfield. When emergency overflows happen in rivers near places where people may engage in aquatic sports, that is one thing and it is unacceptable, but it is worth bearing the lakes in mind—I will pick Windermere for an example. A drop of water that enters the north end of the lake takes nine months to pass through the River Leven and out into Morecambe bay. The consequences of an overflow in a lake—in the Lake district or elsewhere—are so much greater than in other waterways. I also have 30 outdoor education centres in my constituency, many of them on lakes. They are much more affected by overflows than any other form of spillage, which is why I think the amendment is worth pursuing.
Emma Hardy
As I say, I wholeheartedly agree with the intention behind the amendment, but I note that later on we will be discussing the importance of chalk streams as well. The amendment would create a hierarchy between what is important and what is not. My argument is that emergency overflows are a problem wherever they are, and they should not be used unless it is, as the Bill says, an absolute emergency.
Measures in the Bill will increase transparency around emergency overflow discharges, shining a light on where they are happening. Although emergency overflow discharge should occur only very rarely—when it says on the tin; it should be an emergency—it is not possible to eliminate them altogether, as they are important safety valves to protect businesses and home in time of emergency. Removing or blocking emergency overflow outlets could lead to excess effluent waste water being released elsewhere, including through manholes. That would have significant safety implications.
Significant protections are in place for designated bathing waters both inland and on the coast. The Government consult on and designate our bathing waters. The Environment Agency monitors them to ensure that the health of bathers is protected, and to assess what action is needed to improve water quality. Once designated, water companies are required to investigate and improve bathing water sites, including with upgrades and improvements to overflows where needed. As part of the storm overflow discharge plan—those are obviously different from emergency overflows—by 2035 water companies will have improved all storm overflows that are discharging near every designated bathing water. We have also recently consulted on reforms to the Bathing Water Regulations 2013, including expanding the definition of “bathers” to include other water users.
A Government response to the consultation will be issued in due course, and if reforms are taken forward in future, that could mean that more bathing sites, including those used by aquatic sport users, will be subject to improvements. As such, we do not believe that the amendment is required.
Dr Hudson
I thank the Minister for her comments and for acknowledging the importance of the safety of the waters in which people practise water sports. I also thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for supporting that concept—we must try to keep these waters safe. I confirm, happily, that we will not be pushing the amendment to a vote.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 25— Duty on sewerage undertakers to monitor overflows at sewage treatment works, pumping stations and on the sewer network—
‘(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 94—
(a) after subsection (1)(b) insert—
“(c) to make provision for the accurate collection of data relating to its performance in fulfilling its duties under paragraphs (a) and (b).”
(b) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) In performing its duties under subsection (1)(c), a sewerage undertaker must—
(a) install volume flow meters in all locations where sewage overflows occur, including sewage treatment works, pumping stations and on the sewer network for which it is responsible;
(b) establish appropriate required capacities for each sewage treatment works and pumping station;
(c) publish information on the data and calculations used to establish such required capacities; and
(d) install all required monitoring tools within 12 months of the passing of this Act.”’
Emma Hardy
Thank you, Mr Vickers, for the opportunity to speak about the importance of clause 3. Monitoring and reporting on discharges from sewage outlets provides important transparency around the frequency and duration of sewage discharges, to support enforcement action and policy development and to direct investment to reduce discharges. English water companies have installed monitors at 100% of storm overflows. Near real-time information on storm overflow discharges in England is available on company websites and the national storm overflow hub, which provides a national map of all storm overflows. However, emergency overflows are currently not fully monitored, and data from emergency overflows is not published in near real-time.
There are 7,000 emergency overflows in England, and it is vital that we better understand the frequency and duration of those discharges so that action can be taken to reduce the harm they cause to the environment. The clause will close the monitoring gap across sewage outlets by requiring that discharges from emergency overflows be published within an hour. The near real-time information on discharges from emergency overflows will be independently scrutinised by the regulators, making it easier and quicker to investigate and punish wrongdoing. That information must also be published in a format that is both accessible and understandable to the public. If there are any specific requirements regarding that information, we can of course pass that to the Environment Agency.
To support implementation of this measure, we have instructed English water companies to install monitors at 50% of emergency overflows by 2030, and 100% by 2035. During implementation, monitors will also be independently certified to ensure that they are correctly installed and maintained at emergency overflows. I hope the Committee agrees that that duty is essential to meet our manifesto commitment of ensuring independent monitoring of every sewage outlet.
I turn to new clause 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. We agree that it is vital to understand the scale and impact of sewage discharges. That is why clause 3 requires water companies to provide information on the frequency and duration of discharges from emergency overflows in real time. I look forward to hearing what the hon. Member has to say about the issue. I will respond to and provide reassurances about the amendment in detail in my closing speech.
Charlie Maynard
I will keep this short. I am looking forward to the factsheet, but the Minister will note that new clause 25 focuses on overflows, not emergencies or storms. Frankly, it does not make much difference to a bug, a bunny or a bather whether they get whacked by an emergency overflow or a storm overflow—they are still getting whacked by the sewage. Trying to unify things and get all the issues into one table would be really helpful.
We have already been denied one amendment about flow; I recognise that and will not go on. But quality and flow are important. I am afraid that I find the Government’s position—“We really need to focus on quality, so let’s not talk about flow or install flow meters”—to be spurious. I mean no offence, but it feels like a real let-down that we are not going there now. I do not see any reason why we cannot; respectfully, I think the Government are being flim-flammed by the £6 billion figure.
We talk about sewage treatment works, pumping stations and so on. I have mentioned them already but really want to push the point home because we want to be capturing every overflow, wherever it is. Too often, people talk about works but forget pumping stations and the overflows on the network itself. We look forward to seeing that being covered in the legislation: overflows, works, pumping stations and the network. We will not press the new clause to a Division.
Darren Paffey
Thank you, Mr Vickers—so keen was I to support the clause that I tried to speak to it too early. I appreciate your forbearance.
Clause 3 has my full support. As I mentioned, I live in an area served by Southern Water. The citizen scientists on the River Itchen have done such good work that they regularly and consistently show that there are unacceptably high levels of faecal matter in the river, even when there has been no storm or emergency. The fleshing out of the requirement for monitoring so that there can be greater accountability is hugely welcome.
Furthermore, my area is entirely relevant to new clause 25 because of the aquatic sports, particularly during the pandemic. A great wild swimming group use the river, and there are also paddle boarders, canoeists and kayakers. I have the greatest respect for them: they go where I would not be willing to at the moment because the levels of illness that people have reported. The stench of what goes into the river also affects local schoolchildren, who cannot play outside. There are all kinds of reasons why the clause will deal with the issues being experienced in my constituency.
We want bathing water status in the area, but that is almost an impossibility at the moment because of the water quality. Again, clause 3 will guarantee the openness, monitoring and forcing of accountability in the area. I welcome the clause and thank the Minister for bringing it forward. The Bill takes action and makes achieving that status much more likely. People in my constituency and beyond, across not only Southern Water’s area but the country, will welcome it too.
Helena Dollimore
Does my hon. Friend share my horror at our current situation, in which constituents are getting ear and eye infections from swimming in the sea or rivers? One constituent of mine even attributes their deafness in one ear to an infection they got in the sea. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is desperately needed for our constituents?
Darren Paffey
I share my hon. Friend’s shock and disgust at not only what people are suffering, but the entirely avoidable reasons why people are becoming ill. There are so many benefits to what the clause and the wider Bill can achieve, not just on the issues that Members on both sides of the House have mentioned in relation to trust in our water companies and the use of public money, but for public health. How much more public health benefit could people across all our constituencies experience if they were able to engage with aquatic sports or just enjoy the park areas that surround so many of our rivers, beaches and waterways? I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and am grateful that her point adds even more weight to why this clause is absolutely necessary.
Emma Hardy
I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate on clause 3. I reiterate my promise to provide a factsheet and information about the numbers we have used. We have had an interesting debate about the different types of monitors. To clarify, we have emergency overflows, storm overflows, water quality monitors, event duration monitors and volume monitors, which we have discussed. We will make sure that the factsheet provides clarification so that we are all on the same page and understand the debate clearly.
Putting all that to one side, I think we ultimately all agree that it is important to better understand the frequency and duration of discharges from all the emergency overflows. We all think we need to improve transparency and inform investigations by the regulators into potential non-compliance.
Combined with the equivalent duty for storm overflows, which has just come into force, clause 3 will ensure that all sewage overflows on the network are monitored. That will enable regulators and, importantly, the public to see, in near real time, when a discharge from any overflow has occurred and how long it lasted. Water companies will use that information to prioritise investment to mitigate the impact of the most polluting overflows, as guided by the regulators. We have discussed our concerns about volume monitors being more difficult and costly to install. I gave a rather garbled explanation of the difficulty owing to the pipework in the majority of overflows requiring modification. As I said, I will provide further information on those numbers.
Such a large programme of work would take much longer than 12 months. We do not think that this added cost is proportionate to the additional value that volume information would provide, especially given that volume information alone does not provide a comprehensive account of the impact of a discharge—measurement of the water quality is required for that. To repeat a point, I do not want to be a Minister in a few years’ time who has perfected the art of monitoring and done nothing to deal with the causes. That is why the water companies will begin installing continuous water quality monitors for storm overflows, as set out in the price review ’24, to provide further information on the impact of sewage discharges on water quality.
New clause 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, would require capacities for each sewage treatment works and pumping station to be calculated. That is unnecessary because that information is already included in environmental permits and available from the Environment Agency’s public register. The new clause also proposes a general duty for water companies to collect data relating to their performance operating a sewerage system. We do not believe that that broad duty adds any meaningful requirement on water companies beyond their existing duties through the environmental information regulations.
On that basis, I commend clause 3 to the Committee and ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his new clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Nature-based solutions
Tim Farron
I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 4, page 10, line 4, leave out—
“use that is to be made of”
and insert—
“priority that is to be given to”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
New clause 5—Licence conditions about nature recovery—
“In the Water Industry Act 1991, after section 17FB insert—
‘17FC Nature recovery
(1) It is a condition of all licences granted under section 17A (water supply licences) that relevant undertakers must give due consideration to nature-based solutions targeted at reducing flood risk and pollution incidents, improving water quality and benefiting nature restoration in their catchment area.
(2) The Authority must not take any action that discourages or prevents a relevant undertaker from making an investment in accordance with subsection (1).’”
This new clause would make it a condition of all water companies’ licences to consider nature-based solutions to flood risk, improving water quality and benefiting nature restoration in their catchment area, and prevent the regulator from discouraging or stopping such investments.
Tim Farron
You will be delighted to hear that I will not say very much about this, Mr Vickers. Amendment 26 relates to nature-based solutions for these broader issues, and many of my points were covered under amendment 24. I simply want to point out the value of nature-based solutions. They are cheap, they are low input, they provide potential income for farmers and other land managers, they are environmentally friendly in and of themselves, and they involve very light engineering to install and maintain. They are also less complex, not labour-intensive and much quicker to achieve and install, as well as having very clear ecological benefits and alleviating pressure on more conventional forms of sewage treatment. I make those points just to add to the importance of prioritising nature-based solutions to tackling sewage treatment.
Jerome Mayhew
I understand that this will not be put to a vote, but I want to add my support for nature-based solutions and to draw to the Minister’s attention an experience I had with Anglian Water. It had a village-sized water treatment works just over the border in north Norfolk at a place called Langham. The chalk stream that the sewage works discharge into is the Stiffkey, which runs through my constituency and then just over the border. To its great credit, Anglian Water co-operated with a local landowner and created a wetland. I would have thought it would be the easiest thing in the world to have the treated sewage discharge into a secondary processing unit—it was, from memory, about two acres in size, so it is quite a large wetland with meandering going through it—and then exit back into the Stiffkey.
The Environment Agency eventually allowed this to take place, but it is worth highlighting that its initial response was, “No, you have to apply for a new licence to discharge effluent into the river.” That was because it was coming not from the pipe, which was semi-treated, but from a new entrance into the stream via the wetland. The “computer said no” attitude of the Environment Agency was quite extraordinary, because it was not going to get any worse with the discharged water going through a wetland before entering the stream, and yet it took several months. It was a very significant constraint, and it called into question whether or not the project would go ahead.
I would be grateful if the Minister could take that away with her and ensure that the Environment Agency sees the development of wetlands as a really positive step forward. I know its senior leadership does, but that message should go right through the organisation so that the time and delay of bureaucracy, and the requirement for new applications for licences, do not get in the way of what we all wish to achieve.
Dr Hudson
I rise to speak to new clause 5, tabled by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. We are talking about practical nature-based solutions to flood risk. I welcome the comments made about nature-based solutions, not least from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, who talks passionately about the importance of nature-based solutions for flood mitigation and that side of things.
I noted that during the election campaign, he waxed lyrical about Windermere, which is a beautiful part of his constituency. I know that he was an active participant with the leader of his party in water sports as well, although I note that he was a lot more competent at staying on the paddleboard than his leader. I welcome his comments on the importance of protecting and preserving our water spaces, but very much encourage the Government to facilitate landowners, land managers and farmers to do nature-based solutions to mitigate flood issues.
New clause 5 would try to ensure that water companies consider practical, nature-based solutions to flood risk. That would also make water companies try to improve water quality and nature restoration in their catchment areas, so there would be a double win. In Government, we Conservatives set specific, legally binding targets to improve water quality and availability in order to try to reduce nutrient pollution and sediment pollution from agriculture to the water environment. We also set out how to reduce water pollution in our environmental improvement plan. Nature recovery was carried out under us, and opportunities to do that with nature-based solutions should be seized on as we move forward.
Emma Hardy
I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions during this debate and the careful consideration of the amendments tabled to clause 4. We are in danger of having a bit of a love-in with so much agreement in this room.
I turn first to amendment 26, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. I was genuinely really pleased to see clause 4 added on Report in the Lords, as a result of the collaborative cross-party approach to strengthening the Bill so that it further encourages greater use of nature-based solutions by water companies, and I appreciate the kind comments from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epping Forest. This is why clause 4 requires sewerage undertakers to address, in their drainage and sewerage management plans, the use that is to be made of nature-based solutions in their networks.
Sewerage undertakers already have existing obligations under section 94A of the Water Industry Act to address the sequence and timing for the implementation of measures proposed in their drainage and sewerage management plans. We believe that these obligations sufficiently require sewerage undertakers to address the relative prioritisation of the proposed measures in their plans. Nature-based solutions are one of a diverse range of potential solutions to complex drainage and sewerage issues. Clause 4 will ensure that sewerage undertakers highlight the proposed role of nature-based solutions within their network. It is right that undertakers have due flexibility to consider the full range of solutions available to them and to work with stakeholders to identify the right solutions.
As much as I love nature-based solutions—and so does everyone in the room, it appears—I am sure we all accept that it is not appropriate to prioritise nature-based solutions ahead of other available options in every circumstance. We believe, however, that the provisions in clause 4 will have sufficient positive effect in supporting greater exploration and development of nature-based solutions without posing operational challenges for the sewerage undertakers. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale to withdraw his amendment.
Moving to new clause 5, which the hon. Member for Epping Forest tabled, I take this opportunity again to agree and emphasise that the Government think that nature-based solutions are critical to ensuring that we have a resilient and sustainable sewerage system. I am therefore delighted to inform the House that we have recently seen the regulator doing just that. In its final determinations for the 2024 price review, Ofwat has set out an allowance of £3 billion for water company investment in nature-based solutions and biodiversity. That includes £2.5 billion to reduce storm overflow spills through green solutions.
However, the Government have noted the concerns and amendments in the other place, which is why we introduced our amendment to place a new requirement on sewerage undertakers to support the greater use of nature-based solutions, which now forms clause 4. Clause 4 will ensure that nature-based solutions are considered from the start of investment planning and decision making as a solution across multiple risks, including pollution, flooding and drainage. I trust that the hon. Member is therefore reassured that his new clause has already been provided for. On that basis, I ask him not to push his new clause to a vote.
Although I have outlined some of the merits of clause 4, I will briefly reiterate why this Government consider the clause to be an essential part of the Bill. Nature-based solutions are vital to protecting the environment and the wider water system, as well as delivering co-benefits including protection from flooding for the public and enhancing the natural environment. I concur with the comments made about flooding by the Opposition spokesperson. Clause 4 will drive further exploration and development of nature-based solutions, and will require undertakers to be transparent as to how they have deployed, or propose to deploy, nature-based solutions within their drainage and sewerage networks. Compliance with that duty will be monitored by Government and regulators.
Sewerage undertakers will also be required to conduct public consultations on their drainage and sewerage management plans, which will allow the public to scrutinise the plans and propose changes. Therefore, to help realise the Government’s desire to see further development of nature-based solutions by sewerage undertakers, I commend clause 4 to the Committee.
Tim Farron
I will add to the words I have already said, but not by very many, I promise. The simple bottom line of our proposal is that nature-based solutions offer great value for dealing with sewage. As has been mentioned on both sides of the Committee, they also have a significant impact on flood prevention. I am bound to crowbar this in, but it is a reminder that among the things that we should be enormously grateful to those who work our uplands—our hill farmers—for is that their work, if we support them properly, prevents people who live in towns, villages and cities from being flooded.
Another part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs brief is the environmental land management scheme, and how we can look to further support those working in the uplands—our land managers and our upland farmers, both tenants and owners—to be able to deliver those nature-based solutions to protect millions of homes and avoid billions of pounds of damage, as well as being part of the solution to dealing with sewage.
We will not seek to press the Committee to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Impeding investigations: sentencing and liability
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Emma Hardy
Thank you, Mr Vickers, for the opportunity to speak on the importance of clause 5. The clause strengthens the penalty for obstructing the investigations of the Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. Obstruction of investigations by the regulators is already an offence, but that has not stopped companies blocking the regulators’ investigations.
In 2019, the Environment Agency prosecuted a number of individuals at Southern Water for removing evidence from the possession of officers. I am sure Members will agree that such behaviour is unacceptable. Currently, the offence of obstructing the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales’s investigatory powers—under section 108 of the Environment Act 1995—is punishable only by a fine, and can only be heard in the magistrates court. There is also no mechanism for prosecuting executives where obstruction of those powers occurs under their guidance.
The offence of obstructing the Drinking Water Inspectorate is already triable in the Crown court. That too, however, only carries a maximum penalty of a fine. I am sure Members will agree that it should never be preferable to accept a fine rather than face the full consequences of lawbreaking, and where lawbreaking occurs with their involvement, executives should be held accountable. Clause 5 makes the offence of obstructing the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales’s powers under section 108 of the 1995 Act triable in the Crown court. It expands the maximum penalty for obstructing Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales and Drinking Water Inspectorate investigations to be up to two years’ imprisonment for conviction on indictment.
Clause 5 will address a notable justice gap and further deter the offence of obstruction. In turn, it should better enable our regulators to carry out their investigations uninhibited and hold water companies to account accordingly.
Emma Hardy
I am just about to finish. On the basis of what I have said, I hope that clause the clause can stand part of the Bill.
Jerome Mayhew
I think this is technically now a speech rather than an intervention. I am supportive of the content of the clause, but I have one technical question: if we choose to move a penalty from a fine to imprisonment, there has to be a person to apply that penalty to, rather than a body corporate. The question that obviously arises out of that is: is it the intention of the Government to apply the penalty to the controlling mind, or to a member of an organisation who may be several layers below that of the controlling mind? Who is it intended that the criminal offence should be applied to, and how will the Government ensure that there is no misunderstanding and uncertainty based on the current drafting? It is not at all clear.
The Chair
We will assume that that was an intervention, and I will give the Minister a chance to respond.
Emma Hardy
Individuals can already be prosecuted, under section 110 of the Environment Act 1995, for obstructing Environment Agency investigations. However, that legislation does not allow executives to be prosecuted where obstruction has occurred with their consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect. The Bill will remedy that omission by adding a consent, connivance or neglect provision to the Act, meaning that executives or other relevant officers may face imprisonment if obstruction occurs as a consequence of their actions.
Dr Hudson
The Opposition have no formal objections to the clause, but I do have a couple of clarifying questions. I realise I am getting into territory with which I have no familiarity. I am not a lawyer; I am a veterinary surgeon. When we are changing offences to make them more criminal, there are implications for the courts and for individuals. Although expanding the options available to the court when sentencing offenders who have not followed the rules is welcome, how have the Government ensured that the offences are clear, so that those who commit them face the full punishment if and when required?
In terms of modelling the potential impact downstream, what work have the Government done to look at the situation retrospectively? If this provision had been law over the last few years, how many offenders would have been caught by it and potentially imprisoned? I realise that that is quite a technical question, but I wonder if the Government have looked at that at all. When we bring in laws, we need to ensure that we are aware of their implications and know how the legal and judicial system can exercise them. However, we have no formal opposition to the clause.
Tim Farron
Likewise, the Liberal Democrats have no objection at all to this clause. I cite from memory that in 2021-22, there were just under half a million spillage incidents in this country: a total of 16 were prosecuted, eight with a fine of more than £50,000. I think what the Minister was getting at before was that very often, it is worth taking the hit. First, organisations get away with it, but even if they do not, they pay a pittance compared to the cost had they invested properly in the infrastructure. It is right to take these things seriously. However, prosecutions with potential imprisonment and loss of liberty may be as few and far between as prosecutions relating to fines, unless we make sure that the whole process is more rigorous than it has been so far.
We are supportive of the clause and I need say nothing further.
David Reed
I want to raise one minor point. Public confidence in us restoring our water systems is the reason we are here, scrutinising this Bill. Feargal Sharkey—a main campaigner who many people up and down the country listen to—recently wrote an article saying that no water boss would ever go to prison as a result of this legislation. Will the Minister comment on that to give confidence to people watching this proceeding?
Emma Hardy
I am obviously a bit of a fangirl of Feargal Sharkey, not least because of his musical career before entering the field of environmental campaigning.
We do not expect this measure to materially impact on court case numbers. The intention is to deter offending. Not all cases will go to the Crown court, but it is right that that is a possibility. Obstruction of the Environment Agency’s emergency powers, under section 108 of the Environment Act 1995, is already triable in the Crown court. The EA will consult on updating the enforcement sanctions policy to ensure that that is absolutely clear. Although this is not a new offence, we are talking about changing the maximum penalty because of the justice gap that I have mentioned. Previously, it was punishable only by fine and heard only in the magistrates court, and we are moving it to be punishable in the Crown court and including a prison sentence.
I am pleased that there is lots of agreement on the importance of the clause. We are talking about something very serious: obstructing the Environment Agency or the Drinking Water Inspectorate in going about and collecting the evidence that they require. This is a serious matter, and it deserves a serious penalty. I thank hon. Members for their views on the clause, but nothing that has been said detracts from the importance of addressing the justice gap. I am pleased that there is agreement, which has, on occasion, has been exploited by water companies. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Civil penalties: modification of standard of proof
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Emma Hardy
Regulators can currently impose civil penalties where they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that an offence has been committed. The civil penalties are imposed by the regulators, rather than through the courts. The criminal standard of proof is appropriate for severe offences—for example, where there is a major impact on human health, on quality of life or on the environment. A high investigatory burden is not proportionate for minor to moderate offences that have a lower impact. Clause 6 will allow these offences to be enforced more quickly, cost-effectively and proportionately by enabling penalties to be imposed using the civil standard of proof, which is
“on the balance of probabilities”.
The penalties will be in addition to existing enforcement options that can be imposed only using the criminal standard of proof, including prosecution and unlimited variable monetary penalties, which will remain unchanged. Of course, the most serious cases will still require criminal proceedings. The Government will consult on the specific offences for which the civil standard of proof may be used and on the cap for the new lower standard of proof for variable monetary penalties. There are no plans to remove unlimited penalties for severe offences. Parliament will then debate and vote on secondary legislation before any changes are made.
The clause will strengthen the power of the water industry regulators, driving improved performance in the sector, and I commend it to the Committee.
Dr Hudson
I note that clause 6 would grant the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers the power to introduce secondary legislation concerning fixed and variable monetary penalties, as confirmed by the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. It would likewise change the condition of imposing these penalties from “beyond reasonable doubt” to
“on the balance of probabilities”.
Although His Majesty’s Opposition have no problems with the clause, we believe it would be beneficial for the Minister to make some clarifications to aid the reading of the clause in the future. First, how often does the Minister think that secondary legislation may be required for the fixed monetary penalties? During the last Government’s period in office, we knew that sometimes penalties needed to be adapted to get regulation of our water industries right. As I discussed in previous debates, the Conservative Government saw fit to amend the amount that water companies could be fined for violating the water quality rules.
As was also mentioned earlier, Baroness Hayman in the other place highlighted the importance of flexibility in changing rules on the water industry. The Opposition agree that flexibility is important, but for there to be flexibility, there also needs to be consistency, and awareness and monitoring of the issue so that we know exactly what flexibility is needed. Could the Minister therefore comment, now or in due course, on whether the Government will be continuously updating and monitoring to ensure that monetary penalties are having the desired outcome, that they remain aware of any potential issues and that they can determine whether they need to modulate and change things?
Does the Minister support the use of secondary legislation to increase scrutiny? As we have already discussed, the Government have sought to avoid the responsibility of accountability at ministerial and Government level by using statutory instruments for things like Ofwat’s remuneration and governance guidance. Can they not see that a bit of a discrepancy remains? If they are willing to use available powers to make change but not enhance powers, they might need to do that on other issues that we have discussed. Barring those comments and clarifying questions, we have no formal objections that we wish to raise.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Member for Epping Forest for his contribution to the debate. I think the point my hon. Friend, and friend, Baroness Hayman made in the Lords is that we do need some flexibility, and that it would be inappropriate to set out the details of implementing these powers in the Bill, because that would result in a fixed power that would not be adaptable to the industry’s circumstances. We would like to be able to continue to adapt it.
I think the shadow Minister is trying to make sure that we set things in the right way and at the right level. That is why Ofwat will be doing a consultation. We want the level to be a deterrent rather than something that water companies can easily dismiss, but it needs to be set at the right level. It is important that that is done properly and through consultation.
I am grateful that everybody supports the clause. By strengthening the powers of the water industry regulators, we will drive improved performance in the sector.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jeff Smith.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Impact of Conflict on Women and Girls
(1 day, 9 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
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of conflict on women and girls.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. There are many things that we disagree on in the House, but I hope we will find some clear areas of agreement in this debate. I hope we agree that the impact of conflict on women and girls is undeniable and unacceptable; that women are not only victims but survivors, combatants, leaders and human rights defenders, and their role in preventing and resolving conflict and in peacebuilding is key; and that the UK has a crucial role to play in this area.
I am sure that Members will want to focus on specific geographical areas. I will focus on the overall situation, as well as on two specific conflicts in Sudan and Afghanistan. First, let me set out the situation globally. It only takes turning on the news or scrolling on social media to see that conflict is raging all around us, from Gaza to Sudan to Ukraine. There are many other conflicts that we barely speak about any more, such as that in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Women and girls continue to be disproportionately affected by conflict. According to the UN, in 2023 an estimated 612 million women and girls lived within 50 km of a conflict—an increase of 41% since 2015. That number is more than the population of the United States of America and Brazil combined.
The impact of conflict takes multiple forms, from sexual violence to girls losing years of education. Women are dying because of the impact of war. The proportion of women killed in armed conflicts doubled in 2023, compared to the previous year. Sexual violence in conflict has also risen dramatically, with UN-verified cases soaring by 50%—and those are only the ones we know about. Half of those displaced because of persecution, conflict and violence are women and girls who are forced to live far from home or in refugee camps, where often they are still not safe.
Those are some of the most direct impacts, but there are so many more impacts on women’s health, education and freedoms. Women and girls are more likely to go hungry in conflict, and attacks on health facilities impact women and girls’ access to sexual and reproductive health care. As Plan International has highlighted, the impact on girls is devastating. Girls schools have been deliberately targeted to stop them going to school, and of the 119 million girls who are out of school, more than a quarter are in conflict or crisis-affected countries.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and on her excellent speech.
One of the consequences of war and conflict is disruption to education. The educational void is catastrophic, not just for girls themselves but for their families, communities and nations, too. A lack of education for girls also undermines peacebuilding. Studies show that educated women are key to rebuilding post-conflict societies, participating in governance, and preventing the resurgence of violence. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK must champion the protection of education in conflict zones and hold Governments and militias to account when they attack schools or use them for military purposes?
Alice Macdonald
I do agree. Like the previous Government, this Government have done a lot on girls’ education, as did former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who continues to do so. There is not only an impact on girls’ present; it is an attack on their future and on the future of us all.
We have seen the rolling back of women’s rights, and nowhere is this more evident than in Afghanistan, described as the worst women’s rights crisis in the world. The Taliban are steadily erasing women and girls from public life and suppressing every single one of their rights. A female in Afghanistan cannot go to school, cannot go to the park and cannot travel or leave the house without a male chaperone. She cannot work for a non-governmental organisation, which will have a devastating impact on the delivery of aid; she cannot study midwifery or medicine; and over Christmas it was reported that the Taliban have banned windows to stop women even being seen. This is gender apartheid.
I went to Afghanistan in 2011 and met many women who were determined to shape the future of their country. The politicians I met are no longer able to serve. The women who were working in domestic abuse refuges are not working any more—indeed, those shelters are shut. Those women are still fighting for the future of their country; it is their voices and demands that we must listen to, and we must act. That must include heeding their calls to recognise what is happening as gender apartheid, and as a crime under international law. That would mark a historic step towards ending this abhorrent discrimination and send an important message to Afghan women and girls that we stand with them.
The international community and the UK must also make it clear that we will not normalise relationships with the Taliban unless they end their war on women. I know the Minister cares passionately about this issue. Will she tell us what specifically the Government are doing, and whether they will support the calls to recognise what is happening as gender apartheid and pursue it through the UN so that it is treated as a war crime?
We can all do our part. Like others present, I joined many Members of Parliament in signing a letter, organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), to the England and Wales Cricket Board, asking it to speak out and boycott the match against Afghanistan—because all action matters.
I turn now to Sudan, where an estimated 6.9 million people are currently at risk of gender-based violence; where 75% of girls are not in school; where there is evidence of mass and systemic rape; and where women are reportedly committing suicide out of fear of that rape. Evidence shows that women and girls from ethnic minority groups are being deliberately targeted. The accounts are horrific. I read one from a 35-year-old Nuba woman who described how six Rapid Support Forces fighters stormed into her family compound. She said:
“My husband and my son tried to defend me, so one of the RSF fighters shot and killed them. Then they kept raping me, all six of them”.
Sudan has been described as the world’s forgotten conflict. As the UK is the penholder on Sudan in the United Nations, will the Minister set out what we can do now to support women in Sudan and change the situation so that it is no longer the world’s forgotten conflict? Does she agree that the United Nations and the African Union should urgently deploy a mission to protect civilians in Sudan that is mandated and resourced to address sexual violence? Does she think UN member states should bolster support for the UN fact-finding mission, as the Secretary-General has urged, to help to pave the way forward towards meaningful accountability?
Let me turn to Gaza; I know that more Members will speak about the situation in the middle east. As I said in the Chamber recently, there are 50,000 pregnant women in Gaza right now who cannot access the care that they need. Imagine giving birth in the hell that is Gaza right now. If the ban on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East goes ahead at the end of this month, that will have a devastating impact on everybody, including women and girls, so I hope the Minister will update us on what we are doing to push harder on that front.
Many people may ask why we in the UK should care about this. Why should we care about what is happening to women in other parts of the world? Well, it is the right thing to do, as was set out by the previous Government in their national action plan on women, peace and security. It is also the smart thing to do, because empowered and engaged women mean more secure and prosperous societies. When women’s rights are rolled back anywhere, they are rolled back everywhere.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this vital debate. As she knows, the ongoing climate crisis is making more regions of the world uninhabitable, fuelling conflicts that disproportionately affect women and girls. In humanitarian conflicts, up to 70% of women and girls experience gender-based violence, and we must empower them by elevating their voices and leadership in times of crisis. Does my hon. Friend agree that robust systems must be in place to provide the vital support necessary for women and girls in these times of crisis?
Alice Macdonald
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution and for raising that important point about climate change, which has a very detrimental impact on women and girls everywhere, and particularly in conflict situations. Indeed, it is a driver of conflict, as we see when it comes to, for example, resource scarcity. I welcome that point and agree that it must be a key part of these conversations.
Let me turn to the action needed. I will focus on three specific areas: international leadership, aid and peacebuilding. This year marks the 25th anniversary of UN Security Council resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. It was hailed at the time as a landmark agreement and included really important measures on protecting women and girls in conflict and supporting their leadership and their role in peace processes.
This year is a golden opportunity to renew the UK’s leadership and, indeed, the international community’s leadership on this important agenda. It is also an opportunity to review the plan that the previous Government set out, because we know that, on many of its elements, we need to do much more. For example, we know that men who commit sexual violence and other atrocities against women and girls still have impunity, so will the Minister update us on what is happening to tackle sexual violence in conflict and hold perpetrators to account? The previous action plan did not include Sudan and the occupied Palestinian territories as focus countries; obviously the situation has changed fundamentally since then, so does the Minister think they should be included in the plan?
Secondly, we know that aid does not always reach women. Only 25% of women affected by conflict receive essential relief and recovery aid. The aid cuts under the previous Government had a devastating impact on women and girls. Will the Minister confirm that we will reverse the trends, including with a specific target for the percentage of official development assistance focused on gender equality, as organisations such as CARE have called for, and that we will invest in women-led and women-focused organisations? Will she also tell us that when we announce packages of humanitarian aid—I welcome the £50 million announced for Syria—we will also ensure that it reaches women and girls?
Finally, women’s participation is not “a nice to have” in any area that we are talking about, and certainly not when it comes to peace processes. Women’s participation is fundamental for effective peacebuilding, but women are still not adequately involved in such processes. Yet we know that when women participate in peace processes, it works. Their participation increases the probability of an agreement lasting more than 15 years by 35%. We have seen women play a really important role in many peace processes, from Libya to Libera to Colombia.
The UK must work actively to promote the fundamentals of the women, peace and security agenda: prevention, participation, protection, and relief and recovery. Women are not victims and women must not be voiceless. The progress that has been made on this agenda would not have happened without the courage and perseverance of women. We must be hopeful for change; in the words of Plan International’s report, still we dream. Indeed, a survey by Women for Women International showed that, across 14 countries, 81% of women are hopeful that there will be change, and that their circumstances will improve in the next five years. But that will not happen without the international community acting.
As this debate progresses, I am sure that we all have in our minds different women and girls who are impacted by conflict, such the Yazidi women; the girls abducted by Boko Haram; the Israeli women slaughtered and raped on 7 October; the women and girls living in hell in Gaza right now, where nowhere and nobody is safe; the women of Ukraine; the women of Iran; and the women of Syria who are hopeful for a better tomorrow. Let us resolve to do what we can as parliamentarians to tackle the scourge of violence against women and girls, wherever it is found and in whatever form it takes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I remind all Members that if they want to contribute to the debate, they should bob or stand briefly, even if they have already notified the Chair that they want to speak.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) for securing today’s important debate. Before I go further, I declare an interest, having previously been executive director of the International Rescue Committee in the UK, which is part of a global humanitarian agency that supports women in conflict and crisis around the world.
As we heard from my hon. Friend, women and girls are suffering disproportionately from rising conflict around the world. The number of women living in conflict zones has surged: in 2022 around 600 million women—that is more than one in seven of the world’s women—lived in, or in close proximity to, an armed conflict. That is double the figure it was in the 1990s. As we have also heard, conflict impacts women in many specific ways, including increased sexual violence, the loss of livelihoods and worsening healthcare, resulting in higher death rates even from preventable causes. I want to share some examples from two particularly brutal ongoing conflicts in Gaza and Sudan, and then move on to solutions.
In Gaza, women are being impacted in so many ways, but let me talk about reproductive health in particular, having heard some very powerful testimony at the International Development Committee. Pregnant women living through that conflict are three times more likely to miscarry, and if they do carry their babies to full term, they are three times more likely to die in childbirth due to lack of access to appropriate antenatal and post-natal medical care, and lack of access to basic medicine, safe shelter and adequate nutrition.
Nebal Farsakh from the Palestine Red Crescent told us at the Committee evidence session:
“Almost 60,000 pregnant women in Gaza are lacking everything. They are malnourished, not able to receive the food they need and not even receiving the proper healthcare service they deserve. They are living in shelters, thousands of people are sharing one toilet and you cannot even imagine…how a pregnant woman has to endure such inhuman conditions”.
As well as that,
“because of the collapsing healthcare system, as a pregnant woman, you barely have the luxury of delivering your baby in a hospital.”
If pregnant women are “lucky enough” to, they cannot stay and
“many women have had c-sections without anaesthesia because it had run out.”
That is one of many “continuous struggles”, with
“hospitals lacking anaesthesia, painkillers and other basic medications and medical supplies.”
Israeli authorities have denied entry to many of those critical supplies, including anaesthesia supplies, oxygen cylinders, ventilators and other medicines. According to UNRWA, of the total—extremely limited—humanitarian supplies that have entered Gaza since October 2023, just 2% were medical supplies. On 4 November last year, the United Nations Population Fund announced that attacks on hospitals have forced the only functioning neonatal intensive care unit in northern Gaza to close. The denial of access to newborn and maternal healthcare and the removal of the conditions necessary to give birth safely represent a grave threat to the survival of pregnant women, and Palestinians more widely, in Gaza.
Let me also touch on the impact of the conflict in Sudan—mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North—which is having similarly grave consequences for women and girls. For example, reports of gender-based violence in Sudan have drastically surged, encompassing alarming incidents such as kidnapping, forced marriage, intimate partner violence, conflict-related sexual violence and child marriage. The UN has witnessed a staggering 288% increase in the number of survivors seeking case-management services for gender-based violence, and at least 6.7 million people in Sudan are at risk of gender-based violence. There are also cases of sexual exploitation driven by food insecurity and water scarcity, and there is severely limited access to essential post-rape care and support services for survivors, who are in desperate need of medical, psychological and mental health support.
Despite the horrific impacts of conflict on women that we have heard about, often it is women in conflict zones who lead the response. Women are often the first responders. In Gaza, women make up 70% of frontline healthcare workers and 60% of caregivers. We know that that can lead to improved healthcare outcomes. For example, in Niger and Burkina Faso local organisations are nearly twice as likely as international organisations to report increased GBV caseloads, which suggests that women are more likely to report violence to those local women’s organisations. Women are also some of the chief advocates. For example, in Niger, when groups of women who were IDPs—internally displaced people—were excluded from receiving humanitarian aid, they lobbied district authorities to officially recognise their community, and in doing so secured services for people with disabilities and cash assistance for their community.
When I spent time with Syrian refugees in Jordan in my previous role at IRC, I met incredible Syrian refugee women who were there without partners, or had lost their partners in the war, and who had set up their own businesses on top of caring for their families; and not only doing that but pushing donors to change their approach to better support women refugees to be entrepreneurial and to earn a living alongside looking after their families. Women, showing such great leadership, are proving absolutely critical to building lasting peace in places where conflict is being brought to an end.
There is strong evidence to demonstrate that the involvement of women and girls in peacebuilding is key to achieving successful outcomes. Research shows that where women lead and participate in conflict prevention, response, recovery and peacebuilding, societies are more stable and peace is more durable. Women’s participation in peace negotiations results in peace agreements being 35% more likely to last at least 15 years, while the participation of civil society, including women’s organisations, in peace processes makes them 64% less likely to fail. Yet despite the huge volume of evidence showing that women are best placed to understand and meet the needs of their communities before, during and after conflicts, too often their voices are still ignored.
I will highlight two key solutions. I have been pleased to hear the Minister speak passionately about her commitment to gender equality and I know that she has hit the ground running to make that commitment and ambition a reality. I also welcome the Prime Minister’s appointment of Lord Collins as the special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict. I pay tribute to the many brilliant NGOs that are delivering important support for women in conflict and championing the rights of those women, including with funding from our Government. They are not only international NGOs such as IRC, Co-operative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Plan and Save the Children but, most importantly, women-led local groups like the International Committee for the Development of Peoples in Somalia and Right To Play in Pakistan and elsewhere. They are doing fantastic work, but there are two particular ways in which we can do more.
The first is funding. Of course, we must recognise that all Government budgets are limited, and that there are many competing priorities for those budgets, including for the global humanitarian and development budgets—that is just the reality that we are living in—but we can get our limited budgets working harder. We can expand the amount of multi-year funding available to organisations that support women and girls in conflict—that makes a real difference to their ability to plan and deliver their work effectively. We can ensure that funding is flexible to adapt to the evolving needs of women and girls at different stages of conflict and crisis. We can introduce measurable targets to increase the amount and quality of funding that goes to women-led organisations within a particular humanitarian budget. We can use our influence within the UN to reform the multilateral funding mechanisms that are absolutely crucial in some contexts where funding is otherwise very difficult to get in—such as the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs’ country-based pooled funds. That would make it easier for women-led organisations to apply and succeed in receiving funding.
The second point I want to touch on is how we think about and categorise the issue of women and conflict in the first place. We must start thinking about women in conflict as central, not just to our development work but to our foreign policy. We have such a great track record and reputation to build on, and real, live opportunities to make progress, for example, through our work through as penholder on women, peace and security at the UN Security Council.
But it means much more if we encourage countries to adopt and adhere to international human rights treaties that cover the rights of women in conflict; it means increasing pressure on perpetrators of sexual violence in conflict and external parties that back those perpetrators through sanctions, where appropriate. It means using the UK’s voice at the UN Security Council to continue shining a light on this issue and calling for accountability. It means fully supporting UN fact-finding missions so that evidence is compiled and perpetrators are deterred through monitoring. Another example is to facilitate meaningful participation of diverse groups of survivor-led organisations and women’s rights organisations in conflict prevention and peacebuilding processes.
I look forward to our Government’s continued progress on this important matter. I believe those two things—reforming the way we think about funding for women in conflict, and elevating women in conflict—are not just a development priority but a diplomatic one, and are the right places to start.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure, Sir Jeremy, to serve under your chairship. I thank the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) for leading the debate with passion and interest, and setting the scene so very well. These are always hard subjects to talk about. I find it incredibly difficult to comprehend the violence that is shown towards women and children. I find it unfathomable, but it happens across the world with a violence and brutality that shocks me—and, I know, everyone else here—to the core. Thank you for giving us a chance to participate in this debate.
This issue is not only a matter of human dignity. It also demands urgent action from Parliament and the international community, so it is good to be here to discuss it. It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place; I look forward to her contribution. I know that the right hon. Lady has the same qualities of compassion and understands things with an honesty that we all try to express, in broken words, here and in the Chamber. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), and I look forward to her contributions. She and I have been friends for many years and have participated in debates alongside each other, so I am confident that she will deliver as well today.
The Library has sent some very helpful stats. Some people say, “Stats are stats,” but they can illustrate where the problems may be; some stats were shocking for me to read today and yesterday. Four out of every 10 people killed in conflict are women, which puts things in perspective; of the 117.5 million people displaced, half are women, and last year there was a 50% increase in sexual violence. I find it particularly difficult to read the papers whenever these stories are apparent, because I cannot fathom the horrors those women experience—I have had difficulty understanding it. I remember when the Yazidi ladies came here a long time ago—it must have been over 10 years ago, or thereabouts—and I met some of them. To tell the truth, I almost felt like I was intruding by listening to their stories, because what I probably did—unknowingly—was to make them relive all the horrors that they had been subjected to. But that is the world we live in.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on freedom of religion or belief, I particularly look at how conflict impacts women of different faiths. In the rest of my short speech today I will focus on that issue, and most importantly on how it impacts their lives daily, because it does—with a vengeance.
Such conflict, which includes the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Israel, spans regions and affects women in particular. Some of the horrors of 7 October come to mind. Last year at Easter, I visited Israel, including some camps where the people were brutalised and the women sexually abused. Some women were burned; their bodies were burnt to a cinder. I find such things incompatible with life; the life that I lead is certainly very different from the lives of the people who carry out such crimes.
Women almost always bear a disproportionate burden of the suffering in conflicts, as they often traverse the dangerous terrains of conflict zones to support their families. A critical perspective must not be overlooked when addressing the issue of unexploded ordnance, which has been left, for example, in the aftermath of war. The alarming reports of increased sexual exploitation and trafficking of Ukrainian refugee women, particularly young and vulnerable women, highlight the critical need for immediate targeted action.
When I was in Israel, I met some people involved in groups that addressed or tried to address the issue of sexual violence and attacks on women and children. I was made aware by some people in the delegation—they were similar to me, but from a different country—that children as young as eight and women as old as 80 had been sexually abused by some Russian soldiers. Not every Russian is a bad Russian, but the ones who carried out those actions need to be held accountable for their brutality, their violence and their depravity against young girls of eight years old—my goodness me—and 80-year-old pensioners. Of course, as a Christian I know that a day of judgment will come, and that those who carried out such actions will all be held accountable, but I would like to see their day of judgment come quicker, and in this world; that is what would happen if I had my way.
I remember visiting a refugee camp in Poland a couple of years ago. Along with some other members of the delegation, I noticed these guys—I would probably call them predatory males. Remember that the people who were in that camp were there just a matter of months after the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. These guys were pushing trolleys around, supposedly collecting laundry and so on, but we noticed—not that we are smarter than anybody else; I am not smarter than anybody else, but I do take note of things that happen around me—that some of those men were not actually doing anything. They were just watching to see what the women and girls were doing. It was obvious to me that they were predatory. When we left the camp, we made sure that we told the police people in charge. Whatever those men were doing there, it certainly did not look like they were there to help anybody.
With reports from Germany indicating that only 14% of female refugees are employed, the risk of female refugees’ falling prey to human traffickers has grown, and that situation has been exacerbated by a lack of adequate accommodation and economic support. A busy mind and a busy person cannot always be distracted by things that happen around them, so it is important to focus on that as well. In conflict zones worldwide, the experiences of women and girls are shaped by a convergence of vulnerabilities, gender, faith and socioeconomic status. Tragically, these intersecting identities often make women and girls the first and most enduring victims of violence, coercion and systematic discrimination.
One of the most harrowing manifestations of freedom of religion or belief violations in conflict settings is the targeted abduction, forced marriage and conversion of women and girls from religious minority communities. In her introduction to this debate, the hon. Member for Norwich North mentioned Pakistan. I have been to Pakistan twice, primarily regarding the issue of freedom of religion or belief. I would love to say that the second time I went, two years after the first time, things had changed; but I did not see any change. If anything, I saw that the situation had got worse.
I am reminded of the case of a 13-year-old girl, which is two years younger than my eldest grandchild. Her name was Kavita Oad, a Hindu girl who was abducted and forcibly married. Her family, who were already financially marginalised, faced threats of violence and theft when they sought justice for their 13-year-old, in a country that seems to think it is okay to marry off a young Hindu, Christian or Sikh girl of 12, 13 or 14 to a predatory male who should never have any say on the issue.
Unfortunately that is not an isolated case, but part of a systematic campaign to erase the religious identity of minority communities. Courts often fail to protect those girls, framing their exploitation as consensual marriages—no, they are not. Their mums and dads do not want them to be married, but when they go to the police, the police either fail or are unwilling to act, and the courts of the land do not protect them. I know that the Minister knows those things—I am not saying anything she does not know—but they disturb me greatly, and we need some idea of what those countries are doing to stop them happening.
In conflict zones, sexual violence is wielded as a weapon to intimidate and destabilise entire communities. Women and girls are targeted not only because of their gender but because of their faith. For example, in Nigeria and Sudan, Christian girls and girls from ethnic religious minorities find themselves suppressed physically, in terms of their human rights, and through their faith—something that is incredibly difficult to comprehend.
Such acts of violence aim to extinguish the cultural and religious identity of persecuted groups. I visited Nigeria about two years ago and had the chance to speak to some of the displaced people. They were not just Christians; they were also Muslims, who also find themselves suppressed because of their religious beliefs. Again, that disturbs me greatly. I know the Minister knows these things, and I would be pleased if she were to give us some feedback on this issue. Women and girls often find themselves doubly marginalised in refugee camps or in settlements of internally displaced people, such as those we visited in Nigeria.
The hon. Member for Norwich North referred to Sudan, and the stories from there are impossible to finish. The other day I read about a mum who was asleep in the house, and three soldiers from a Sudanese terrorist group, or whoever they were, broke in and abused a young girl. The family all slept in another part of the house and did not even know about it until the next morning, when they found that their wee young girl of 13 or 14 had been abused by soldiers that night.
If Members have not read the stories from Sudan, they need to—they are unbelievable. What has happened in that country is one of the worst genocides that I have heard tell of across the world. Not only are people uprooted from their homes, but they face discrimination based on their faith, compounding their vulnerability. The trauma of forced conversions, violence and displacement inflicts profound psychosocial harm on people, coupled with restricted access to education—the hon. Lady also referred to that—and economic opportunities. People need to have something to do. They need opportunity, because those experiences perpetuate cycles of poverty and disenfranchisement among minority groups.
There are pluses in this depressing and negative story, however, so I will highlight three things and perhaps the Minister could give me some feedback. The UK Government have initiated a preventing sexual violence in combat initiative, as they have done in many parts of the world, including Ethiopia, Iraq, Ukraine and Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. They need to be commended for that. We sit here and ask the Government to do things, so we should give them credit when things are done right and thank them for that.
We also need to ask how we can increase that and help more as the violence and sexual violence increase. May I say very gently that, as a Government, we need to match that with funding? Again, these are constructive comments for the Minister—they are not meant to be critical; that is not how I do things—but can the Government increase the aid available to specifically target women and children?
That last thing that I, and I think all of us, would love to see is for those who have carried out the horrible, depraved physical and sexual abuse of women and children to be held accountable. There are stories to tell—those women and those girls will tell their stories—and those who did it need to be accountable, so let us have that day of reckoning. As a Christian, I know that there will be a day of reckoning in the last days of this world, but in this case I would like to see a day of reckoning coming sooner.
To conclude, achieving gender equality and safeguarding FORB are not merely aspirational goals; they are moral imperatives. Let us commit to amplifying the voices of women and girls who have suffered in silence for far too long. I urge the Minister to work in conjunction with her counterparts to ensure that these issues are addressed and that more is done to protect women facing hardship. My job, and the job of us all here, is to be a voice for those who have no voice, and today, that is what we are doing.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I apologise in advance, Sir Jeremy; I am slightly under the weather today and have got a bit of a sore throat, so this might not come out quite as I intended.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) for securing this important debate. Although we often focus on issues around conflict and violence, and what can be done to resolve them, we can sometimes miss the fact that conflict disproportionately affects women and girls. During times of conflict, existing inequalities are magnified and exaggerated, leading to further insecurity, homelessness and particularly violence and sexual violence against women and girls.
We have already heard from my hon. Friend about the current situation in Gaza, which, as we know, is unconscionable. It is estimated that almost 50 mothers and their children are killed every day. According to World Health Organisation estimates, 183 women give birth every day and, as we have heard, many are enduring C-sections without anaesthesia or other medicines. Ironically, many of the supplies that could resolve that problem are probably sitting at the borders, in the convoys that we know have been sent by international agencies and Governments, including our own, and could be put to use. So desperate is the need that it is just outrageous that those supplies are not being allowed to reach the people who need them so badly.
In Myanmar, women have borne the brunt of the military oppression in that country and have been subjected to a rise in intimate partner violence and sexual violence, too. Some 3 million people have been displaced, which in turn puts women at further risk of violence and abuse, because they are separated from those who would normally, one would hope, help to defend them—their fathers and brothers, and their husbands and partners. At the same time in Myanmar, women are shut out of any discussion or high-level debate about making peace—I will return to that point a little later. I was pleased to read about the Minister’s and the Government’s ongoing commitment and work, through the preventing sexual violence and conflict initiative, which I understand remains a real priority for our Government. I hope the Minister will say a little about that at the end of the debate.
When it comes to peacebuilding—hopefully we will move to peacebuilding efforts eventually in some of these conflicts—women are often excluded from the efforts and discussions, which leads to further entrenched disenfranchisement. Women are often the people who hold together communities, and often have a deeper understanding of the whole-community needs in humanitarian emergencies in particular. As we know, in many traditions they still hold the major caring responsibilities and are very much integrated into their communities, but they are not well resourced or respected as international humanitarian actors. Our Government’s commitment to take forward resolutions to these conflicts is very welcome, and it is what we would expect, but I hope the Minister can give us some sense of how women will be involved in that work as we go forward.
Women being affected by conflict is not a new phenomenon—it has probably been with us for the whole history of humankind—but now we know how wrong and unacceptable it is. Because of social media, television and all the other media channels that we have, we know for ourselves exactly what is going on. We cannot turn a blind eye to it. If we do not involve women in resolving conflict and in peacebuilding initiatives, we are destined to repeat the mistakes of the past—something I suspect none of us would wish to do.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) on securing this debate and hon. Members on both sides of the House on their fine speeches. I will touch on some of the same themes, not only because of the gravity of the topic, but because of the clarity of the problems and some of the solutions.
In 2023, over 600 million women and girls lived within 30 miles of a conflict. That figure is 40% higher than it was in 2015. The world is burning. Israel, Gaza, Sudan, Myanmar, Ukraine, Iraq, Syria and the Congo— that is just a short list I sketched out from the small number of speeches we have heard, but I could fill a 10-minute speech with a list of the areas around the world where violence is being inflicted against women and girls in conflict.
As many hon. Members throughout the House have said, it is women, girls and children who suffer disproportionately in conflict. Gender roles tend to become more extreme in conflict. Men go to fight—of course, that is a stereotype, but that is what we are talking about; these stereotypes become more entrenched —and women are often left at home looking after the children and defenceless because the men are fighting elsewhere. They therefore become a target and a way to inflict pain on not just those individual women and girls but the group at large. Sexual violence in conflict is a military strategy used by actors around the world to defeat or attempt to defeat their enemies. I will draw on a couple of examples and highlight one solution that costs nothing and that the British Government should push much harder on.
One of the gravest inflictions of violence on women and girls is happening currently in Ukraine. Earlier this week, I spoke in the main Chamber about the abduction and transfer of Ukrainian children to Russia. Rape and sexual violence are also used as systematic tools by Russian forces in Ukraine. Cases have been documented where Russian soldiers have been issued with Viagra to facilitate rape and sexual violence. The reports that we hear echo the advance of Russian forces across the country in 2022; they are so similar that we know that it is a tactic of war, rather than a few bad apples, as is so often claimed by the defenders of these heinous crimes.
In Ukraine, women ranging from 16 to 83 years old have reported being raped. This often happens during home incursions—a home will be searched by Russian troops and they will rape the occupants while doing so. One particularly sickening case was verified by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Russian soldiers entered a family home outside Kyiv in the initial stages of the invasion. They shot the family dog, before murdering the father. They then raped the mother for several hours, while her four-year-old hid under a blanket and watched. While they were raping the mother, they were drinking, then they passed out when they were finished, allowing the mother to escape with her four-year-old son.
While these crimes have been going on in a systematic fashion, the Russian state has also been destroying healthcare facilities in Ukraine, which obviously has a wide-ranging effect. When coupled with rape, it takes away the very treatment services that Ukrainian women rely on to offer some solace and care after the brutality and depravity of rape at the hands of a Russian soldier. These crimes of the Russian state are systematic. They are an attempt to break the Ukrainian spirit and resolve to resist.
I served several times in Afghanistan as a British officer and the tragedy that has befallen Afghanistan since 2021, when the Taliban took over, is immense. That tragedy particularly falls upon Afghan women. Women’s rights have been decimated in Afghanistan since the Taliban took over—indeed, they no longer really exist in any meaningful sense. That has been extensively documented. Many Members have commented on what has happened in Afghanistan to Afghan women’s rights, so I will not go into it in great detail. I will mention one or two particularly extreme examples.
Before the Taliban took over, Afghanistan had a system of support for survivors of gender-based violence, of which there was certainly some. There were shelters, legal aid, medical services and psychological support, which offered a lifeline to thousands of women. Since the Taliban took over, the incidences of rape have increased and the shelters have also been targeted, looted and destroyed to the point at which they are non-existent. It is the same pattern that we see in Ukraine. It is not only the crimes; the services that are meant to offer comfort, solace and care after the event are destroyed. The Ministry of Women’s Affairs and the Human Rights Commission, of course, are no longer extant in Afghanistan under the Taliban.
One particular egregious example in Afghanistan was reported by The Guardian newspaper. In July, a video was disseminated on social media of the Taliban raping a female human rights activist at gunpoint in a Taliban prison. We should ask ourselves why that video was filmed and disseminated. It was because women must be not just violated in Afghanistan but shamed and humiliated to make a point. It is particularly poignant, given the cultural history of Afghanistan, that if someone stands up for women’s rights they will not only be violated but their family’s name will be shamed through their violation on social media. These crimes are beyond depraved.
I have spoken of conflict and of post-conflict, if that is indeed what we can call what is happening in Afghanistan. I will now talk of peace, because it is only through peaceful, stable societies that women and girls—and boys and men—can be safe. Peace must be our policy; peace must be our goal. As many Members have already mentioned, it is a fact that if there is a peace agreement that women are involved in negotiating, that peace lasts longer. By definition, if that peace lasts longer it means that more women and girls—and boys and men—will be safe.
It must be the policy of the British Government not to urge but insist that where peace negotiations are happening under the auspices of the United Nations, the African Union, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe or any other body with which we are involved or affiliated, women must be fully represented in those negotiations. That is not just a moral but a deeply practical point, and it is the one thing we can do in an age of constricted Government budgets that is free and will have a definite, practical outcome. It is crucial that the UK insists that women are involved in negotiating peace agreements.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
I place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) for securing this important debate. We know that conflict is on the rise across the world, and that with each conflict comes an increased level of vulnerability and violence for women and girls. Any discussion around conflict must therefore be conducted through a gendered lens, and today provides the opportunity for that. I thank my hon. Friend again for giving us the opportunity to shine a light on this ongoing issue.
Conflict has an array of impacts on women and girls, many of which have been covered by colleagues already. I will focus my remarks on one hugely important yet understudied problem: the impact of sexual violence in conflict on women and girls. Too often, sexual violence against women and girls is swept under the rug, and its victims are forgotten, ignored or denied. Today is an opportunity to recognise and acknowledge that it is real, it is a problem and we need to take it seriously across the world in order to end it. It is an area that I have campaigned on for a number of years, and I want to recognise how encouraging it is that so many new colleagues are in the Chamber today—the new colleagues are in the majority, which is great to see.
We have already heard today about the impact of violence on women and girls in so many countries, including Congo, Sudan, the middle east, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Myanmar, Ukraine, Iraq and probably many more that I have either missed or will be talked about following my remarks. I will focus on the terrible war in Israel and Gaza, the sexual violence against Israeli women and girls committed by Hamas on 7 October 2023, and the sexual violence against Palestinian women and girls since then.
As many of the victims on 7 October were murdered or died from their wounds, we may never have an exact picture of what happened in that murderous attack. What we do know is that Hamas’s violence against Israeli women was a well-documented case of mass, organised sexual violence, not least because the perpetrators proudly filmed, advertised and celebrated their crimes. One account from a first responder at Kibbutz Be’eri reported “piles and piles” of dead women who were “completely naked” from the waist down as well as horrific sexual mutilation.
Rami Shmuel, an organiser of the Supernova music festival and a witness of the massacre, in which 360 people—mostly Israelis—were murdered, saw female victims with no clothes as he escaped. He said:
“Their legs were spread out and some of them were butchered.”
Another Supernova survivor, Yoni Saadon, reported seeing
“eight or 10 of the fighters beating and raping”
one woman. She also said:
“When they finished they were laughing, and the last one shot her in the head.”
These were not random acts, but a systematic effort that the women’s rights campaigner Professor Ruth Halperin-Kaddari has characterised as a
“premeditated plan to use sexual violence as a weapon of war.”
We must also take a moment to recognise that Hamas’s sexual violence may even be ongoing. Around 100 Israelis —the figure may be just under that, according to last night’s news—remain held hostage in Gaza, of whom we know 12 are women and girls. Reports have indicated and survivors have confirmed that both female and male hostages have been subjected to sexual assault in their 424 days in captivity.
Likewise, I remain gravely concerned about the sexual violence that Palestinian women and girls have endured and continue to endure in this ongoing conflict. Credible reports from UN experts highlight that Palestinian women and girls in detention have been subject to multiple forms of sexual assault, including being stripped naked and searched by male Israeli officers. Photos of these vulnerable Palestinian women in degrading circumstances have also reportedly been taken and uploaded online by members of the Israeli army.
Reem Alsalem, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, argued that all those numbers are, in fact, likely to be even higher due to the secrecy with which the assaults take place and the stigma around reporting sexual violence and rape, which discourages women from speaking out—something that exists wherever they are in the world. Wherever the victims are, we as both parliamentarians and human beings should be saying, “If you are a victim of sexual violence, we believe you,” but all too often they face scepticism and even outright denial.
The Israeli women and girls subjected to sexual violence on 7 October 2023 were met with deafening silence from many agencies and organisations founded to support victims. Many organisations initially ignored or minimised Hamas’s crimes of sexual violence, or even doubted that they had even taken place. UN Women issued multiple statements following 7 October, none of which made reference to the sexual violence of that day. The UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls blandly expressed concern about
“reports of sexual violence that may have occurred since 7 October committed by State and non-State actors against Israelis and Palestinians.”
Worse, many supposed feminists dismissed discussion of Hamas’s rape as colonial feminism and unverified accusations; the latter will be all too familiar to those victims brave enough to report their experiences, whether in conflict zones or non-conflict zones. We know that this is sadly all too true for most victims of sexual violence.
We know that sexual violence is perpetuated by stigma, silence, victim blaming and denial. All those prevent women and girls from getting the justice that they deserve. When we deny the reality of sexual violence, we perpetuate it, so it is incumbent on us all to ensure that we treat all victims of sexual violence with the respect and compassion that they deserve. Wherever you are and whoever you are, we believe you.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) for securing this debate. I also thank the Minister—who I know feels very strongly about these issues, and has done for many years.
I will try and refrain from repeating anything that has been said by other hon. Members—there have been some fantastic speeches. I also say to anybody watching, that if they feel disturbed by this, there are support services that they can refer to. This is a difficult topic but it is important that we shine light on it. I know there is some detail here that can be triggering to some people.
The world is facing the highest number of conflicts since world war two, and women and girls are paying the price. Upholding the safety and dignity of women and girls, protecting them from torture and violence, is a human rights obligation, but it is one that the world—and we—often fall short of upholding. Rape in war is by no means a new phenomenon, but its escalation as a deliberate strategic and political tactic is now undeniable. That has many consequences. There are the physical consequences, the unwanted pregnancies, the sexually transmitted diseases and HIV. There is also the brutality, and the psychological consequences, that come alongside these kinds of activities. In conflict areas, what makes it worse, is the disregard of international law, the arms proliferation, the increasing militarisation and the shrinking of civic space. It exacerbates conflict-related sexual violence, and it hinders safe reporting and response. It also leads to an increase in trafficking and exploitation.
Access to healthcare is just one of the ways gender violence is perpetrated, in some cases by the lack of care for those who have been physically damaged by rape, but also for those who have unwanted pregnancies as a result. Hospitals and other healthcare facilities should be a beacon of safety and healing for those that are injured in conflict, including survivors of sexual violence. But the destruction of health facilities—and the direct and indirect killing of healthcare workers—has severely hindered the provision of lifesaving medical assistance for survivors who need comprehensive medical care, sexual and reproductive healthcare, and psychological support, as well as avenues for reporting.
The message from the #MeToo movement was that crimes of sexual violence are compounded by cultures of stigma, silence, denial and victim blaming, which often prevent women from securing justice. Yet it often feels like this is ignored when women are in a war zone. Women and girls are just seen as inevitable collateral damage.
I would like to highlight a few cases: I will try not to repeat what has been said before by hon. Members. In Gaza, beyond the impact of the loss of hospitals and healthcare workers—which has been highlighted by my hon. Friends—women and children also bear the brunt of the lack of supplies in wartime. In Gaza, millions of women and children are suffering from the inability of aid agencies to cope with the demand for supplies or to deliver them to those in need.
At the moment, we estimate that 690,000 women and girls in Gaza require menstrual hygiene products. The stocks of hygiene kits have run out, and the price of those that are available is exorbitant. Women are having to choose between buying pads and buying food and water. So instead they are cutting up old sheets or old clothes to use as pads, thereby increasing their risk of infection and the stigma that those infections bring. There is also a risk because they have not changed their clothes in over 40 days.
In every humanitarian disaster, in every sense, women pay the biggest price. The UN is working with over 30 women-led organisations in Gaza to provide gender-based violence services, and last year, over 159,000 women and girls used those services in Gaza. If the ban on UNRWA comes in, I dread to think where those women and girls will go for support.
We have heard a lot about Afghanistan. Under the Taliban’s apartheid of women, women and girls have been denied access to learning, employment and travel. They have been excluded from public spaces and banned from singing—I find that one the hardest to understand—although they may not want to sing. They have been banned from attending medical institutions and from seeing male doctors. Despite those restrictions, Afghan girls, many of whom were already in school when the Taliban returned to power in 2021, continue to dream, but they have to attend underground schools or participate in local home schooling or remote learning, which puts them and their teachers at risk.
There have been other consequences. Child marriage has increased by 25%. I am not even talking about forced marriage, which is bad enough. Those children should not be forced into marriage and everything that comes with that. The risk of maternal mortality has surged by 50%.
As we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), rape was used as a weapon in Israel. I do not want to repeat what she said, but despite the fact that it has been well documented, even by the armed perpetrators, the majority of organisations still fail to acknowledge the sexual violence that took place on 7 October.
We have heard about the rapes that are happening in Ukraine. It is not just about the rapes, but the fear of rape. One Ukrainian victim of sexual violence said:
“I would have preferred to die.”
Rape has become cheaper than bullets as a means to terrorise a nation, and the aggressors know that. The psychological fear is passed on, not just from woman to woman but from women to girls. Civilian women who are not officers or soldiers are often targeted for rape and punishment to humiliate the soldiers on the frontline.
Time and again, women bear the brunt of war’s brutality. They are consistently on the frontline as soldiers, fighters, doctors, nurses, volunteers, peace activists, carers for their communities and families, internally displaced people, refugees and, too often, victims and survivors. Women confront the increased sexual and gender-based violence and its perilous health conditions while being forced to make life or death decisions for themselves and their families. At the same time, women are often excluded from the decision-making processes, and their rights and needs remain unprotected and unmet.
This culture of silence continues even though the UN officially recognised gender-based violence in 1992. It is as recently as that; for some of us it does not feel very long ago, which shows our age. Since that recognition, little has changed for women in conflict areas. There is still too much silence from international organisations, alongside a lack of moral clarity in calling out sexual violence on a global scale. Justice and any hope of healing begin with recognition. If we are a rules-based society that believes in human rights, we cannot continue to see women and girls as inevitable collateral in a conflict. We are not just victims of violence or weapons of war.
We must work with authorities, especially security forces, to reinforce the message that sexual violence, like all war crimes, is prohibited and will be prosecuted. We have to draw a clear red line against these acts. Training, awareness raising and a prompt response from those in positions of leadership in military and police units is necessary to make this happen. We need a cultural shift from the normalisation of sexual violence and the emotional battery of women and girls in conflict; they must be seen as the true victims and survivors they are. We must put pressure on international authorities to take concerted action to make protection from sexual violence a central part of their peacekeeping efforts. Finally, the UK’s contribution should be a long-term partnership with women and women-led organisations right around the world, so that we can support women in those countries to be part of a future free of gender-based violence.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) for securing this debate on such an important topic and to all the colleagues who have spoken in this debate so eloquently and passionately. We have heard devastating statistics about the impact of conflict on women and girls. We have heard testimony about the importance of sexual violence as a weapon of war. Listening to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), I was reminded strongly of the words of Gisèle Pelicot: “Shame must change sides”. That is key to bear in mind.
During the speeches of other Members, I reflected on the fact that conflict-related violence on women and girls is not perpetrated only by soldiers in uniforms with guns. We know that, in the context of conflict and post-conflict, there is an increase in domestic violence against women and girls. The inequalities and the injustices are writ large through societies, and that is why this debate is so important.
This is an issue of personal interest and concern for me. Before I came to this place, I worked for many years in the field of international development, including in northern Uganda during a time of conflict, so I have been thinking of the women that I knew and worked alongside during that period. I have also worked with the ecumenical accompaniment programme in Palestine and Israel that works for peace in that conflict. I was thinking of the women in Gulu in northern Uganda who I used to work with from People’s Voice for Peace and the role that they played. They were local women supporting women in their communities who had been affected by sexual violence, displacement, theft, violence, and the complete loss of livelihoods and the lives of loved ones. That work was done by women within those communities to support their sisters to endure through extremely difficult conditions.
In thinking about the remarks that I wanted to make in this debate, I thought of those women. I thought of women in Gaza, in Israel, women in conflict all around the world, and refugee women who I know in the UK—the lucky ones who have escaped from situations like this. I thought of women I know from Iran and Ukraine who I hope would support the remarks that I am going to make and my requests of the Minister. It is so important that, when debating these topics, it is those women’s voices that we have at the centre of our thinking and our discussions.
I have four key asks and key lessons from reflecting on this topic. The first is—I think Members present agree on this—the UK Government must do everything to defend, to protect and to uphold the rights of women and girls in all our international interactions, as we should in all our domestic work, too. I am sure that is difficult and complicated diplomatically sometimes, but it must be absolutely at the forefront and explicit in all our work.
The second point I want to make, echoing the call of the hon. Member for Norwich North and others here today, is that we must reverse the cuts in UK aid. The cuts made under the previous Conservative Government were, in my view, shameful. It is incumbent on the new Government to reverse those cuts as quickly as possible. I know from friends and colleagues how devastating they were.
I was interested to read prior to this debate a briefing from Women for Women International. In a very large-scale survey that it did, only 25% of women in conflict situations had received any aid at all. In Afghanistan, it was less than 10%. The quantity of aid really does matter. Aid is not the only solution to alleviating the impact of conflict on women on girls, but it is one thing that the UK can do.
My third point is that it is not just the quantity but the quality of aid. It is essential that the framing of the conflict response and the humanitarian response explicitly considers the needs and rights of women and girls. As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central mentioned, women and girls have specific needs with regard to, in particular, sexual and reproductive health and protection against violence.
I am a big fan of the use of cash transfers in humanitarian aid. Again, bearing women’s rights in mind when distributing aid is crucial. Cash transfers can be one way to really empower women in a conflict response situation. We need to ensure that our aid programme gives long-term core funding to women’s rights organisations—women-led organisations. Having worked in the international development sector—I can see colleagues nodding; I am sure they will completely agree with this—I think that long-term funding for organisations that are working to address conflict is crucial. We all know, as Members of Parliament and as people who have worked in public services, the difficulty of doing things hand-to-mouth on a year-on-year basis. It is so important to have long-term core funding to build the capacity, particularly of women’s organisations —women-led organisations—to challenge the inequalities and injustices that they have faced often for decades in order to uplift their voices. That is my fourth and final point.
Conflict resolution is the only long-term way to get away from the disastrous stats that have been cited so far—indeed, not just the resolution of existing conflicts, but prevention of potential conflicts. Amplifying women’s voices and creating space for women’s voices and women’s participation, as the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) emphasised, is essential. Unless the voices of women and girls are heard and heeded in peacebuilding and conflict resolution, we will not be able to tackle the problems that we have been discussing today.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) on securing this critical and timely debate, and also everyone who has contributed. It has been incredibly moving to hear the very personal accounts of what people have viewed and witnessed.
Hon. Members have spoken powerfully about the brutal rape of women in Ukraine and the abomination of the kidnap of children. We heard from my hon. Friend about the attempts by the Taliban to extinguish any and all joy from the life of Afghan women—in fact, to extinguish the women full stop. As we have heard, in war zones across the globe the existing inequalities that women and girls face on a daily basis in peacetime are magnified. They are making them more vulnerable to violence, exploitation, displacement and insecurity. That vulnerability is not inevitable; it is the result of deep-seated gender inequalities that shape societies.
It is our responsibility to challenge and dismantle these structures, especially in times of crisis. Conflict amplifies the risks that women and girls endure. We know from organisations such as ActionAid and Plan International that wars lead to surges in intimate partner violence, limited access to sexual and reproductive healthcare, and heightened caregiving burdens for women due to conscription and displacement. Again, these impacts are structural, not incidental, and they exacerbate inequalities that persist long after conflict ends.
Despite bearing the brunt of these hardships, women are often excluded from the processes that shape their futures. From humanitarian relief efforts to peacebuilding negotiations, women’s voices are ignored, expertise undervalued, and leadership opportunities denied. That marginalisation is not only unjust but counterproductive. There are women-led local organisations that possess invaluable insights into the needs of their communities and are best positioned to deliver targeted and effective solutions, yet they are underfunded and under-represented in international efforts. These organisations ensure that humanitarian responses address the specific needs of women and girls, providing lifesaving supplies and essential services such as mental health support, sexual and reproductive healthcare, and psychosocial aids. By centring women’s leadership, we can not only address immediate needs, but catalyse long-term equitable change.
We have heard some stark examples of the gendered impact of conflict on specific areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) mentioned, rape was used as a tool of terrorism on October 7. That was compounded by so many people who knew better ignoring and downplaying those atrocities, adding yet another injustice to the women who suffered. In Gaza, nearly 50 mothers and their children are killed every single day according to UN Women. Displaced Palestinian women are facing extreme emotional tolls, increased risk of gender-based violence and lack of access to essential healthcare. I have three children. I cannot imagine waking up every morning with the same horrors unfolding every single day, unable to protect my children, give them shelter, water or food, and take care of their basic health needs. They have to play this out every single day and night.
[Mr Clive Betts in the Chair]
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) mentioned, the World Health Organisation reports that 183 women give birth daily in Gaza, with many undergoing caesareans without any anaesthesia due to restrictions in medical supplies. This place has also heard testimony from medical professionals volunteering in Gaza, who are operating under the most horrific conditions without the most basic medical supplies they need. We also heard about women in Myanmar who are facing brutal oppression, including sexual violence and intimate partner violence. The military targets women activists and peacebuilders, economic instability and food insecurity have led to a rise in early marriages, and the displacement of nearly 3 million people has left women and girls at heightened risk of abuse. Despite those challenges, women are systematically excluded from political and peace negotiation spaces.
Talking about those injustices and brutalities, and hearing about the horrors that are taking place all over the world, can really lead us to a place of despair, but we must have hope. We are not just bystanders watching; we have a part to play. The UK must take bold and consistent action to address those injustices. As a signatory to the grand bargain 2.0, the UK has committed to directing 25% of humanitarian funding to local actors, including women’s rights organisations, yet in 2021, only 0.2% of UK humanitarian funding went to those groups. That is not acceptable. We must consider ringfencing funds for women’s rights organisations within our humanitarian spending.
A lot of what I wanted to say has been covered, but I will say that, in addressing those challenges, we need a coherent approach to conflict prevention, peacebuilding and humanitarian aid. All UK-funded programmes must incorporate gender analysis and centre the voices of women and girls at every single stage, from policy design to implementation and evaluation. It is not only a moral imperative but a strategic one. As hon. Members have said, evidence shows that when women are involved in peacebuilding, agreements are more durable, communities are more resilient and outcomes are more equitable. The UK Government must continue to be vocal and definitive in their support for international law and their condemnation of all violation and abuses, particularly those against women and children.
All of us across the House are incredibly privileged to have the opportunity to serve our constituents, but our collective power, influence and voice stretches far beyond these isles. None of us knows how long we will serve in this place, but each of us must make our time here count. We have to lead with integrity, compassion and determination to support, protect and amplify women’s voices and their rights here and across the world.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I thank everyone who has spoken today. I have been very moved by Members telling quite harrowing accounts of the way that women are affected by conflict around the world, some of which has brought back difficult memories of my previous life before being in this place, when I worked in conflict zones, predominantly with children and women. To echo my hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan), I have found that I have reflected almost every day since coming here on whether I am having more impact being here than I did before. I note that five parties are represented here today, and I feel that there is a huge consensus. I certainly hope that beyond this room today there can be actions.
I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) for securing this really important debate, and I thank the Minister for being here. Until she appeared before the International Development Committee last week, I was a sceptic on the dual role of being both the Minister for Women and Equalities and the Minister for Development. I wondered whether it did not dilute the two roles, but the answer that she gave us has persuaded me that it is a very powerful thing to have her on the global stage. We all know how integral women and girls are to international development.
Many Members have raised Afghanistan, and I reflected on a time a few years ago when I was a further education teacher and had an Afghan student. She was a remarkable young woman on an access course and her ambition was to go on to be a doctor, but during that period the Home Office was trying to deport her family back to Afghanistan because it was deemed a safe country. I remember spending time with her, and she tearfully explained to me that although she probably could live there, she would not be able to continue her studies—and she had this dream of going on to be a doctor. We were ultimately unsuccessful at keeping her in the country, and I do not know what has happened to her since, but this is an important point that we note for future policymaking in that area.
I will focus my remarks today on the role of women in upstream prevention, with examples of some really heroic women that I have been privileged to know. A couple of years ago, I was privileged to work with the previous Government’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief in organising the global ministerial conference—I was part of an effort to bring women and youth from countries where there is interfaith conflict to the UK.
One of those people was Sri Lankan peacebuilder Dishani Jayaweera. She founded the Centre for Peacebuilding and Reconciliation. She told us a story from during the war when she met a man named Ulama, who had come to one of her workshops. She would run workshops that brought together people from different sides of the conflict to help build empathy and understanding. On the third day of the workshop, he took her hand and broke down crying; he confessed that he had been sent by an extremist group to spy on her organisation. However, as he spent time in the workshop he realised the value of its mission. He ended up becoming one of its most committed members, and went on to found a school for girls and start his own organisation.
Another such person is Badung Charity Audu, a Nigerian human rights activist. Charity witnessed severe violence in her community, including Muslim houses being burned to ashes around her. Some of her friends were murdered and, beginning at the age of five, she was repeatedly raped by relatives and close friends. Due to the high standing of her abusers within her community and faith group, she remained silent in her suffering. She faced constant verbal abuse and was often called “born by mistake” because she was born out of wedlock. She did not learn to read or write until she was nine years old, and was often bullied at school for being illiterate. Eventually, she found somebody she was able to confide in and open up to, and she talked to her foster parents about her experiences. Today, Charity works mentoring young girls overcoming the trauma of abuse and sexual violence in her country. She came here to Parliament and spoke eloquently about her work.
Another person is Khalidah, who is from Iraq, and her friend, Shno Qane Qader. Khalidah is a young Yazidi woman and Shno is a young Muslim woman; they work together to promote peace in their communities and there is powerful testimony of their work. Other examples include Ghadir Hana, an Israeli-Palestinian, and Surale Rosen, a Jewish Israeli: two women working together for peace. We took them to Birmingham central mosque for a discussion on peace and the role of women in peace there. Ghadir was given a pretty hard time by some of the audience, who could not understand why she was appearing on a platform with her Jewish friend promoting peace in their community.
Another example of three outstanding women, who I, unfortunately, could not bring to the UK because we were not successful in getting visas for them to come to the conference, are three women in the Central African Republic. A few years ago, I was with them in Bangui. By chance it happened to be International Women’s Day. Their names are Marie-Therese, Aicha Baba and Clarisse Manehou—a Catholic, a Protestant and a Muslim. They are three women who represent an interfaith platform and work together. There are three male faith leaders of that platform, who have also done remarkable work, and been nominated for all the Nobel prizes, as well as all the things one would expect, and have travelled the world, but we were not able to get visas for the women due to their poverty.
As I sat with those women and asked them about their experience and what I could do, two things stood out for me. One of them was that one woman said she was grateful for the work of the men in building peace, before adding: “But I was the one who faced down the barrel of a gun and stood between the militia and my community, and persuaded them to put down their weapons.”
Mike Martin
I would like to add another example to the hon. Gentleman’s great list. As he knows, Somalia, Somaliland and the other Somali countries are organised by clan, and in Somali culture it is actually the women who broker peace between clans. When there are conflicts over grazing rights, it is the women who cross clan lines to broker peace.
Sam Rushworth
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that example. Another example comes not from my own life but from Liberia, where women became so fed up of conflict that women on all sides decided to unite behind a woman—Ellen Johnson Sirleaf—for the presidency, while many men in the country voted along factional lines.
The experience I had with the women I mentioned will never leave me. I confess that I did not understand the currency I was using. I asked them whether they needed some lunch; I felt that we had been talking for a long time. I gave them what actually amounted to about $100, thinking that I was giving them about $10. They looked a bit overwhelmed. Afterwards, when they went off, my translator told me that they did not buy lunch; they came back hungry, because they said they could use that money better to benefit their community.
When I asked those women what would make the biggest difference for them, I was expecting them to make quite big financial demands. Instead, they said, “Could we have some sewing machines?” That was because, for many of them, their husbands had been killed, they had been raped, their homes had been burned and looted, and they no longer had sewing machines to make a living. For the sake of a few thousand dollars to provide sewing machines for those women, we could give them a livelihood, and that sum, frankly, is probably what we would spend on having a 4x4 on the road for a day in one of those countries. To echo the point that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) made about cash transfers, nothing is more important than getting cash to the women on the ground who know how to spend it to make a real difference in people’s lives.
In conclusion, several Members have made outstanding recommendations, so I will not repeat them all, but I will emphasise the point about upstream prevention. The previous Government rightly established that there needs to be an atrocity prevention strategy within aid spending, but now we need to take that idea forward. Part of that process must involve looking at civil society and upstream funding, and the long-term support for the women’s and young people’s organisations that are doing such vital work in peacebuilding. We need to look at the quality of aid, not just the quantity.
I will close my remarks, because I am really conscious of time. Again, I simply make an appeal that we do not just hear words here today, but that words lead to action.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and I thank the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) for securing this incredibly important debate, in which there have been many insightful and inspiring comments.
We have heard today that women and girls disproportionately suffer the impact of the global rise in conflicts, forcing record numbers of them to flee their homes. That dramatically increases their vulnerability to sex trafficking, child marriage and other forms of gender-based violence, for which they are often marginalised and stigmatised by their communities.
Conflict does not impact women through gender-based violence alone; it brings with it the loss of livelihoods, worsening healthcare and higher death rates. It also undermines women’s ability to give birth safely and interrupts women’s access to essential supplies, such as contraceptives.
We have also seen brazen assaults on civilians, aid workers and critical service delivery points, all of which constitute flagrant violations of international humanitarian law. Essential infrastructure, such as hospitals, displacement camps and safe spaces, has also been a casualty of war, and that has cut women and girls off from vital services and emergency assistance at a time when they are most at risk. Conflict therefore increases existing structural and gender inequalities and takes decades to undo. Time and again it is women and girls who bear the brunt of the increasing number of armed conflicts around the globe. The last year has offered devastating examples. I will only touch on the current crises in Sudan and Gaza, being brief because they have been covered so much already in this debate.
Nearly 70% of those killed in Gaza over a six-month period were women and children. That is, in itself, a terrible statistic and also a disproportionately high level compared with usual conflicts. Pregnant women living through the conflict in Gaza are three times more likely to miscarry, and if they do carry their babies to full term they are three times more likely to die in childbirth due to a lack of access to medical care and nutrition. We also know that women and girls, although their nutritional needs are greater, eat less and last in these conflicts, which are already plagued by malnutrition and starvation, yet none of the UK’s humanitarian funding for Gaza since October 2023 has been ringfenced for women’s needs, women’s rights and women-led organisations. That must change.
In Sudan, since the start of the conflict in April 2023, the number of people in need of sexual and reproductive health services has more than doubled, yet only 6.7% of the funding needed for gender-based violence prevention and response has been provided. Neither Palestine nor Sudan were included in the UK women, peace and security national action plan—I look forward to hearing why, in the Minister’s response.
From Members in this debate, we have heard harrowing accounts of sexual violence in both Gaza and Sudan. I will make one addition. We hear about women in Sudan who have taken their own lives to escape rape by paramilitaries, or because of being raped, or who have experienced sexual violence to protect their children from being afflicted. That is the shocking nature of these conflicts. Through the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative, the UK has been able to provide important support to survivors in Ukraine, providing expertise and material support to document sexual and gender-based violence, including through the atrocity crimes advisory group, but NGOs are unclear whether the lessons learned from that critical work are being applied to the conflicts in Sudan and Palestine. I should therefore be grateful if the Minister would confirm that the atrocity crimes advisory group has been dispatched to Sudan and Gaza. If it has not been, why not?
I would also like to hear from the Minister on the Government’s plans to pick up the commitments that the previous Government made through the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative, so that the UK can again demonstrate global leadership in tackling sexual violence in conflict. When we consider how vulnerable and targeted women are in these conflicts, not only does it offend our morals and consciences but, as hon. Members have said, it makes absolutely no rational sense. In Gaza, for instance, women make up 70% of frontline health workers and 60% of caregivers. As we have heard, women are important advocates in conflict-torn places and are critical to building lasting peace, with strong evidence to demonstrate that the involvement of women and girls in peacebuilding is key to ending conflict and building long-term, sustainable peace and stability. I endorse the eminently sensible and practical suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) to give women a seat at the table. Women must always have a seat at the table, and there are many women at those tables today.
In 2021, only 0.2% of UK humanitarian ODA went to frontline women’s rights organisations and movements, so will the Minister commit to funding for women’s rights organisations that is ringfenced within humanitarian spending? As a signatory to the UN Security Council resolution on women, peace and security, the UK must lead on this issue. The UK must be vocal, clear and more consistent in its support for international humanitarian law, and in its condemnation of all violations and abuses against all civilians, including women and girls.
I hope the Minister not only agrees with but acts on my last point, which is that—as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) pointed out— increasing international development funding is the fundamental way that the UK Government can properly tackle the kind of gender-based inequality and sexual violence that we have discussed in this debate. Prioritising development funding before a conflict breaks out, and allowing programmes to tackle existing gender inequalities in peacetime, is a far more effective way of tackling the deep-rooted inequalities that women and girls often experience in those fragile states, and it can reduce some of the gendered impacts and violence when conflict breaks out.
Gender-based violence is not inevitable; it is rooted in existing inequalities. UK aid for programmes that include a gender equality objective nearly halved between 2019 and 2021, with a devastating impact on women and girls. Funding for programmes supporting women and girls desperately needs to be restored immediately, as does the humanitarian relief reserve fund, and health programmes, which have also been cut. All those programmes have been eroded in the years since UK ODA was cut from 0.7% of GNI to 0.58% by the previous Government, and cut further to 0.5% in this Government’s Budget. It is no secret that the Liberal Democrats are pushing hard for the return to 0.7% of GNI, and remain perplexed as to why the Government insist on adopting the fiscal tests that they so vigorously opposed when in opposition. The point about 0.7% is that it is proportionate to a country’s prosperity. Will the Government commit to reviewing their use of fiscal test, and their declared goal, which is to return to 0.7%?
In conclusion, women and girls generally do not start wars, and neither do they usually have the power to end them—but they suffer disproportionately from them. It is within our gift to empower women and girls, so let us commit to doing so.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) on securing this debate. I believe she did so through the Backbench Business Committee, and I thank her for her endeavours. This has been a far-reaching debate with many excellent contributions. It has also been an excellent opportunity to highlight the plight of women and girls, listen to so many testimonies and personal experiences, share those stories, and often hear about things that, let us be honest, for most of us would be unimaginable.
We are deeply concerned about the impact that conflict has on women and girls. Reports of conflict-related sexual violence and its use as a weapon of war are particularly horrifying. We unequivocally condemn such abuses, and do not accept them as inevitable consequences of war. During our time in government, we were at the heart of the international response to CRSV. Since launching the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative—PSVI—in 2012, we continued to lead the world in addressing those crimes. In 2022 we hosted an international conference on the issue, and we launched a political declaration outlining a clear message that sexual violence must end and the steps that were required. That was backed up by £12.5 million in new funding. In 2023, we chaired a meeting of the international alliance on preventing sexual violence in conflict. It was the first of its kind and brought diverse actors together to drive global action.
Given the leadership that we showed through PSVI, I am pleased to note that the Government put on record a re-commitment to the UK’s support of the initiative. I also note Lord Collins’s appointment as the Prime Minister’s special representative. I would, however, like to ask what specific plans the Minister has to build on the work that we did through the PSVI. Can she assure colleagues that representations will be made to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about the value of this initiative ahead of the spending review?
Tackling the issues affecting women and girls in conflict is not just limited to ending sexual violence, as we must also raise the eyes of women and girls to a brighter future worldwide. As part of the work to advance gender equality and challenge discrimination, we launched the international women and girls strategy 2023-2030. That put women and girls at the heart of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s work, and our investment, together with partners, led to more girls in school, fewer girls forced into early marriage, and more women in high political office and leadership positions. We continued our support for the three Es—education, empowering women and girls and championing their health and rights, and ending violence. We made significant progress, and this Government have a lot to live up to.
What does the Minister plan to do to advance those commitments—in particular, on each of the three Es? One of them of course is ending violence, so I would like to touch on some of the specific conflicts that we are seeing around the world. Of course, there are many, and we have heard examples today, but let me mention Ukraine. In Ukraine, there is concerning evidence of conflict-related sexual violence being committed by Russian forces against Ukrainian civilians and prisoners of war. Some Russian perpetrators have already been convicted for those crimes. There appears to be a pattern of sexual violence being used as a weapon of war. As part of our work on PSVI when in government, we helped to build investigatory capacity to support accountability in Ukraine. I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on the steps she has taken to build capacity in Ukraine to help ensure that Russian perpetrators are brought to justice.
We are seeing in Sudan a war, driven by a man-made power struggle, that has led to a humanitarian catastrophe. The reports of CRSV are dire, and I know we all want to see an alleviation of the crisis. In government, we took steps to support partners to care for and protect survivors, and we invested a great deal of energy in trying to bring about a cessation of hostilities. We continue to call for a cessation of violence and for greater access for humanitarian aid so that survivors can access support. What steps is the Minister taking to progress those aims, particularly when it comes to upholding the rights of women and girls?
The next context I would like to mention is Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Let us be clear: we utterly condemn all alleged and reported CRSV, and call for proper investigations and a survivor-centred approach. The 7 October 2023 attacks by Hamas included horrific acts of violence against Israeli women and girls and other civilians, and we express serious concerns at reports of sexual violence against the hostages still held in Hamas captivity. The hostages can and must be immediately and unconditionally released. Hamas should stop using civilians, including women and girls, as human shields.
Last year, my noble Friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, as Foreign Secretary, announced £4.25 million of UK aid to support the work of UNFPA, the United Nations sexual and reproductive health agency, which provides lifesaving support to vulnerable women and girls. That was expected to reach 111,500 women, which is about one in five adult women in Gaza. I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on the latest steps taken to build on that support.
Conflict-related sexual violence is a systemic and pervasive abuse that threatens the lives and wellbeing of women and girls. In government, we led the global conversation on this critical issue that affects millions and demands a united approach. I am proud that when we were in government, the UK reached more than 4 million people, including survivors, with vital support. Of course, there is more still to do, so I hope this Government will build on our work and strive for a future in which CRSV becomes a thing of the past. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
It is a real pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) for securing this incredibly important debate on the impact of conflict on women and girls. I was grateful to my hon. Friend for her very powerful speech, and we have heard so many incredibly powerful speeches today. I echo the comments by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that this is an issue on which we can and must come together, and certainly today we did come together across five parties, as was mentioned. I was really pleased to see that.
As so many have mentioned, this is an incredibly timely debate. Conflict today is at the highest level since world war two. Women and girls are affected disproportionately, and we have heard so many examples today. The number of UN-verified cases of conflict-related sexual violence increased by 50% in 2023, as was mentioned, and not a single peace agreement reached in 2023 included a women’s representative or representative group as a signatory. There are not sufficient women at those tables. The UN Secretary-General’s 2023 report highlighted that 172 human rights defenders who are women were subjected to reprisals for no other reason than that they engaged with the United Nations. Those are sobering and concerning statistics, and we heard many others.
It is 25 years since the UK played an important part in securing the landmark UN Security Council resolution 1325, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North. Thirty years have also passed since the Organisation for Security and Co-Operation in Europe met in Beijing to agree a central set of international norms on women’s rights and gender equality. Those are two significant milestones that should provide an opportunity for us to celebrate hard-won gains, but overall we are going backwards internationally.
The new UK Government will continue to build on the ambition of the fifth UK women, peace and security national action plan; I am delighted to underline that to the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton). This Government are determined to work in partnership with others around the world, not least the civil society groups and women peacebuilders, who have key roles to play and are working on the frontline in their communities.
At the United Nations General Assembly last September, the Prime Minister gave a clear commitment to work together for peace, progress and equality. It is clear that women and girls must be at the heart of that work and at the heart of our development policy—I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North on that. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) that they also need to be at the heart of our work in relation to the climate crisis, and we ensured that was the case in our representation at COP.
Empowering women and girls is clearly vital. I was pleased to hear a number of Members refer to the role of my noble friend, Lord Collins, who has been appointed as the Prime Minister’s special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict. As the Minister for International Development and for Women and Equalities, I am determined that the UK does all it can to prevent and resolve conflict and empower women, who are vital to sustainable and inclusive outcomes from conflict situations. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) made that point powerfully in relation to Myanmar, and it was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan).
We are determined to ensure that women are involved in peacebuilding, not just because of the moral case but, as was spelled out by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), because of the clear empirical case. When women are involved in peacebuilding in a genuine and significant way, those peace deals tend to stick far more than when they are cut out of the process. When I was in Addis Ababa, I was delighted to meet a number of incredible women from Sudan representing civil society; they must be part of that country’s future and of the peaceful resolution of the appalling conflict there.
We believe that we can make a difference as the UK, in the same way that the incredible women mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) have made a difference—it was wonderful to hear what they had done. First, we must ensure that we listen to women’s voices on the ground and amplify them. That is a core commitment of the new Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North asked about our approach to focus countries. That approach has been incredibly powerful to ensure that we are driving targeting. As the Minister for International Development, however, I am aware that conflict-related sexual violence is, disturbingly, becoming much more of a feature of conflicts around the world. We need to ensure we are flexible enough on this issue, and that is what I am determined to do as the new Minister.
We also need to ensure that there is participation in peace processes, and that it applies whether we are talking about formal or informal mechanisms. That includes, for example, in Nigeria and South Sudan. We also need to ensure that women’s voices are raised when it comes to the impact of conflict-related sexual violence. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North mentioned DRC. We have been supporting women subjected to CRSV there; their voices need to be heard on those appalling crimes.
Through the UK’s £33 million partnership with the Equality Fund, we have supported more than 1,000 women’s rights organisations, including in conflict settings. We need to ensure that those voices are heard when it comes to issues such as child marriage, which the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned. Girls in South Sudan and Zambia told me about their concerns about early marriage and pregnancy. The new Government are determined to ensure that their voices are heard.
Secondly, we need to ensure that the needs of women and girls are prioritised in the current crises. When I was in South Sudan, I witnessed at first hand the desperate situation of women and girls affected by that conflict. In a debate in the main Chamber, we went through what the Government are doing in Sudan. The UK has been taking action in relation to women and on the appalling atrocities we have seen—the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) said she is very concerned about that—and working intensively with other countries. We secured the renewal of the UN fact-finding mission on Sudan. I was pleased that other African countries supported that—that was incredibly important. Of course, it was awful that Russia vetoed the UN Security Council resolution on Sudan, which we submitted jointly with Sierra Leone. We will keep pushing on this issue, and we will ensure that in the provision of aid we act against sexual violence and support survivors. That has been the case with the UK’s support for refugees based in Chad, and we will continue to focus on that.
On Syria, we have underlined the importance of an inclusive transitional process to protect the rights of all Syrians, including women and girls, and prevent further instability. Through the Global Survivors Fund, we have provided medical, psychosocial, legal and financial support to more than 800 Syrian survivors of sexual violence in Turkey.
The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills rightly mentioned the UNFPA. We are absolutely continuing to support its incredibly important mission.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for her excellent response. Some of the stories that have come out of Syria since the Assads lost power have been to do with Christians, including those on the frontline. Christian religious views have been targeted—for example, Christmas trees have been burned. Has the Government had a chance to talk to the authorities about their role in protecting those of a Christian faith and other ethnic faiths in Syria, and particularly women, who are often at the forefront of what is taking place?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. The UK Government have raised it at an official level. It is incredibly important that the future process includes different religious and ethnic groups and women. That point has definitely been made. The voices of Syrians who have been through so much must be heard.
When I was in Jordan, I met Syrian refugees—women who had fled from Syria into Jordan. I also met a number of girls being supported by the UK to access the education that they might not otherwise have had, and we are of course working with the Jordanian Government on that. It is clear that those women and girls have to be part of the future of their country. That is in line with the new Government’s determination to support women’s organisations, including those representing women with disabilities. We are being very thorough about that.
A number of Members talked about Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Gaza was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith), for Glasgow West, for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) and for Bathgate and Linlithgow, and by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton. We are also deeply concerned about the healthcare situation in Gaza, including for women and girls, and indeed for men and boys. I have seen that for myself. When I was in Jordan, I saw medical supplies that should have been in Gaza but had not been allowed to pass in. The Government have repeatedly pushed the Israeli Government on that. We have raised this continuously, bilaterally and multilaterally. There must be access for all the humanitarian supplies that are needed, and that must include medical supplies.
UK aid has been going to support women, particularly around sanitation, menstruation and pregnancy. I have discussed this directly with bodies such as UK-Med and others. It is appalling to see the deeply concerning reports about the treatment of Palestinian detainees. Detainees must be treated in line with international law, there must be access for the ICRC, and reports of sexual violence must be investigated.
The impact of conflict-related sexual violence on Israelis was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Washington and Gateshead South and for Milton Keynes Central, and others. I know that this issue is causing incredible pain and anguish to the families of hostages, having spoken with some of them in Tel Aviv. They are deeply concerned, understandably, about the situation for their family members. That is yet another reason why the hostages must be released, we must have a ceasefire, and we must see that surge of aid into Gaza.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North asked some questions about Afghanistan. As the Foreign Secretary has said, the Taliban’s further oppression of women through its so-called vice and virtue law is appalling. Many Members rightly raised the situation for women and girls in Afghanistan during the debate. My hon. Friend asked specifically about gender apartheid. We are aware of calls for the inclusion of gender apartheid as a new crime against humanity, and we are actively considering the legal and policy questions raised by the proposed new crime.
My hon. Friend asked for more details about what we are doing; well, we continue to condemn the Taliban’s action against women and girls, and did so most recently in a December G7+ joint statement. We have already said that as a new Government we support the initiative to hold the Taliban to account for their violations of the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, or CEDAW. I am pleased that I can report today that we will formally join the list of countries that have announced their political support for the initiative. I hope Members will welcome that.
The Government are committed to preventing conflict-related sexual violence against women and girls, particularly in instances of trafficking. In relation to Ukraine, we heard some really disturbing details during the debate. We provided up to £10.7 million to support projects aimed at building Ukraine’s capacity for the domestic investigation and prosecution of war crimes, including conflict-related sexual violence. On the issue of capacity, which was raised by the shadow Minister, a member of the PSVI team of experts has been deployed to Ukraine to support Ukrainian authorities in the investigation and prosecution of conflict-related sexual violence in a survivor-centred manner. It is really important to have that expert input, which we are supporting.
On the broader of issue of preventing sexual violence in conflict, in November, Lord Collins visited Colombia in his first official engagement as the Prime Minister’s special representative. He led the UK’s delegation to the high-level meeting of the international alliance on PSVI. I was pleased to hear the shadow Minister talk about the initiative from 2023. We very much support that agenda and are determined to enhance it. She asked about our plans to do so; when Lord Collins was in Bogotá, he called for greater international action in response to the increased rates of conflict-related sexual violence around the world. To respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, that includes determination to use sanctions where necessary against the perpetrators of these vile crimes.
We know that all forms of gender-based violence, including conflict-related sexual violence, are preventable. That is why I am pleased that we have committed a further £18 million to the UN trust fund to end violence against women, as well as providing training on sexual exploitation and abuse for more than 2,000 peacekeeping personnel in the last financial year, through the British peace support team in Africa. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central, who is not in her place—
Anneliese Dodds
Oh, she has come back—excellent. She was right to raise that matter.
This has been a challenging afternoon for many because we have also had a debate on violence against women and girls in the Chamber, so I know that many have been shuttling between the two. I will briefly also mention that, during the 16 days of activism against violence against women, I announced three new partnerships with women’s rights organisations in Kenya and South Africa to develop new preventive strategies.
Our commitment to halve violence against women and girls within a decade and our work with international partners to empower women globally are critical. We have talked today about how an unprecedented profusion of conflict is having a devastating impact for so many women and girls around the world, so I underscore this Government’s unwavering commitment to changing that, and to ensuring that, to reuse the quote rightly mentioned by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), “Shame must change sides”. It should be the perpetrators who are feeling that shame, who are feeling the accountability and, above all, who are deterred from that behaviour in the first place. We are determined to work in partnership with Members across this House, with key international and multilateral partners, with civil society and, most importantly, with women and girls affected on the ground.
Alice Macdonald
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts.
I thank all Members who have spoken so powerfully today on this subject. As the Minister noted, two debates on male violence against women and girls have been happening at the same time, and many of us would have liked to speak in them both. Although the contexts are obviously different, many of the themes will be the same—the oppression of women, systematic discrimination, and the need for leadership and determination.
I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their thorough responses to many of the questions we have raised. We see so much consensus on both sides of the House. We have covered a wide range of subjects and geographies—we have gone all around the world—and we have still not covered all the contexts in which women and girls are suffering. We have heard about many statistics and many stories, but importantly we have focused on the solutions; we can spend a lot of time in debates talking about the context without focusing on what we actually need to do. We have heard of the horrors of the direct and indirect impacts of conflict, the horrors of rape and murder, and the horrible realities of daily life for so many women and girls.
At the beginning of the debate I said that I hoped we could find consensus, and I think we have found it on many areas—on the targeting of aid, on the need to involve women in peace processes and on the need for determination and focused leadership. As the head of UN Women said:
“Women continue to pay the price of the wars of men”.
We need to be clear that we are speaking about male violence.
I want to finish by putting front and centre the women and girls who are in conflict zones and who are fighting so hard for their rights, and simply to survive, because it is them we must listen to. I will finish with the words of one of them, Leymah Gbowee, a Nobel laureate and a woman who fought so hard for peace in Liberia. She said:
“You can never leave footprints that last if you are always walking on tiptoe.”
We have heard today that we are not walking on tiptoe on this subject. We will be working at full throttle, with determination, focus and leadership, so that finally, maybe one day, women and girls are not suffering from violence anywhere.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of conflict on women and girls.
Written Statements
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Irregular Migration and Organised Immigration Crime: Sanctions
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
Today I am updating the House on my plans to use sanctions to tackle irregular migration and organised immigration crime.
People smuggling is a challenge to global security. Criminal networks are making huge profits exploiting vulnerable people by facilitating irregular migratory movements, including dangerous sea crossings across Europe.
As Foreign Secretary, I will ensure the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office uses every tool at its disposal to tackle the challenges posed by irregular migration as part of the Government’s wider effort to secure our borders.
I am therefore pleased to inform the House that the FCDO will develop legislation for a new sanctions regime targeting irregular migration and organised immigration crime. This shows further UK innovation in mobilising sanctions to tackle evolving threats that matter at home and abroad. The sanctions regime will allow the Government to take further robust action against the people smuggling gangs and their enablers.
The FCDO is also working to deliver more returns arrangements, and more projects and programmes to tackle irregular migration at source.
In this way, the FCDO will use the widest possible toolkit to smash the people smuggling gangs and tackle the challenges posed by irregular migration to deliver the Government’s plan for change.
[HCWS357]
Independent Review of the Windsor Framework
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
On 10 December, the Northern Ireland Assembly held a vote on the continued application of articles 5 to 10 of the Windsor framework. On 12 December, the Speaker of the Assembly formally wrote to me confirming that the motion passed with a majority of the elected Members voting in favour, but not with cross-community support.
As set out in schedule 6A to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, this obliges me to commission an independent review into the functioning of the framework, in accordance with paragraphs 7 to 9 of the unilateral declaration of October 2019. I have today commissioned the right hon. Lord Murphy of Torfaen to conduct this review.
Lord Murphy previously served in government as Minister of State for Northern Ireland, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Secretary of State for Wales. In his many years of public service, he has shown a deep understanding of the bonds between the nations of the United Kingdom, and an appreciation of the operation of all three strands of the Good Friday agreement, to which the Government are committed. This experience and knowledge, and the high regard in which he is held across communities in Northern Ireland, will be valuable as he undertakes the review.
Lord Murphy will work to provide me with a report of the review’s conclusions, no later than six months from today, on the functioning of the Windsor framework and its implications for social, economic and political life in Northern Ireland, and on the UK internal market, including any recommendations. I have today placed a copy of the review’s terms of reference in the Library of the House.
Following receipt of the review’s report, I shall lay a copy of it before Parliament and respond to its recommendations in accordance with my duties under the law.
[HCWS358]
House of Lords
Benefits: Eligibility
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Stedman-Scott
To ask His Majesty’s Government what criteria they use to assess the eligibility of people claiming benefits, such as Employment and Support Allowance and Universal Credit, due to ill health; and how frequently these claims are reviewed.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott, and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Cryer) (Lab)
My Lords, before I answer the noble Viscount’s Question, I briefly pay tribute to Alan Haselhurst—Baron Haselhurst—who retired from this place during the Christmas Recess. When I was first elected to the other place in 1997, Alan was the Senior Deputy Speaker and always dealt with the many new MPs with a great deal of patience. I do not remember him ever losing his temper, despite my best efforts, and he was a great Deputy Speaker. He will be much missed, certainly by me. I am in danger of waxing lyrical, so I had better get to the Question.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Question. The work capability assessment—the WCA—determines eligibility for ESA and the additional health-related amount of universal credit. It assesses an individual against a set of legal definitions to determine their ability to work. The department prioritises WCAs for new claims; reassessments occur when there is a need to redetermine capability for work, which itself is a separate process. The frequency of when claims are reassessed is determined by an understandably limited capacity.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I echo the Minister’s words about Lord Haselhurst; I completely agree with him.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has acknowledged that addressing long-term sickness is key to the PM’s priority mission to boost economic growth. She has promised to address spiralling economic inactivity. We all understand that support must be provided to those who are generally unable to work. However, according to the ONS, 21.9% of all 16 to 64 year-olds are economically inactive. I am sure the House agrees that these numbers are completely unsustainable for the taxpayer and the individuals concerned, and to achieve growth. What is the Government’s current sanctions policy? Will they introduce new sanctions on those who are capable of work but refuse to?
Lord Cryer (Lab)
I cannot disagree with much of what the noble Viscount said, but I cannot give a particularly full answer to every question he asked because, as I think he is aware, a Green Paper is due in the spring. This will include a consultation on various changes to benefits, including UC and ESA. At the moment, the system remains much the same. However, there have been certain changes. The Get Britain Working White Paper was released a while ago and it includes about £245 million directed at a group he talked about—18 to 24 year-olds. That includes personal support and a youth guarantee, which promises 18 to 24 year-olds in the pilot areas an apprenticeship, a route to work or full-time education.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, the move to universal credit is impacting income-based ESA claimants. Will my noble friend the Minister and his ministerial colleagues in DWP, noting that these claimants would always be the most vulnerable, provide your Lordships’ House with assurances that all efforts will be made to put in place adequate safeguards to protect them?
Lord Cryer (Lab)
I appreciate everything that the noble Baroness said. I was a Member of the other place when universal credit was introduced, which is some years ago now, and the process was very complicated. I am not making a party-political point—although I could—but the process was extremely complicated, every time a new cohort was moved on to UC. However, the particular issue she raised is about claimants on ESA only or ESA with housing benefit, who started receiving migration notices from September last year. This gave them a reasonable amount of notice that they would be moving to UC, the aim of which was to give individual assistance to those experiencing difficulties in the move to UC by the end of December 2025. The window is fairly wide; it gives a lot of opportunities to iron out any difficulties. In addition, the department provides what is now called the enhanced support journey—ESJ—for claimants moving to UC from ESA. That supports the more vulnerable claimants to make the transition to universal credit.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, the Government’s White Paper, Get Britain Working, which I welcome, has the ambitious aim of moving almost 2 million people from benefits into employment. However, there are huge issues around the data regarding the 2.8 million people of working age currently on incapacity or disability benefits. Can the Minister confirm that, of the fit notes issued by doctors, 70% do not record an individual’s diagnosis, meaning that we do not know the primary health conditions for the vast majority of these claimants?
Lord Cryer (Lab)
I am grateful for the question, but I do not recognise the figure of 70%. The noble Viscount is accurate in saying that the ambition is to move 2 million people into work. The traditional view, which still holds credibility, is that being in work is not just the best way out of poverty but that people in work are generally much healthier than people who are not. The problem is that, under the previous Government, we saw a situation develop where roughly 60% of households in poverty have at least one person in work. That had never been the case before in British history. That itself provides all sorts of complexities and problems, which we are trying to deal with, partly through the White Paper, which he mentioned, but also through the Green Paper, which introduces the consultation in the spring.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, seven in 10 refused claims for personal independence payments are overturned after mandatory reconsideration, even before appeal. Data has shown that the DWP spent £22.8 million on mandatory reconsiderations and £24.5 million on appeals in the 2022-23 financial year. Do the Government agree that the assessment process is massively failing disabled people and putting them under unnecessary stress? Is it not time that the Government made the assessment shambles fit for purpose, starting with the form itself, so that claimants receive their entitlement without the stress of initial refusals and lengthy and intimidating appeals?
Lord Cryer (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a perfectly reasonable question. However, I point out that the mandatory reconsideration process was changed—this was under the previous Government, to give them credit. For one thing, it was brought in-house, whereas it used to be contracted out, and made more straightforward. More recently, as was contained in the White Paper which I talked about earlier, assessors have been given more time. The noble Baroness will be aware that, some time ago, there was a system of target-driven assessments. That is what led to the fairly inhumane treatment of people who were disabled. The system is not perfect—and through bitter personal experience I agree that it is not perfect. It has been improved, but we are looking to improve it further through the consultation in the spring.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I want to follow on from the Question from the noble Viscount, Lord Younger. The Work and Pensions Secretary has said:
“If people repeatedly refuse to take up the training or work responsibilities, there will be sanctions on their benefits”.
Please can the Minister provide the House with a rough date for when he thinks we can expect to see these sanctions introduced?
Lord Cryer (Lab)
I appreciate the noble Earl’s question. The new regime of sanctions will not start to see the light of day until spring next year, with the Green Paper and the consultation, but sanctions are already in place.
I should correct one thing. I mentioned earlier the youth guarantee, in response to the noble Lord. I said that it applied to 18 to 24 year-olds, but it applies to 18 to 21 year-olds. I apologise for that error.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, the Government have made clear their ambition to get more people with health conditions and disabilities into work. What plans are in place to ensure employers consistently implement the reasonable adjustments required of them in the Equality Act and do not discriminate against disabled people?
Lord Cryer (Lab)
I appreciate the question, but the right reverend Prelate would have to be more specific. Employers come under the Equality Act, and therefore, like anybody in the country, have to abide by the existing legal framework. If there are any specific areas where there is evidence that employers are not complying with the legal framework, he would have to raise those specifically.
National Insurance: Employer Contributions
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Humphreys
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the changes to employer National Insurance contributions, including the reduction in the per-employee threshold, on town and parish councils in Wales.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and, in so doing, refer your Lordships to my registered interests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Question. The devolved Governments will receive funding through the Barnett formula in the usual way in 2025-26. The Welsh Government have confirmed that they will use this funding to help local government in meeting increases in national insurance contribution costs. The Government have also announced £515 million of support for local government in England to manage the impact of changes to employer NICs. The Government have no direct role in funding parish and town councils.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. I welcome the Government’s announcement of the £515 million NICs compensation package as part of the provisional local government finance settlement, but I am disappointed that they have confirmed that compensation to local government bodies will not extend to town, community and parish councils. Could she explain why it is fair that some elected bodies are given financial support and others are not?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As I explained, the Government have no responsibility for funding town and parish councils. The Welsh Government’s budget is growing in real terms in 2025-26. In fact, the settlement is the largest in real terms for any Welsh Government since devolution. Currently, the Welsh Government also receive an additional 5% transitional factor as part of the Barnett formula, while they are funded above their independently assessed relative need compared to England to 115%. If they wish to provide further support to town and parish councils, they are able to do so.
Lord Popat (Con)
My Lords, no other country in the world taxes companies to employ people. We do that through our national insurance contributions, which are now going up from 13.8% to 15%. That will hit all our SMEs hard, which are the backbone of our economy. What will the Government do to support our SMEs to compensate for this additional cost—this evil tax—that we are talking about?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have heard a great deal from that side of the House about NICs. If we had not had to fill a £22 billion black hole, we would not have had to do it in the first place. None of us on this side of the House would have made that choice unless we had to. We recognise the need to protect small businesses and charities, which is why we have more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500 and expanded it to all eligible employers. The OBR expects 250,000 employers to gain from the changes to the employment allowance and 840,000 to see no change at all. That is more than half of all businesses, including charities.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Is the Minister aware that the OBR has said recently that it assumes that most of the Government’s increases in national insurance costs will be passed directly on to workers and consumers? Do this Government still claim to serve the working people of this country, or will they now come clean and admit that they are raising taxes on ordinary working people?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The denial of responsibility from that side of the House is quite astonishing. Public services were broken by neglect from the party opposite for 14 years. I am surprised that they do not see the irony in complaining about the measures we are having to take to sort out that mess, including our commitment to an additional £680 million for social care, further funding for local government and a real-terms boost for local government funding. I would rather hear some other ideas from that side of the House than complaints about what we are doing.
Lord Watts (Lab)
Following the Minister’s response, does she agree that the last Government left a massive deficit in the Budget and that, while they do not like the national insurance increases, they have no suggestions whatever on how to bridge the massive gap that they left us?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend. When we start to get some alternatives from the other side of the House, I might be more prepared to listen to their arguments about not putting NICs up.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the National Association of Local Councils. The Government’s new burdens doctrine has been in place since 2011 and is specifically designed to compensate authorities for this sort of situation. I have reread the guidance today and it specifically mentions town and parish councils, so can the noble Baroness explain why the Government are not following their own guidance in this case? Will she perhaps meet me and representatives of the sector to discuss it?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am always very happy to meet colleagues from NALC and have done so several times in the past, as the noble Baroness knows. The issue here is that parish and town councils have not traditionally been funded in the same way. It is for upper tier councils to decide. We have provided additional funding for upper tier councils. The local government funding settlement saw a 3.7% real-terms increase in funding. If upper tier councils choose to provide that funding, they are able to do so, but local councils also have the ability to precept, as she will know.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, in the arts, already struggling theatres and museums are among those affected by these changes. What consideration has been given to mitigate this effect in the arts sector as a whole?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Earl raises a key point. We have looked very carefully at charities and the voluntary sector. Many arts organisations have charitable status and there has been significant support in the tax incentives for charities. In fact, charities receive a better tax incentive in this country than in most other European countries. I know that it is not ideal and, as I say, it is not a decision we wanted to take. Unfortunately, the financial situation left to us by the last Government meant that we had to take it.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, in Monday’s debate on national insurance, a number of noble Lords raised the issue of special needs transport conducted by local authorities which is contracted out. In his response, the Minister said that £515 million—the figure the noble Baroness has just cited—had been set aside for local government. But that is for local government employees and will not provide support for the additional costs being incurred to provide special needs transport. This is an important area, so will the Minister perhaps look at this again?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord that special needs transport has been a significant burden on local government in recent years, and with little help from the last Government. However, in the Budget, the Government announced £2 billion of new grant funding for local government in 2025-26. That includes the £515 million to which he referred to help with national insurance contributions. That £2 billion covers special educational needs home-to-school transport. I am not saying that will totally solve the problem. We have a spending review in the spring where I hope we will be able to look at that even further.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the new burdens approach says that councils should be fully funded. The Minister keeps referring to the £515 million uplift, yet the Nuffield Trust has pointed out that the NICs increases will cost local authorities £900 million. Where is the extra £400 million coming from, and why has it not been handed over by the Government as part of the new burdens approach?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have seen the figures from the Nuffield Trust. The Government have provided additional funding for local government, as the noble Lord is aware. I have cited the figure before but will do so again: there is £3.7 billion of additional funding for local government. As I have said several times in this debate, we wanted to do more. Unfortunately, we have to be fiscally responsible, and this Government will continue to be so.
Lord Bird (CB)
I must just point out a difference between business and charities, and the help for both. I am an employer of a little social enterprise group. We pay tax. We do not get the breaks or all sorts of other things that charities get. It is hitting us, so we will have to review whether we can employ so many people because of this new employment tax. Can the Minister encourage and include social enterprises—social businesses—in her mix to support them?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very good point about social enterprise. I am a great champion of social enterprises. They do magnificent work in our country. I set out the basis on which the Government are providing support to SMEs under this regime. Those organisations will benefit from the way we have completely exempted many businesses from having to pay NICs and many others will remain the same as they were before. I hope that will help social enterprises but I am happy to discuss that further with him if he wishes to.
Water Bills
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that water bills are affordable for consumers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, nobody wants to see bills rise, so the Government are committed to tackling water poverty and holding the water sector accountable for its commitment to end water poverty by 2030. That is why we are pushing companies to have sufficient support available for customers who are struggling to pay their bills while at the same time challenging Ofwat to ensure that all company investments are affordable and that customers do not pay twice for upgrades.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, higher government borrowing costs are being imposed by markets questioning the Government’s Budget assumptions, as I discussed in this Chamber on 19 December. Higher financing costs are likely to be passed on to UK domestic companies, including in the water industry. Does the Minister agree that this makes SAOs more likely? Having rejected our amendments to protect consumers from increased charges in that event in the Water (Special Measures) Bill, is the Minister willing to commit that extra charges will not be levied on consumers in SAOs?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are working very closely with water companies in order to ensure that consumers do not have extra charges placed upon them and that anything the water company wants to do through future investment, through the price review that has just come through, does not land in customers’ laps in a way that it should not. It is really important that the water commission, which we discussed recently in the Water (Special Measures) Bill, looks carefully at how water companies operate financially to ensure that consumers do not suffer unnecessarily.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that water companies should be encouraged to work closely with local organisations, such as citizens advice bureaux, to ensure that debt relief advice is available? If water companies are encouraging people to go on to direct debit, perhaps when they have water meters, they should not make big charges and then when they have taken a lot of money refuse to alter the direct debit to reflect what people are actually using, which can often get people into debt. Will she encourage water companies to look at these measures?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend makes some extremely important points. Citizens Advice does an important service in supporting vulnerable people. Water companies should work with all charities, such as Citizens Advice, in order to support vulnerable consumers. It is important that we simplify the processes so that customers who need extra assistance can get it. Citizens Advice is an important part of that and helps customers get advice on benefits and managing debt, particularly customers who have not been in financial difficulty before. My noble friend makes some very good points.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the expected rise in water bills to ensure future investment in infrastructure, so deliberately disregarded in the past by water companies, will fall heavily upon small businesses that use water and farmers, for whom water is essential for rearing livestock and growing crops. Is the Minister talking to her Treasury colleagues about how to help this vital element of our economy with this burden, which will affect small businesses’ and farmers’ profitability?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I assure the noble Baroness that Defra is regularly in contact with the Treasury about all issues such as this, particularly about how to support people going forward. Many of the challenges farmers in particular face—my colleague is at the Oxford Farming Conference today talking to farmers—are to do with long-term security and the ability to bring in long-term investment. Water affordability is an important part of that.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister have the most recent figures for the level of bad debt in the water sector, particularly among vulnerable households? If she does not have the figures, could she release them by letter to the Library? Will she inform the House of how she intends to address the level of bad debt at this time?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I do not have the figures to hand for the level of bad debt, but I am, of course, very happy to provide them to the noble Baroness and share them in writing.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, is it possible to extend the argument around water to the quality of water itself and health? We have people suffering from dehydration. That is one of the major problems doctors face when people in poverty go in. Therefore, we really need to lean on the water companies. Can the Government lean on the water companies to improve the quality of water so that we do not get E. coli, as we did recently? People need water to be healthy.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that people need water to be healthy. We have the Drinking Water Inspectorate, which has a very high rating. The issues we had last year around E. coli were very unusual, but it is critical that we do not have situations like that arising again. That is why it is important to work with water companies to make sure that situations like that are going to be planned for, so that if they occur, they can be dealt with swiftly. Ideally, we need to continue to work with the Drinking Water Inspectorate to ensure that such situations do not arise in future.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I commend to the Minister the suggestions from the Consumer Council for Water, a commendable organisation that deserves more support. It has made six suggestions on reducing water bills for vulnerable people, including those in single occupancy premises and those with medical conditions, largely using the WaterSure mechanism. Can she pay particular attention to those suggestions and hopefully put them into effect?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, it is important that we protect the most vulnerable. We expect water companies to put robust support in place to address water poverty. My noble friend mentioned WaterSure, but there are options such as payment breaks, social tariffs and debt management support. It is important that water companies work with vulnerable customers to ensure that they know all the options available to them. The Consumer Council for Water does important work, so I think it is important that the suggestions it made are looked at seriously.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, following on from the answers that the Minister has just given—and I have relevant interests to declare in the register—all water companies have a variety of schemes to support customers who are in water poverty. The issue for me is that not all of them are as generous as they ought to be. Is the Minister prepared to speak to water companies to ensure that a greater proportion of their profits is focused on supporting households in water poverty so that, across the country, every customer in water poverty has access to a well-funded scheme?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It is important that every water company does everything it can to support vulnerable customers. Like all businesses, some are better than others. We are working with water companies to try to ensure that they all come up to the same high standards that we expect. We know that some companies have committed to supplement support with contributions from shareholders’ profits between 2025 and 2030. Ideally, it would be good if all companies were prepared to do that.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, given the failure of the regulator to control these water companies, is it not about time that we had a new regulator that would look after the public?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
This takes me right back to the Water (Special Measures) Bill, where this was discussed in some depth. The simple answer to my noble friend is that this is something that the water commission, which is making good progress under Sir Jon Cunliffe, will look at and will be central to the outcome for the future of the water industry, because there is great dissatisfaction with the way in which the water regulator has managed things in the past. Certainly, that is something that will be central to the water commission’s investigations.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, one way of possibly reducing water bills is through the installation of domestic water harvesting systems. I know they are not feasible for all consumers, but what is the Government’s view on encouraging and perhaps assisting more people and possibly SMEs to install domestic water harvesting systems in order to reduce their water bills? It is also better for the environment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I think one thing water companies could be better at is providing advice to consumers about how to cut their water usage. We are not particularly good at that in this country; other countries are much better at it, and I think it is something that we need to encourage water companies to do.
Air Defence Capabilities
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in the technological advancement and modernisation of the United Kingdom’s air defence capabilities.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK continuously reviews our integrated air and missile defence requirements to ensure that we are adequately defended against the evolving threats that we face. We are investing in new technologies, including the DragonFire directed energy weapon, to defeat threats such as drones, and enhancing our capabilities through the T45’s ability to defend against anti-ship ballistic missiles. Further development in IAMD capability is being considered in conjunction with the strategic defence review to ensure a coherent approach across defence and wider government.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank the Minister for his response. Recent very public concerns about our air defence capabilities have been amplified by our European and NATO partners. The urgency of the situation is highlighted by the experience of Ukraine. Government entreaties to await the SDR report simply do not cut it. Reassurance is needed now, but I accept that the picture is complicated so will the Minister write to me with a stocktake of the current situation and details of the modernisation proposals, whatever they are, and then we can place that letter in the Library?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising the incredibly important subject of air defence. She is quite right to point out the impact on Ukraine; 12,000 missiles have been fired at Ukraine by Russia, showing the importance of air defence now. It has been raised in report after report. I will of course write to her and put a copy in the Library, as a current stocktake of where we are, but we are already taking action. We are seeing the development of ORCUS and anti-drone technology to protect airfields; the enhancement of Sea Viper, which is the T45 missile that allows us to defend against ballistic missiles; and developments such as the DIAMOND initiative, which is bringing European countries together to get a ground-based air missile defence system. A number of initiatives are already being taken, but I agree with the noble Baroness. I will write to her so that we have a stocktake of that and so that the information is available to all Members of this House.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, members of the International Relations and Defence Committee—those in the last Parliament and those members of the committee as reformed in this Parliament—will be aware that on 8 May 2024, two months before the general election, as part of its inquiry designed to learn lessons from the conflict in Ukraine, the committee published evidence from Northrop Grumman, arguably the key MoD defence contractor on missile and air defence capability, which was persuasive to the committee and to others who will read it. It suggested that the UK’s air and missile defence capability was
“limited, to the point of being negligible”
because of persistent underinvestment. The inquiry had to report without the benefit of ministerial wisdom about how this legacy black hole was going to be filled because the Secretary of State, Grant Shapps, refused clearance for Ministers and officials to testify. Will the Minister join me in encouraging Members of your Lordships’ House to read the response of this Government to that report, because it deals with this issue in significant detail?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. Of course I will encourage Members to read the Government’s response to that report. I say to him, all Members of this House and others that the report was an important wake-up call to us about the importance of air defence in the future. Let us remember where we were. This country assumed that we needed to defend ourselves against the Soviet Union and bombers. We are now in a totally different situation where we face a 360-degree threat. The launch of missiles could come from a variety of launch systems, and we need to protect ourselves against not only missiles but drones, as we have seen with what may or may not have happened with respect to various bases. It is an important wake-up call not only for us but for Europe that air defence will become one of the critical systems that we will need to make available to ourselves and our country. Our population need to understand that homeland defence is also now of crucial importance to us all.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I too have warned before of the potential threat to the United Kingdom mainland from the air and of a second Battle of Britain. What new air defence capabilities will be added to the front line in the next 12 months?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is another important question from the noble and gallant Lord. We are upgrading the radar on the Typhoon fighters as part of the air defence, we are seeing the F35B capabilities and we are looking at what further investment is needed in air defence. Looking at ground defence in terms of air defence, I mentioned the T45 upgrade to Sea Viper, which deals with ballistic missiles, but there is also the Sky Sabre capability; we currently have seven and are in the business of purchasing more of those.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, with regard to technology, I acknowledge the Government’s STORM framework on counterforce, active defence and passive defence. Most Members will have opinions on the volatile and unpredictable views of Elon Musk and SpaceX, and on Peter Thiel and Palantir. The Minister must know that any of our future defence capabilities will be dependent in some form on satellite technology, so can he reassure me that, whatever technological advances we develop in the future, we will not be dependent on a single satellite provider or on any individual provider?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point about our relationship with the United States and its importance. Of course we need to ensure that we protect the systems available to us that protect our own country, but I start from the point of view that one of the most important relationships we have—if not the most important—is with the United States of America. That defends not only our freedom but the freedom of Europe and the values that we all stand for across the world. As such, we ought to welcome that special relationship.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I commend the Minister, who has quickly established himself as a champion for defence within the department. I know that he is determined to deliver 2.5%, but it comes down to money. Does he accept the generally held view that 2.5% is insufficient to deliver a balanced defence budget? While it would be unreasonable to ask him what percentage would deliver a balanced defence budget, can he perhaps reassure your Lordships’ House that the aspiration for 2.5% is very much not a ceiling but just a floor?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that very helpful question. We are committed to the 2.5% and he knows the policy, which I have laid out on many occasions. The important point that I am trying to make with respect to the noble Baroness’s Question is that air defence will have to play an important part in our defence in the future, whatever level of budget we arrive at.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
Does my noble friend agree that recent exposure of our vulnerability to missile defence attack should lead to some reflection on whether we should tilt to the Indo-Pacific or give greater emphasis to homeland security? Perhaps we should take advice from the Israelis, with their Iron Dome, about how best to do it.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We need an air defence system that is appropriate to our own country and our alliances, which is why we are seeking to build those alliances through a number of different projects. I very much take the view that there is an indivisibility of conflict. What happens in the Indo-Pacific affects us in Europe; what happens in Europe affects the Indo-Pacific. I have been to South America and heard the concerns there about what is happening in Europe. Wherever you go in the world, those who stand with us in the defence of freedom understand that there is an indivisibility of conflict, and that is what we need to stand for. It is really important for this country, and we should be one of the leaders of that.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the very strong approach the Minister adopts. Did he notice on 26 December that the People’s Republic of China announced two new aircraft, one a three-engine stealth bomber and the other described as a mother ship for drones? What account are we taking of the development of that fleet in terms of our own security? Also, PRC-originated academics were working on hypersonic programmes in British universities, in collaborative programmes. Are we convinced that that is no longer the case?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord knows the policy we have with respect to China in terms of co-operation, competing and challenging. He will also know that I believe very strongly that, as well as competing and co-operating, we need to challenge, whether that it is at home or abroad. Of course, we have looked at the implications for our own defence and that of our allies with respect to the development in China, but the noble Lord will also know that, across the world, the hard power of our country and that of our international allies, including the United States, will be reflected next year when the carrier strike group goes not only through the Mediterranean but into the Indo-Pacific. Part of that will be about asserting the rule of law.
Public Finances: Borrowing Costs
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat as a Statement an Answer to an Urgent Question given in the other place by my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The Statement is as follows:
“Financial markets are always evolving, so it is a long-standing convention that the Government do not comment on specific financial market movements, and I will not break with that convention today. Financial market movements, including changes in government bond or gilt yields, which represent the Government’s borrowing costs, are determined by a wide range of international and domestic factors. It is normal for the price and yields of gilts to vary when there are wider movements in global financial markets, including in response to economic data.
In recent months, moves in financial markets have been largely driven by data and global geopolitical events, which is to be expected as markets adjust to new information. UK gilt markets continue to function in an orderly way. Underlying demand for the UK’s debt remains strong, with a generally well diversified investor base. The Debt Management Office’s gilt sales operations continue to see strong demand, with the latest auction held yesterday receiving three times as many bids as the amount on offer.
The Chancellor has commissioned the Office for Budget Responsibility to provide an updated economic and fiscal forecast for 26 March, which will incorporate the latest data. Only the OBR’s forecast can accurately predict the effect on the public finances of any changes in financial markets or the economy and I will not pre-empt its forecast. There should be no doubt of the Government’s commitment to economic stability and sound public finances. That is why meeting the fiscal rules is non-negotiable.
I end by saying I am pleased that the right honourable Gentleman is holding this Government to account on our stewardship of the economy. It is important that he does so, because he will remember when his party crashed the economy with unfunded tax cuts, unrealistic public spending plans and a clear disregard for the consequences on family finances. Families across the country are still paying the price of its disastrous performance on the economy, with higher mortgages and bills. If there was one clear reason why the Conservative Party suffered such an historic defeat at the last general election, it was its performance on the economy—and presumably why the shadow Chancellor himself admitted in December that the lack of trust in the Conservative Party’s management of the economy has left a ‘deep and painful scar’ in the pockets of every person across Britain. Let me tell him what has changed.
This Labour Government have in their first six months exposed the £22 billion black hole in the public finances left by the previous Government. They have dealt with that problem with the Chancellor’s Autumn Budget, protecting working people, wiping the slate clean from the mess the Conservative Party left the country in and investing in our NHS and schools. We have given the independent Office for Budget Responsibility enhanced powers of oversight, so that we never get into the situation again where a £22 billion black hole in the public finances can be covered up, and set tough fiscal rules that are non-negotiable, with a Budget settlement for public services that we must all live within. We have also kick-started growth in this country—the number one mission of this Government—by unlocking investment and bringing forward reforms in planning and in the Mansion House speech.
Might I just say to the right honourable Gentleman that this is in stark contrast to the negligent, shameful horror of a circus performance that the Conservative Party unleashed on this country when they were in government only a few months ago? Until he can come to this House with an apology for the British people, I will not take any lectures from the Conservative Party about how to run the economy”.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the Government made their first objective high economic growth and, so far, they have not had that much success. Another prime objective, reiterated by the Minister, was economic stability; again, they have not yet got very far with that. Survey after survey has shown that business confidence has simply collapsed and we can see this in the market. In the last 48 hours, borrowing costs have reached a 27-year high and, of course, every pound that we spend on debt interest is money that we cannot spend on public services. In the Budget, the Chancellor hiked up taxes, increased borrowing by an average of £32 billion a year and conveniently adjusted her fiscal rules. Given that she appears to be about to break those rules, does the Minister stand by the Chancellor’s statement that she is not coming back with more taxes? Yes or no? We are keen to have a clear answer.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. She is absolutely right that growth was one of the biggest failures of the previous Government. We are determined to turn that around. She is also correct to say that there should be no doubt of the Government’s commitment to economic stability and sound public finances. That is why meeting the fiscal rules is absolutely non-negotiable. I am not going to pre-empt future fiscal events or spending reviews now, but the Chancellor has been absolutely clear that she would not repeat the likes of the October Budget and is focused on growing the economy so that people in every corner of the UK see an improvement in living standards. We have set very tough fiscal rules, tougher than those of the previous Government, which we meet two years early. We have set the envelope for the second phase of the spending review, which we will stick to. That will involve tough choices on spending, but they are choices we are prepared to make, and our reform agenda will be central to improving services going forward.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the Minister used the phrase “meeting the fiscal rules is non-negotiable”. A few minutes ago in the other place, my colleague the honourable Member for Wokingham asked for a similar reassurance that promised investment in the NHS and care is also non-negotiable. The reply, I hope inadvertently, was somewhat soft and went no stronger than commitment. Can the Minister use the term “non-negotiable”, because we need reassurance that there will be no scaling back of the committed investment in the NHS and care?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. As she says, there should be absolutely no doubt of the Government’s commitment to economic stability and sound public finances. She is right to say that meeting the fiscal rules is, for this Government, non-negotiable. We have set very tough fiscal rules which we meet two years early. We have set the envelope for the second phase of the spending review, which we will stick to, but I say again that will involve very tough choices on spending and they are choices that we are prepared to make.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the global uncertainty we are now witnessing reinforces the need for economic growth, through both the policies that the Government are now pursuing and other means?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend. Growth was one of the biggest failures of the previous Government and we are determined to turn that around. The OECD recently upgraded our growth forecast, which means that the UK’s economy is now growing faster than those of Germany, France, Italy and Japan over the next three years. Following the Budget, the OBR increased its forecast for GDP for 2024 and 2025 and, for the first time, it has looked at the growth impact across a decade. It is particularly clear that capital investment, which the party opposite opposes, will lead to a significant increase in growth over the longer term.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware—at least, I hope he is—that global Governments’ debt at present is running at about $95 trillion. That is expected to rise to $130 trillion in three years’ time. He is right that there are some countries where the debt is higher than ours at present, but does he accept that it is about not only the size of the borrowing but the bond markets’ and world opinion about the commitment of a Government to enterprise and growth and to dynamic economic policies, particularly affecting small and medium-sized business, which of course is 99% of all business? Will he therefore have a word with the Chancellor to ensure that she recognises that in her next Budget, as she did not seem to in her last Budget, because it would greatly improve our standing and may save us a few tens of billions in interest on our present enormous debt?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am happy to say to the noble Lord that the Government are absolutely committed to working in partnership with business to grow the economy and to doing what is required to do so. As he knows, the Government are committed to economic and fiscal stability. We have put in place those robust fiscal rules, and there is a significant fiscal consolidation during the course of this Parliament, taking borrowing as a share of GDP from 4.5% to 2.1%. If achieved, this would be the biggest current budget surplus in over 20 years.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the growth of which the Minister speaks will need investment and, given the state of the public finances, a significant proportion of that investment has to come from the private sector. In my experience, that sort of investment requires not just a realistic analysis of the present but a persuasive picture of the future. The Minister has rehearsed the analysis of the present, but does he agree that the Government have to step up and better articulate their vision of the future in order to attract the investment that this country so desperately needs?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree with a lot of what the noble Lord says. He and I are both strong supporters of an industrial strategy. The Government’s new modern industrial strategy is a core component of what the noble Lord is asking for. We are introducing a new industrial strategy that will give the private sector the guidance it requires about the sectors that we would like to see investment coming into. We are doing planning reform, which is one of the biggest reforms that we can possibly do to unlock new levels of private sector investment in the economy. We are doing pension reform, which the Chancellor set out in her Mansion House speech. We are doing skills reform—another key component of unlocking investment in our economy. All those things will significantly boost growth in our economy, but none of them is yet included in the OBR’s forecast.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, how concerned are the Minister and His Majesty’s Treasury that £9.6 billion of cash was withdrawn last year from the London Stock Exchange—the highest amount on record?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Clearly, ensuring that UK businesses have access to finance is crucial to this Government’s economic policy.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, further to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about investor sentiment, the pound has suffered its biggest three-day slide in two years, and this morning’s yield on 30-year government bonds has risen to 5.385%. That is the highest level seen since 1998. Does the Minister accept that the pound’s weakness and the bond sell-off signal that investors are sceptical about the Government’s growth ambitions and particularly the impact of the October Budget?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I repeat to the noble Lord what I said in my opening remarks. Financial markets are always evolving, so it is a long-standing convention that the Government do not comment on specific financial market movements. I will not break that convention today. Financial market movements, including changes in government bond or gilt yields, which represent the Government’s borrowing costs, are determined by a wide range of international and domestic factors.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the Minister quite rightly said that the Opposition, when in government, had been irresponsible in their economic policies, but does he not agree that their unfair and unjustified criticism of this Government is equally irresponsible and unhelpful?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am happy to agree with my noble friend that any criticism of this Government is unhelpful.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding me to remind the House of when Liz Truss crashed the economy with unfunded tax cuts and unrealistic spending plans, undermining the institutions that are crucial to economic stability—the Treasury, the OBR and the Bank of England—and when she pushed up mortgage rates by £300 a month, for which working people of this country are still paying the price. It is extraordinary that we have had no apology from the party opposite for that.
Long-duration Energy Storage (Science and Technology Committee Report)
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Brown of Cambridge
That this House takes note of the Report from the Science and Technology Committee Long-duration energy storage: get on with it (1st Report, Session 2023–24, HL Paper 68).
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to introduce for debate this Science and Technology Committee report on long-duration energy storage. It is my pleasure to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Gustafsson, of Chesterton, who brings her valuable business and technology experience. I look forward to her maiden speech in response to this debate, and to working with her on issues across science, technology and investment.
I stress that my personal knowledge of this field is closely linked to my external interests in the area as a non-executive director of Ørsted, the offshore wind developer, and the FTSE-listed company and Imperial College spin-out Ceres Power, which licenses intellectual property for solid oxide fuel cells and electrolysers.
I thank all the highly engaged Science and Technology Committee members, past and present, who made leading this report challenging, thought-provoking and fun. As ever, huge credit and thanks are due to the committee staff who assisted in preparing this report: Thomas Hornigold, Matthew Manning, Sid Gurung and Cerise Burnett-Stuart, as well as our special adviser, Professor Keith Bell of the University of Strathclyde.
The inquiry ran from September 2023 to March 2024, with follow-up sessions in April and May last year. We heard from about 30 witnesses, including energy system experts, private companies, the Climate Change Committee and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Some 46 pieces of written evidence were published. Our report was entitled Long-Duration Energy Storage: Get On With It. Since the report was published, we have had a general election and a change of Government, but as the new Government’s target for a largely decarbonised electricity system has been brought forward from 2035 to 2030, the imperative to get on with it is now all the more pertinent.
The climate crisis is worsening. On Monday this week, the serious scientific journal Nature described, uncharacteristically, global average temperatures in 2023 as “off the charts”—and 2024, at over 1.6 degrees above pre-industrial levels, has unexpectedly been even hotter. Nature reports that climate scientists are now considering whether this could indicate that climate change is accelerating. Add to that an increasingly unstable world and energy security is more critical than ever for the UK economy and the well-being of the population. But we do not have much time: 2030 is just five years away.
We have a Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and long-duration energy storage must be at the heart of its thinking. It is a tool that enables us both to have energy security and to reach net zero. The Government acknowledge that the vast majority of electricity in the UK will need to come from renewables by 2030, and electricity supply and demand will grow significantly as we electrify heating, industry and transport.
But the supply from renewables is weather dependent. In particular, the Royal Society’s report on long-duration energy storage warned about the “Dunkelflaute”: the dark doldrums of winter, when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, leading to low renewable generation, sometimes for periods of days to weeks, across the UK and northern Europe. When this happens, some form of large-scale and long-duration energy storage will be needed to keep the lights on. Long-duration storage has another big advantage: rather than curtailing—that is, switching off—wind generation when there is excess supply, as we currently do, we could store that energy and use it later.
If we want our long-duration energy storage to be ready in time, we must act now. If we are to use green hydrogen as our long-duration energy store, which can be generated from renewable electricity via electrolysis, then witnesses told us that storage facilities could take seven to 10 years to build, and storage of any kind needs upfront capital investment. Recent events have made the consequences of energy supply shocks only too clear. Relying on imported fossil fuels damages not only our environment but the UK economy. The recent energy crisis caused by the Ukraine war and restriction of Russian gas supplies to Europe cost £78.2 billion between 2022 and 2024 in government support for energy bills alone. Moreover, the inflation that drove the cost of living crisis was in part driven by the high energy prices, and that damage has been felt by every single household in the UK.
This underlines the value of investment to prevent future crises, but it also demonstrated that, with current economic incentives, the existing energy market will not provide the long-duration storage that we need. We had to partially reverse the closure of the Rough gas storage facility, which had shut down because the private sector argued it was uneconomic to maintain. Energy storage capacity, like vaccines or PPE, is one of those things that Governments wish they had invested in earlier, when they find themselves paying eye-watering sums on global markets in the midst of a crisis.
Not surprisingly, the committee’s report made recommendations around strategic energy storage: a strategic reserve of energy; planning and decision-making for the energy system; targets and policies to support long-duration energy storage; hydrogen as a green energy store; and wider policies to help to minimise the need for long-duration energy storage. I shall discuss some of those key recommendations and some of the Government’s policy responses.
The committee urges the Government to commit to a strategic reserve of energy storage, to be filled when supply is plentiful and maintained to be used in a crisis. The Government have committed in their manifesto to a so-called “strategic reserve” of gas-fired power generation, and have explained that clean power by 2030 actually means 95% clean power from renewables or nuclear, with 5% gas-fired generation kicking in mainly when renewable supply is low. But this is about meeting the frequent requirements for some extra power, and while that is of course crucial it is not about the extremes that we know will happen but cannot predict—the Dunkelflaute or the global crisis.
To be clear, a strategic reserve of gas-fired generation is not the same as what we mean by an actual strategic reserve of energy. The latter could take the form of a volume of gas or hydrogen stored, as we recommended, or indeed other forms of energy storage, such as pumped hydro. The clean power action plan says that we currently need 35 gigawatts of gas generation for long-duration flexibility, but do the Government have estimates for how much gas they will need in a strategic reserve to provide the electricity that we would require in a Dunkelflaute in 2030? How much would we need beyond 2030, with more renewables and when electricity demand is even higher? If gas is to be the backstop for the 2030 target, will there be an actual strategic reserve of gas—a reserve that is government-owned and kept for those extremes? If that is not the case, how will the support mechanism ensure that the store is full when we need it, so we avoid a repeat of the energy crisis that we have just had, with us paying high wholesale prices for gas in a crisis or weather extreme?
The committee said that the Government should get started on no-regrets actions. There is enough analysis of the level of storage that would be needed in a whole range of scenarios that setting an explicit minimum target and getting started on building the strategic reserve is really a no-regrets action. Many key infrastructure decisions are urgently needed. Beyond 2030, to progress towards net zero, any remaining gas-fired plants will need to be fitted with carbon capture and storage, or CCS. New gas plants are supposed to be built to be CCS-ready, but where is the actual plan to capture and store their carbon emissions? How can they be CCS-ready when we do not yet have the networks for transporting and storing CO2 and we do not even know where those networks will be? How can companies take investment decisions to build CCS-ready plants if they do not know how or when the CO2 will be transported for storage? Key decisions are urgently needed about infrastructure—not just the transmission infrastructure for electricity but the transmission infrastructure for CO2 and for hydrogen.
We must act to avoid an increasing challenge of curtailment. The Government’s response to the committee’s report focuses on the role of gas generation to ensure that the lights do not go out. However, without large-scale, long-duration energy storage in a form other than gas, we will not be able to store all the excess energy that UK renewables can generate. So how much curtailment is acceptable and how will we avoid an increase in the frequency with which renewable generators are being paid not to generate electricity?
Is there a transition plan to wean ourselves off gas post 2030? With the assumption that we intend to deliver energy and economic resilience by replacing our reliance on imported gas with other forms of energy storage, how will long-duration energy storage compete with gas subsidised through the capacity market? The Government can argue that long-duration energy storage, for example in the form of hydrogen, cannot scale up to meet security of supply in 2030. Given what we have heard about timelines they may well be right, but if we want to finally break our dependence on fossil fuels and their volatile global prices, as well as to make use of every green joule that we can generate domestically, we need a long-term plan to wean ourselves off gas and scale up domestic large-scale, long-duration energy storage. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government have such a plan?
These are just a few of the many questions from the committee’s report and some elements of the Government’s response. They are not questions for a distant future: 2030 is five years away. That brings me to my next point, about urgency and acceleration. I do not want to give people the impression that long-duration energy storage has been totally ignored. The Government are introducing schemes to support long-duration energy storage through a cap and floor scheme, which we hope will help to finance pumped-hydro storage projects. They are also introducing hydrogen to power and hydrogen transportation and storage business models, although we understand that no subsidies will be delivered until at least the end of this year, as these models are still being developed. Some electrolytic hydrogen projects have been supported in the latest allocation round, and the National Wealth Fund can use some of its funding to support the development of hydrogen projects. We welcome these developments, but bold action is needed to catalyse private investment now. Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to accelerate these plans?
There are further challenges, including skills, public engagement and acceptability, and a range of other issues, which I know some of my committee colleagues will pick up in subsequent speeches.
The Government have set a very challenging, and laudable, target of clean power by 2030, but no one needs reminding that targets are easy to set and much harder to achieve. There are promising signs in the clean power action plan that the Government understand the range of challenges that they must grapple with and are putting policies in place to address them. But policies are not yet spades and steel and concrete, and there are still too many holes in the plan—and not enough holes in the ground—especially around a strategic reserve of energy, starting the no-regrets actions, accelerating the timescales for building long-duration energy storage, and planning to wean ourselves off gas as an emergency backstop, as well as about what happens beyond 2030 and urgency in general. I say again that 2030 is now only five years away, and that is a very short time in terms of developing energy infrastructure. We can, and must, achieve both energy security and net zero, and this requires taking long-term energy storage seriously.
We cannot afford a situation where, every few years, dark doldrum weather conditions send us scrambling to a volatile global gas marketplace, just as the gas price peaks, so that we can keep the lights on. Failure to plan and invest now to avoid this leads us precisely there. Indeed, yesterday, the GB power market came to within 580 megawatts of demand control or a blackout on what was the tightest day for generation since 2011. Incidents such as this and the recent energy crisis, and the lasting societal impact of bailouts and inflation, are a stark warning. If the Government are serious about achieving energy security and net zero—and I believe that these are vital goals—then they must set out a clear plan for how we are going to avoid this situation. That means serious investment and action to cut timelines for energy storage now. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to welcome the Minister to the House and I very much look forward to her speech in reply. I thank our team of committee staff for their support, especially Thomas Hornigold and Matthew Manning, not only for the way in which they helped us but for their remarkable intellectual contributions to our work, as well as that of our specialist adviser, Professor Keith Bell. I also thank our chairman for her leadership in the discussions on this subject.
The title of our report rather suggested a narrow topic; in fact, it is a very big one. In the six minutes I have, I want to talk about just one aspect in more detail: the planning for long-duration energy storage and hydrogen as an important long-duration storage technology. It is noticeable that, although both the previous Administration and the Government agree that reserve generation power is going to be necessary to complement the variability of wind and solar power, neither has taken their public statements on LDES policy much beyond 2035—indeed, in the case of the Government, beyond 2030. My problem is that, in a very important area, there seems to be a big hole in potential policy.
As our chairman made clear, the committee did not say that hydrogen should be the sole LDES technology, but we did think that, of the technologies currently available—and there are a number already in use, such as pumped hydropower—it was the technology that was best placed to play a central role in providing the power that we need in the quantities that we are likely to need it. We were explicit about the need for early commitments to a strategic reserve, given the time that it takes, as mentioned by our chairman. Seven years is, I think, not excessive, in which you have to conduct tests, develop appropriate storage conditions and create the associated infrastructure, which is not itself a trivial issue. These are all factors that apply to most potential LDES technologies.
I have to say that I interpret the Government’s decision to build gas plants to provide reserve power as an implicit admission that, notwithstanding international undertakings, clean sources of reserve power will not be available in sufficient quantities by 2030. I very much hope that this decision on gas, despite its considerable expense, is only transitional and that there is a serious intention to have a clean energy source solution for reserve power as soon as possible. Can the Minister confirm this when she responds?
The truth is that early decisions by the Government about reserve power are nothing short of crucial, since without the confidence inspired by a framework of relevant and coherent public policy, it is an illusion to think that the private sector will invest the necessary resources. We really must avoid a repeat of the recent experience of paying exorbitant prices for scarce energy because of a failure to provide indigenous sources, of which we are perfectly capable if only we organise ourselves.
There is a temptation to argue that it is not possible to take big decisions on reserve generation until we know more about the capabilities of different possible technologies and have a better idea of the quantum likely to be needed. These issues are real, but, far from being solved by delay, risk levels are only compounded, and in any case they do not give us the answer to the energy quantity question.
A lot depends on what we assume demand will look like. The energy modellers use different assumptions about the forecasts for future energy supply and demand, which in turn depend, in part at least, on assumptions about weather. The Climate Change Committee bases itself on a typical year of weather, accompanied by stress tests of more extreme weather patterns, whereas the Royal Society, in its study, analysed weather patterns over a longer period, which included years in which there was anomalously low power generation resulting from prolonged periods of low wind speeds—the so-called Dunkelflaute, of which we have heard. Not surprisingly, the Royal Society came up with a bigger estimate for the amount of LDES required than did the Climate Change Committee.
No one said that this was easy. However, I wonder whether anybody has much confidence these days in what constitutes typical weather. What we do know is that weather damage is getting bigger and more expensive by the year. The World Economic Forum recently estimated that, by 2050, the global cost of climate change damage will be between $1.7 trillion and $3.1 trillion a year. With such huge costs at stake, it must be right to act now to ensure that, in turbulent times, at least our power infrastructure is as robust as we can make it and capable of meeting a wide range of weather contingencies. Economic growth and economic security literally hang on it—hence the committee’s entreaty to the Government on long-term energy storage to please get on with it.
What are the advantages of hydrogen for large-scale, longer-term storage? It is available in unlimited quantities through electrolysis and is storable for long periods—that is to say, for months or even years. The UK’s geology makes this a pretty cheap proposition. The power losses involved in conversion to electricity mean that, unless cheap sources of spare energy can be found, such as energy release from a nuclear power station, hydrogen is most economically drawn on as a power source when, for whatever reason, there is a shortfall in the power production of renewables and other sources of energy. I ask the Minister to give us what guidance she can on the nature and timing of government plans for long-duration energy storage at scale.
Lord Drayson (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness. I join her in thanking the committee staff for their excellent work on this report and their considerable intellectual contribution to it.
I want to emphasise the urgent need for decisive action by the new Labour Government on infrastructure investment. The UK is at an economic crossroads, and the choices we make in the coming months will determine not just the pace of our recovery but our long-term economic prosperity. I am delighted to welcome my noble friend Lady Gustafsson to our Front Bench and am greatly looking forward to her maiden speech. We are fortunate to have such an accomplished technology entrepreneur as our Investment Minister. I was struck that she wrote, in an excellent LinkedIn post last Sunday, that she was suffering from
“the CEO condition which means you want everything done your way”.
It is exactly that CEO mindset that is so needed in the UK Government right now. Nowhere was that clearer than in the evidence that the Science and Technology Committee heard during our inquiry.
It has been widely accepted that, for too long, the UK has lagged behind its global peers in infrastructure development. Indecision and a reluctance to embrace risk and make investment have left us with missed opportunities and anaemic growth. The UK is becoming poorer and falling behind as a result. It is time for that to change and it will need decisive action to achieve it—not consultation and review, but action.
Nowhere is this clearer than in energy infrastructure. A thriving economy requires reliable, sustainable and affordable energy. The new Government are accelerating our transition to a decarbonised grid by 2030 using renewable solar and wind energy. That means it is essential that we also have long-duration energy storage capacity. However, progress on building such a storage facility has been hindered by hesitation and delay. Witness after witness told us how the previous Government avoided decisions and failed to heed clear advice from industry on the need for action—hence the blunt title of our report to get on with it.
Unfortunately, our politics, our Civil Service and our industry regulators have become increasingly risk averse over the past 15 years. Significant investment involving technological innovation is risky. Failure is a real possibility and success requires political courage, a bias for action and skill in managing that risk. In short, we need Ministers with a CEO mindset who understand that the greatest risk lies in not making a decision and who focus efforts on managing risk as implementation proceeds.
If the UK fails to act on long-duration energy storage now, we will not meet our net-zero targets, and we will subject our society and economy to blackouts and higher energy costs. By committing to decisive action now, Labour Ministers can signal that Britain is serious about restoring the nation’s fortunes. They can inspire confidence that the UK is now a place where transformative projects get built and where vision is backed by action.
I have one question for the Minister: when will this Government decide to build the strategic reserve of long-duration energy storage that they already accept will be needed to deliver energy security and net zero?
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I must begin by declaring that I do not have any relevant interests to declare. Noble Lords might think this is somewhat superfluous, but I do so because the BBC’s “Today” programme, on the rare occasions it reports my remarks on climate policy, prefaces them with a health warning that “Lord Lilley has interests in the oil and gas industry”—as it did after my recent debate on the costs of climate policy. I presume it does so to discredit my views. There is one small problem. Sadly, I have no interests in any energy company. I have had no financial interest in any energy company for over a decade. I have never had any interests in any energy company which would benefit from the policies I advocate in your Lordships’ House.
In the light of my experience, I was concerned that the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, who opened this debate, was asking for trouble in not recusing herself from chairing the committee during this report. I make it absolutely clear that I am not impugning the integrity of the noble Baroness. Her views on net zero are well known. I am certain she does not hold those views because of her financial interests. On the contrary, she holds those interests because they align with and inform her beliefs.
In my case, the BBC had to invent interests that I do not have. In the noble Baroness’s case, the newspapers have already pointed out the interests she properly declared. Ceres Power Holdings, which aims to become the world’s biggest source of green hydrogen, pays her £74,000 per year. Ørsted, which stands to benefit if its surplus wind is used to generate hydrogen, pays her £40,000 per year. I have no problem with that. The House benefits from noble Lords who have active interests in business and industry—not least the very distinguished record of the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge.
However, I wonder how the House would treat a critic of climate policy who declared that they received over £100,000 from fossil fuel companies when they chaired a report advocating policies which would benefit fossil fuel companies. All I ask is that those on both sides of the debate accept the good faith of their critics and, in particular, do not traduce the motives of those such as me who want to apply a cost-benefit analysis to these issues as being paid shills or climate deniers.
Let us get on to the report itself. It can be described as an almost priceless report in the sense that there are almost no prices attached to any of its recommendations. My only objective in this and the other debates on net-zero policy is to establish the costs and benefits of the options being presented to us. If the option proposed is cheaper than relying on fossil fuels, that is great; the sooner the better. If it is more expensive, let us compare that extra cost with the social cost of the carbon emitted before we decide to go ahead. I get very suspicious when we are told that we must, as the title of the report puts it, “get on with it”, when we do not know what “it” will cost. Dieter Helm, in his report for the previous Government on their climate policy, said that premature investment in immature technologies has wasted up to £100 billion of British taxpayers’ money. Let us not repeat that folly.
I said that the report was almost priceless. But hidden in box 3 on page 17, it quotes the Royal Society report, which claims that, if we rely on renewables and hydrogen storage, the price of electricity in 2050 will be £60 per megawatt hour, which it says is “comparable to the average” price over the decade from 2010 to 2019. Normally we are told that it is going to be cheaper, but this time it is only comparable—so presumably it will be a bit more expensive. That is rather hard to explain because the most recent auction price for offshore wind was £82 per megawatt hour, indexed against future inflation. That does not include the cost of tackling intermittency and, for example, the cost of hydrogen storage.
The same box says that hydrogen storage will add an extra cost of £100 billion. Strengthening and enlarging the grid will cost another £100 billion. This almost equals the £210 billion the Royal Society says will be required to invest directly in wind and solar generation. Given that the main cost of wind is capital investment, how can almost doubling the capital costs required for a system that is driven purely by intermittent energy and therefore has to have so much expensive back-up result in a fall in the price?
I understand that the Royal Society and the committee are relying on barely credible reductions in costs in all aspects of the process. Sadly, the committee did not consider the benefit of relying for a bit longer on natural gas as a back-up while these cost reductions materialise. The cost of energy is crucial. We cannot overstate the impact high costs have on economic performance. We should not rush ahead and get on with something—the cost of which we do not know—when for a bit longer, and with comparatively minor extra emissions of natural gas, we can avoid those problems.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in today’s debate. I join all speakers—or perhaps all—who have congratulated my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, on securing it and on chairing the committee with great skill and good humour. I also thank the staff for their tremendous help in producing today’s report. I am glad that the House has had an opportunity to debate it relatively soon after its publication. That may seem strange to some new Members—January 2025 is not particularly close to March 2024—but, considering our subtitle “get on with it”, I hope the new Government will react to this report and debate in that spirit. I say “new Government” because most of this inquiry was conducted under the old Government. Like all other Members, I look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Gustafsson, who will join that relatively rare and select group of Members who make their maiden speeches as Ministers and not as Back Benchers.
I have been reflecting on the coincidence that we are having our debate on the same day as the state funeral of President Jimmy Carter. You may think there is no connection but, looking back, one of his achievements was to set up the Department of Energy in the United States in reaction to the oil crisis of the 1970s when OPEC became a well-known word throughout the world. We had set up our own Department of Energy a little earlier; it was 50 years ago this year that the first of the North Sea oil came through.
So, 50 years later, we find the energy landscape transformed and the public are now well adapted to the fact that energy policy shapes their lives. They instinctively realise that the phrase “net zero” is a further transformation which will dominate lives, even if they are not familiar with some of the details of this change. Today’s report should be seen in that context, given that many of the details may not be easily grasped by the public.
As you would expect, we took a lot of very detailed evidence for the report from a wide range of experts. Even on some of the most important areas, such as the need for a strategic energy reserve, there were widely varying views on how large that reserve should be. We know that the Government’s targets are ambitious and the wish to be largely decarbonised by 2030 brings forward the date, so it is all the more important that a committee such as ours takes on an issue such as this and gives it the prominence it deserves. Let us face it, LDES as an acronym does not exactly trip off the tongue, but it represents an important and vital ingredient of our future energy policy. The net-zero policy to which we are committed will mean that we use electricity far more than we do now, and it will be derived from renewable sources. We will specifically use wind and solar, both of which we have a great capacity for.
The residents of a place called Odiham in Hampshire, as noble Lords will recall, last autumn went for an entire week without any recorded sunshine or wind. There is a special word to describe this—I think the chair has already beaten me to get it into Hansard—but we have got to deal with a world in which the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, otherwise we run the risk of power cuts. The chair alluded to how close we came relatively recently to what many in the world would call “load-shedding”, which is something a first-world country such as ours should not countenance.
In the short time available, I have a few questions for the Minister. First, what is the Government’s current assessment of the scale of the need for LDES and how will it fit into the new energy system? Secondly, what progress is being made in setting up the National Energy System Operator and what effect will future reforms to the planning system have on implementing decisions once ministerial approval is given?
Thirdly, what plans do the Government have for a strategic energy reserve? Will that reserve be gas or might it be an alternative such as hydrogen? Fourthly, if it will involve green hydrogen as a long-duration energy store, how will this fit into the Government’s wider hydrogen policy? What plans do they have for a domestic electrolyser industry, not to mention greater public consultation on its potential use?
Fifthly, what progress is being made towards a strategic spatial energy plan? Sixthly, what plans do the Government have for speeding up the ability of renewable energy sources to connect to the national grid? When we look back on this in years to come, it will be a scandal that it took so long. Seventhly, when the grid connection queue has finally been shortened, what steps do they plan to take to enable electricity to be transferred across the country—even across beautiful parts of this country—by the building of new pylon networks? Can this be achieved without timely reform of planning laws?
Eighthly, is there anything the Government can tell the House about plans to minimise the need for long-duration energy storage, including the use of interconnectors—always bearing in mind that, in today’s dangerous world, as undersea cables are severed, so could undersea connectors? Ninthly, what government support is being given to R&D into other LDES technologies, such as compressed air and battery chemistries? Tenthly, can the Government explain how LDES can and will fit into their longer-term net-zero objectives? Will gas-fired plants be used for LDES? If so, will they be fitted with CCUS?
In conclusion, when a major committee such as the Science and Technology Committee tells the Government that they should get on with it, I want the Minister to know that it is meant in the kindest, friendliest way—but it is meant.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, since I am speaking after the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and having listened to his contribution, I feel I must defend the BBC’s intention to contextualise his words. I note an article on the LSE’s website, dated October last year, headed “Misinformation in the UK’s House of Lords”, which focuses on statements made in the House by the noble Lord on the climate emergency, and speaks about
“the promotion of misinformation about climate change”.
The BBC is surely taking on board such analysis.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Is the noble Baroness saying that it is right for the BBC to say an untruth because she does not agree with what I say?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I am saying that the BBC is trying to—
Lord Lilley (Con)
Will she condemn the BBC for saying that I have interests in an oil and gas company when I do not, and have not for more than 10 years?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I have no awareness of the details of the noble Lord’s financial position, but I understand the BBC’s intention to try to make sure that it contextualises the information that is being presented to listeners.
I welcome the Minister to the House and to her position, and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and the committee for an excellent report and the entirely expected comprehensive and detailed introduction to it. It is a reminder that your Lordships’ House needs more people with a science and technology background, particularly those who are able to look at technological claims critically and, where necessary, sceptically.
I begin with paragraph 12 of the report, which talks about the global energy crisis as being an object lesson in our vulnerability to fossil fuel prices. Those who question the net-zero and 2030 electricity decarbonisation targets really need to focus on that paragraph. We need homegrown or regionally linked solutions, as well as sustainable ones. I pick up the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, about the evident state of our climate emergency now, and offer my sympathy to the 130,000 people forced to evacuate Los Angeles. I urge those who doubt the need for climate action to look at those images and question why they still have doubts.
The report covers the fact that the Climate Change Committee forecast that electricity demand will increase by 50% by 2035 and double by 2050 in its balanced pathway scenario. I want to go back further than the committee report does: can we afford that increase in electricity demand, economically or environmentally? Can we make other choices about the way our society works? We think of it in terms of bulk demand for electricity, but we can also think about it in terms of balancing the grid from moment to moment. How can we reduce demand and make sure that that is part of our story, as well as saying that we have got to have the storage?
Paragraph 129 of the report says that long and medium-duration storage is critical,
“but it will not always be the cheapest option”.
The committee stresses that energy efficiency, which I want to focus on, is often a cheaper option. The cleanest, greenest energy you can possibly have is the energy that you do not need to use. I fear that sometimes, when we reach out for technological solutions and think about growth as a mantra or religion, we fail to think about the fact that the cheapest, cleanest, best possible energy is the energy that we do not need to use.
In that context, your Lordships frequently hear expressions of excitement from the Government about the possibilities of so-called AI or large language learning models. One study suggests that a generative AI system uses around 33 times more energy than a machine running task-specific software—33 times more energy to get the same outcome. In 2022, the world’s data centres gobbled up 460 terawatt hours of electricity and the International Energy Agency expects this to double in just four years. Data centres could be using 1,000 terawatt hours annually by 2026.
It is interesting that Dublin, for example, has just put a moratorium on the construction of new data centres. Nearly one-fifth of Ireland’s electricity is currently used by data centres, and that figure is expected to grow significantly. Ireland is starting to ask the question: can and—importantly—do we want to do this?
Finally, perhaps we could do with a little bit of light relief. I suspect that a new word for your Lordships’ House, at least used in this context, is so-called AI slop, which is junk, nonsense material being created at enormous scale by AI-generating machines. There has apparently been a huge explosion of images of Jesus made out of shrimps. Do we want to create energy storage so that AI systems can do that?
Lord Rees of Ludlow (CB)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, for adeptly chairing the sessions that led to this report. More than that, since she retires from our committee this month, she deserves congratulations on being so effective and benign throughout the last four years.
Today’s debate raises serious issues which cannot be addressed without substantial resources and long-term planning. The backdrop is, of course, that the simplest and cheapest way that the UK can move towards net zero is to exploit energy from the sun and from wind. We need to get more energy from these clean sources than the total amount we generate now, because we need to replace the energy now coming from fossil fuels that is used for transport and heating. Therefore, by 2050 we will be far more dependent on electricity than we are today. So dependent are our cities on electricity already that there would be utter social breakdown within two or three days if there was a complete power cut.
In going carbon free as our contribution to avoiding the global mega risk of extreme climate change, we have exposed ourselves to a new risk: namely, that electricity supply could fail during sunless cold spells in the winter. Coping with this new risk is the theme of this report. It is clear that major annual investment is crucial if the UK is to achieve its net-zero ambition by 2050 and removing the associated risk of that would require the substantial extra expenditure discussed in the report. There will be a strong temptation to spend less and slow down the whole decarbonisation programme, partly on the grounds that the UK’s current contribution to global CO2 emissions is less than 2%, so the global benefit will be minimal if other countries fail to achieve net zero by 2050 or have not even set themselves such a strict target. To many citizens, this will seem just the kind of project that can be progressively cut and deferred in favour of more urgent and local problems.
My main point is that there are other quite different cogent reasons—indeed, compelling ones—as to why the UK should build up an energy store to be drawn on when the system that normally powers the electric grid falls short of our needs. I refer to the consequences of, for instance, cyberattacks on nuclear power stations, sabotage of cables, or failures—either accidental or malign—created in the crucial machinery that controls the grid and is coupling to energy generated by wind or sun.
Even if we never contemplated the kind of aggression which Ukraine is now experiencing, we surely cannot rule out cyberattacks on power stations, sabotage or similar interventions which close down large parts of the grid. There is bound to be a delay in restoring power after such events so, to bridge such a delay, there needs to be an emergency store of energy which will prevent possible utter social breakdown.
The optimum infrastructure needed to cope with these emergencies would not be quite the same as what is needed to cope with calm, sunless winters, but there is plainly an overlap. Most people would feel far more motivated to support long-term energy storage if it also contributed to the just as important task of rendering us more resilient to technological breakdowns or malign attacks. The probability of those attacks is hard to estimate, as is the probability of other failures, but it will surely increase with time in our unstable world. Most people worry more about these than the projected effect of climate change, which motivates the net-zero target.
I suggest that the risks stemming from the shift towards solar and wind energy, which are the themes of this report, should be added to the already threatening risks from advanced technologies, especially as there may be an overlap in the benefits of particular measures to counteract both of them. There is more chance of getting these measures if they have two reasons for being done, rather than just one.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, this is a very good report by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, and I thank all our great staff, but I regret that I cannot be as complimentary about the Government’s response. The rules of the House of Lords prohibit a committee from expressing urgency by visual design or typographically. Perhaps the committee thought that “get on with it” was sufficient, but I do not consider that the sense of urgency that we found on the matter was reflected in the response.
The position is simple: windmills have a 97% or 98% availability rate. These figures are only from the internet, and I would be happy to be corrected by more knowledgeable noble Lords. The problem is that failures occur mainly when the wind dies down. Then, it happens to all windmills in a given area at once. Can the Minister confirm that this very nearly happened yesterday, which would have made a dramatic opener for this debate?
The Germans have a word for the winter phenomenon of a Dunkelflaute—mentioned by our chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Brown—which seems to have entered the English language. It is a period of time—several days—of flat calm and low clouds, in which neither windmills nor solar panels can produce much power. There is very little that anyone can do about it. One has to hand it to our German cousins for producing such a fine onomatopoeic word.
As a country, we have decided that we will deliver a zero-emission electricity grid at some stage. The committee has tried to point out the complexity of doing so and of providing a back-up system without billions of pounds of expenditure; it is impossible to do it at reasonable cost.
One solution is that we should have a fleet of nuclear power stations. The trouble is that we know that, but we are not happy with the risk of the small modular reactor. We should be happy, because we know what the risk is now: it is different from and smaller than the risk unknowable from a hydrogen-based solution. Another solution is to start fracking. The 0.5 level on the Richter scale, which must not be exceeded, is less than the vibration caused by 10 Lords a-leaping, and we survive that at Christmas every year.
In the 1970s, this country and its population were used to power cuts. Our electricity was dominated by coal and the country was dependent on unionised coal miners doing their hard work in low places. They were suffering conditions with no end of industrial disease, in addition to mesothelioma, for which we are paying even now. We were used to and prepared for power cuts. I was told that, in 1973, during the end of the three-day week, the Department of Industry—working for Tony Benn as Secretary of State, the late father of my friend, the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate—had to negotiate a solution to the problems caused by the bankruptcy of BSA and the motorcycle industry. The meetings took a long time, but the department could not show any lights that proved that they were working on an off day. So they set up trestle-tables in the gents’ loo at the department, confident that there would be no female lawyers or executives in any of the teams negotiating, and that they would not be discovered as there were no outside windows. The point is that the department was ready to solve the problem; we have lost that ability today.
We are a changed society and many more times more dependent on electricity now than 50 years ago. I am not sure what today’s teenagers will say when they cannot recharge their iPhones, nor indeed how they will say it. I suppose that they will be forced into conversation with their parents, who will moan that they cannot recharge their electric cars either. We do not have candles stored in every house, nor matches to light them. The point is that we are many times more vulnerable to the effects of power cuts than we were 50 years ago, and, at the same time, many times more likely to get one thanks to a Dunkelflaute affecting our windmills. They will stop, and no amount of political hot air will restart them. Unfairly, the Government will be blamed for the weather; their actual crime will be not having a decent back-up system in place to save us from this utterly predictable disaster. A few days’ interruption 50 years ago was possible to cope with then.
Our report pointing out this urgency was able to generate a government response identifying the process to develop an answer. No doubt, it is an impeccable process. We do not need a process; we need a solution. Otherwise, we will do what Governments often do: seize on an expensive solution that looks like action and blame their predecessors for the problem. The electorate will not believe the politicians, and, as usual, the electorate will be right. The problem comes from our decision to have a zero-emission grid, but given current technology, there is no simple solution. The only thing we can say is: “Get on with it”.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the Labour Climate and Environment Forum. I joined the Science and Technology Committee just as it was finalising its long-term storage report, so I am afraid that I cannot claim any credit whatever. However, I am pleased that I can speak today in support of this important report and of our admirable chairman, who was quite unfairly attacked by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley—but let us not keep that debate going.
I also add my welcome to the Minister my noble friend Lady Gustafsson; I look forward to her maiden speech in response to this debate. With her investment role, she will understand that driving investment is probably the only issue in this topic that absolutely has to be grasped.
As many noble Lords already pointed out yesterday, the power grid operated in exactly the way that a long-term energy storage system should be designed to avoid: the temperature dropped, the demand for heat and power went up, the wind and sun were absent—the famous Dunkelflaute—and the reserve gas-fired power stations had to be cranked up at great expense, because everybody else in Europe was calling for gas at the same time. We cannot go on like that.
When Conservative Ministers came to the Select Committee a year ago and we probed how they saw such a situation being dealt with in the long term, we were quite hard on one of them, if I remember correctly. He eventually lost his cool completely and snapped, “That is why we need to have a reserve of gas-fired power stations, even if they are unabated. Something’s needed to keep the lights on”. I was a bit disappointed in that as a response.
I am glad to say that we have moved on considerably from then. The Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, which was published in December, is a major step in the right direction. It is only a first step, in a route map that needs to be clearly laid out, to the decarbonising of power to avoid the spectre of dependency on expensive, insecure and polluting unabated gas. It is interesting that polling of the public that we did last year for LCEF showed that, at the height of the energy price crisis, the public ranked energy security equal with reducing the cost of energy as important in their mind.
The 2030 action plan outlines intentions to capture and store excess renewable energy generated when the sun shines or the wind blows and we have more electricity than we need. As noble Lords have pointed out, we currently pay renewable energy generators not to produce this surplus energy, which, even given the polite title of “curtailment”, is bonkers in anybody’s books. The plan, of course, focuses only on the revised target date for zero-carbon energy of 2030—the clue is in the title—but, for longer-term back-up and storage, it points in the direction of travel beyond 2030. It outlines what measures need to be put in place and some initial timetables, although not enough. This is all vital if we are to inspire confidence in investors and leverage private money to tackle the task.
Can my noble friend the Minister today provide us and the investment market with additional assurance about the Government’s intentions beyond 2030? I have some specific questions. First, are the Government clear that long-duration energy storage, which provides highly flexible power, is the missing piece of the energy jigsaw and that it will reduce our reliance on unabated gas generation, allow variable renewables to be used more efficiently, reduce costs, enhance our energy security and contribute to the reduction in carbon emissions?
Secondly, do the Government support the central role of hydrogen storage, along with other technologies such as pumped hydro storage, battery technologies and compressed air? Do they support the central idea that a reduction in the reliance on gas, as outlined by the Royal Society, will reduce costs?
Thirdly, are the Government committed to providing an investable policy environment, including a cap and floor regime, for long-duration energy storage technologies and policy support through dispatchable power agreements and other mechanisms beyond 2030, to enable the construction of hydrogen storage projects and supporting pipelines?
Fourthly, does my noble friend the Minister judge that we are providing enough support for projects aimed at testing the viability of carbon capture and storage, to achieve both the decarbonisation of gas-fired power stations and the creation of a sustainable hydrogen supply chain?
All these issues have a strong spatial element, and noble Lords will recognise that I cannot speak without mentioning the Government’s land use framework, which we hope is about to emerge. There are some very interesting steps, such as is happening in Hull, to co-locate various cutting-edge testing projects, such as CCUS and hydrogen projects, to see the value of co-location and to explore the spatial aspects of these technologies. Can my noble friend the Minister tell us when we might see the strategic spatial energy plan and what it will contain? Can she say how it will nest in the Government’s overarching land use framework, which will deal with all the key demands for land? We heard from the Defra Minister on Tuesday that it will be launched for consultation this month—but I heard that last Christmas, too.
Our excellent chair and many other noble Lords have already addressed the need for speed, and I will finish, very briefly, with my view that all these strands need to be progressed with commitment and vigour, to give confidence to the investment market as well as to hit targets. Large-scale hydrogen will take seven to 10 years to build. Although the word of the debate may be “Dunkelflaute”, I prefer the title of the report: Get On With It. I am not as well brought up as our admirable Select Committee’s chairman, so I would urge, even more starkly, the use of the admirable phrase “JFDI”. For those who do not know what that means, it is simply, “Just do it”, with a little embellishment that I will not repeat for fear of offending the Hansard writers.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, first, I echo other speakers in paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Brown of Cambridge, who will be rotating off the Science and Technology Committee shortly and has been a superb chair. Secondly, I too thank our wonderful staff, Matthew Manning, Thomas Hornigold, Cerise Burnett-Stuart and Sid Gurung, as well as our special adviser, Professor Keith Bell. I have particular reason to thank them because I knew remarkably little about this subject when we started. I am immensely grateful for their patience and willingness to educate somebody who knew nothing about this at considerable speed.
I want to cover a broad-brush subject. What do the Government intend to do to address questions of public acceptability of some of these new technologies and the public’s safety concerns about some of them? Take, for instance, the issue of large-scale storage of hydrogen, which we will probably have to go to at some point. The Government are now proposing gas as a back-up, as far as 2030 at least, but if hydrogen storage is ever to be part of the mix, presumably real planning will have to take place and storage facilities will need to be found. If gas is the short-term back-up, presumably the option of using decommissioned gas storage, raised with the committee by Centrica, is unlikely.
The previous Government responded to the prospect of repurposing Centrica’s gas storage for hydrogen by saying that they felt the technology was not ready at this point, so they would favour salt caverns for now. That being the case, the Government need to move fast to identify salt caverns and convince local residents that the storage is safe. If there are local objections to hydrogen storage, that could slow down or even prevent the development and have a huge knock-on effect on the whole hydrogen industry and energy infrastructure plans. Public acceptance might then ebb away, which would have a knock-on effect yet again on getting infrastructure plans through the planning system. This is like a pack of cards, and it all falls down if we do not get on with it.
It is not just hydrogen. Government will still need to ensure that other new technologies are brought into play. Without a careful and lengthy public information campaign, will those technologies be acceptable to the public? We have been seeing a gradual reduction in the acceptability of electric cars, as judged by sales, even though the technology is relatively simple and it is publicly acceptable—indeed, desirable—to want to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. If that is what is happening with electric cars, does it not suggest that the Government may have a problem convincing the public about long-term hydrogen storage or long-term batteries? Surely the work on convincing the public should begin right now.
The previous Government responded to our recommendation of a public education campaign by saying:
“We welcome the recommendations regarding commissioning further research into the safety and public acceptability of hydrogen storage and will consider this as our overall evidence base on hydrogen storage develops. We will also ensure that relevant information is made publicly available as the evidence base develops. We will consider how and when it is best to conduct further research into public perception of hydrogen. For example, it may be best to consider this once we have more certainty on where initial hydrogen storage infrastructure will be located”.
That does not suggest that anybody is in much of a hurry for that, even though it assumes that there will be some hydrogen storage. Unless we get on with it, any hydrogen-to-power developments, which would require infrastructure to store hydrogen and transport hydrogen to the power plant, will not be ready when we run out of energy. We have heard about yesterday. Some of us probably noticed that all the lights went out around this Chamber only a few minutes before this debate began, which I presume was a sign of some kind.
All this has to be joined up, alongside a proper public information campaign. At the moment, messages from government are somewhat confused. The present Government’s Hydrogen Strategy Update to the Market statement was published in December. It made no mention of a strategic reserve of hydrogen, although it did say that the Government will support hydrogen to power. Yet long-term concerns suggest that if you are going to do that, some hydrogen storage will be necessary, and that is not widely understood.
Our report was entitled Long-duration Energy Storage: Get On With It. I hope that the Minister, whose maiden speech we are all looking forward to, can reassure us that the Government have a sense of urgency about this whole subject, and in particular about informing and educating the public. The public will not forgive us if that does not happen.
Lord Wei (Con)
My Lords, I extend my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, for initiating this crucial debate. I too am very much looking forward to the maiden speech by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Gustafsson, and welcome her to the House. I declare my interest as an advisor to Future Planet Capital, a venture capital firm that invests in impactful technologies pertinent to this discussion, and my personal commitment to the energy transition. It has been an honour to serve on this committee and to work with its very able team, whom I also thank.
I welcome the report’s focus on the urgent need to scale up long-duration energy storage to meet the twin challenges of achieving a sustainable future and securing our energy supply in the face of renewable intermittency and increasing geopolitical black swans. However, I will focus on the role that innovation can play if sufficiently supported to scale up solutions by cultivating genuine market demand, at the right low prices and faster, for long-term energy storage.
First, we must do more to enable large energy users—industry, data centres and other high-demand sectors—to create a market for innovation in both storage and modular power generation. These organisations, with their predictable energy needs and financial capacity, are better placed to pilot advanced technologies. Whether through industrial partnerships or new regulatory frameworks, fostering collaboration between energy-intensive industries and technology developers, we could develop and deploy localised, modular solutions such as small-scale hydrogen storage, modular reactors, more universal bidirectional EV charging—essentially using our vehicles as an energy store—or other emerging technologies, over short and long periods. Many of these were touched on in the report. This approach could reduce reliance on large-scale, grid-intensive centralised solutions and catalyse a market-driven pathway to resilience, moderating short-term demand and building longer-term storage solutions.
Secondly, while hydrogen storage in salt caverns has received significant attention following the report’s launch, as well as gas more recently, it is vital that we broaden our portfolio of solutions to give ourselves radically more affordable and more resilient options. Emerging modular storage methods, including safer hydrogen hydrates technology and advanced battery chemistries, still hold promise for providing flexible, cost-effective alternatives. Encouraging diverse scaled-up storage innovation will mitigate the risk of overreliance on a single, expensive and centralised approach, particularly given Treasury constraints. We need a big push to get all parties to help accelerate the most promising breakthrough technologies for storing and generating baseload supportive energy and storage, avoiding lock-in to older, higher-cost solutions. I have seen technology coming down the line that could increase industrial energy capacity by at least 50%. It would be a shame to overlook or close the door to such solutions in favour of ones that are more costly, even if more proven and established in the short term.
Thirdly, the report rightly highlights the urgency of fast-tracking planning, deploying capital and creating necessary price signals. Should we not go much further and consider putting in place a task force, akin to the Vaccine Taskforce, also empowered with a venture capital chair’s mindset, to cut through red tape, make rapid decisions and make smart, risk-managed bets with key stakeholders regularly, especially in relation to procurement? This would deliver the energy storage needed to prevent blackouts and secure cheaper energy faster, using modular baseload and emerging technologies.
In closing, I have some questions for the Minister. What actions are being taken to incentivise large energy users in driving market-based innovation in and scaling-up of storage and modular power generation? How are the Government supporting diversification of storage technologies, particularly for localised and industrial applications? What steps are being taken to develop the task force-style approach to cut through and get us to where we need to be at the right price and in ways that will bring the populace along with us? The time for bold, co-ordinated action is now. By leveraging the innovative capacity of our industries and innovators and focusing on diverse, scalable solutions, we can still secure a resilient and sustainable energy future for our country.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, both for the report and for the clarity with which she has introduced this debate. I also thank the committee and its staff. Every time the last Government introduced an energy Bill or an energy Statement, I asked what they were doing about storage. I did not get any clearer reply than the committee evidently got from Ministers then. I do not think things have improved subsequently, but I welcome the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Gustafsson, and I hope that in her reply she will indicate which departments are responsible for which in this area—I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, here. I mention this partly because I listened to the introduction from the noble Lord, Lord Borwick. I worked for the father of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, as a Minister even earlier, when we had separate ministries of technology and of fuel and power, and they failed to get on. Subsequent Prime Ministers have altered the demarcation several times since, and I would like to know what the new Government’s structure is, not only between those two departments but right across Whitehall.
It is important that we focus on storage. I have asked the previous Government and I ask this Government whether they agree that we will not approach the recommended path to net zero unless we have a very significant storage contribution reasonably quickly and, hopefully, as cost effectively as we can manage. I hope that this Government will rapidly move to a clear strategy for storage—of all technologies.
In the meantime, I want to concentrate on one dimension of this, which is the availability of hydrogen for both production purposes and storage, and the way in which we produce hydrogen at scale which does not itself create carbon emissions and slow down the approach to net zero. The last Government issued a number of White Papers on hydrogen; this Government have issued one, but it does not answer that question. At present, nowhere in the world to my knowledge is very substantial, at-scale production of green hydrogen being made available to industry. We have grey and blue hydrogen and we have moves to make hydrogen production somewhat cleaner and more cost efficient, but we do not have green hydrogen at scale. Yet most of the sectors which we are intending to transform by 2030, or, in some cases, by 2035, require some input of hydrogen.
The last Government and this Government have implied, but never stated definitively, that they have abandoned any idea that hydrogen will be the main replacement for natural gas in our home and office heating systems, except in very exceptional circumstances, but there are still places where the assumption is that hydrogen will be used: in heavy industry, possibly in heavy transport and possibly even in marine and aviation. There will be lots of demand for hydrogen. Hydrogen for storage will be but one of them. Yet we are not clear how we produce that hydrogen in a way which is not itself a contributing factor to emissions of carbon if we use methane and other means.
I hope that this Government will commit themselves to making clear within the next 12 months or so where the hydrogen is going to come from, how rapidly we are able to deploy it and what technologies will be used in addition to hydrogen to provide the necessary electricity storage, which the committee has drawn attention to. Unless we answer that question, we will fail not only on long-duration electricity storage but on providing decarbonisation of some of our most significant industrial and service sectors. I hope therefore that, in whatever government department it is, attention is drawn over the next few months to hydrogen production, because even with major policies as advocated by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on demand reduction and energy efficiency, we will not meet that transition pathway without it.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I had the privilege of serving on the Select Committee during much of the period of preparation of this report, and I join others in thanking our excellent chair, my noble friend Lady Brown of Cambridge, as well as thanking her for her outstanding introduction to this debate. I also thank the staff of the Select Committee, who, along with the specialist adviser, provided us with such excellent support. I join others in welcoming the Minister for her first outing at the Dispatch Box and I look forward to hearing her maiden speech. I should declare a relevant interest: that I am chair of the independent advisory board of Drax power, which generates electricity through burning biomass, and I advise it on sustainability of biomass.
I think nearly everybody agrees that we will need long-duration energy storage to cope with the intermittency in renewables, as we have already heard. Therefore, the questions really are how much we need, what technologies we will use to generate long-duration energy storage and how it will be funded. Let me talk about the first of these. To estimate how much long-term storage will be needed, we need to know how frequently and for what duration these periods of cloudy, still weather will occur. Different experts who presented evidence to the committee took different approaches to attempting to answer this question. The Climate Change Committee for example, along with the National Infrastructure Commission, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, has already said, used an analysis of year-to-year variation as well seasonal variation based on a combination of data and climate models. On the other hand, the Royal Society modelled a long sequence—it happened to be 37 years—arguing that wind and sun can vary on not just year-to-year timescales but decadal timescales.
If the Royal Society is correct, the amount of long-duration energy storage required will have to take into account those long-duration fluctuations, and this may in part explain why its analysis suggests the need for a much larger strategic reserve than indicated by some of the other analyses. The Royal Society concludes that the total amount of storage needed by 2050 may be as much as 100 terawatt hours. This would be equivalent to 5,000 Dinorwig pumped hydroelectric dams, or 50 clusters of 10 caverns for hydrogen. My question to the Minister is this. Do the Government agree with the Royal Society’s conclusion that plans for long-duration energy storage should reflect decadal-scale variations in renewable generation and not just interannual or seasonal variation?
I now turn to funding long-duration energy storage. The Government have said that they will introduce a cap and floor to give investors the security of a guaranteed minimum return while protecting consumers from excessive price rises, and this is in line with our recommendation. However, as has already been said by others, we also conclude that a commercially viable cap and floor funding arrangement would incentivise businesses to sell their stores rather than to keep them for events that might occur only once every 30 years. Can the Minister therefore tell us whether the Government plan to pay for a strategic reserve of energy storage not driven by short-term commercial incentives?
While the Government have not yet stated explicitly how much LDES they think they will require by 2050, the 13 December action plan, which has already been referred to, refers to 4 to 6 gigawatts of long-duration energy storage by 2030, out of the 40 to 50 gigawatts of dispatchable power needed. The rest will come, as has already been said, from gas, biomass and nuclear. I add in parenthesis that the evidence we heard regarding the amount of storage needed was expressed by some witnesses in terms of power—gigawatts—and by others in terms of energy, terawatt hours.
The Government’s action plan for clean power by 2030 is comprehensive, but I end by asking the Minister whether she could expand on the section on long-duration energy storage by giving us a little more detail about the longer-term future. First, what is the Government’s estimate of the need for LDES, both by 2035 and by 2050, and is there a road map beyond 2030 for achieving this—apart from the use of unabated gas, as suggested on page 117 of the action plan?
Secondly, what is the envisaged mix of different technologies in LDES? Page 116 of the action plan refers to nascent technologies such as liquid air and flow batteries. Is there also a role for hydrogen?
Thirdly, if, as our report recommends, hydrogen storage is going to be a significant part of LDES, have the Government decided whereabouts in the country these storage caverns are going to be located? Moreover, as my noble friend Lady Neuberger has already mentioned, have the Government considered how to engage with local communities to consider the acceptability of having large amounts of hydrogen stored under their homes?
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as listed in the register. In the spirit of the example of the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, I additionally disclose that, in common with most pension funds, for example, I own oil company shares in my diversified portfolio. However, by far my largest investments in energy are in two companies that, were net zero to be accelerated, should benefit me significantly. The first is in a company that cleans up and decommissions North Sea oil wells when they are to be closed down; the second is an investment in the new nuclear technology, molten-salt fission. Both my investments there are, each of them, an order of magnitude larger than my investments in oil companies, so my economic interests should therefore predispose me to argue in favour of net zero and its emanations. However, as I do not, I can claim that my motives are unsullied, which I would argue is always the best position to be in when contributing to debates such as this.
The report says that we should get on with long-duration energy storage, using green hydrogen as the technology. At first sight, the idea of a “wind plus green hydrogen” solution to creating net-zero electricity is attractive. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, said, the output of wind farms is unneeded a good percentage of the time; it is much too expensive to pay them to lie fallow at such times, so let us keep it going, produce green hydrogen from the otherwise unneeded output, and then round-trip that hydrogen back to electricity when needed. The cost of doing this is acknowledged to be expensive but asserted to still be worth the cost. However, that claimed cost is absurdly low. The true cost is so much higher that it comprehensively undermines the entire idea. How did that cost misunderstanding come about? It is because this report relies on the Royal Society’s report, which in turn uses figures from DESNZ from a couple of years ago—and those DESNZ costings have already turned out to be wildly undercooked.
For example, the Moray West offshore wind farm has spent as much money installing its foundations as DESNZ suggested it would cost to complete the entire project. DESNZ’s other assumptions appear equally overoptimistic. Moreover, recent contracts for difference prices suggest that the cost of building wind generation is now rising. Over and over, the DESNZ cost predictions turn out to have been too optimistic. Compounding this problem, the green hydrogen round-trip efficiency is very low, with two-thirds of the energy wasted along the way. At the end of the day, the Royal Society says that the cost of a full green hydrogen system for electricity by 2050 would be in the order of £40 billion a year, but that assumes huge reductions in costs and huge improvements in efficiencies. Using current 2025 technology, the sum cost is nearly four times as much, at £150 billion a year.
Spending taxpayers’ money on long-duration green hydrogen energy storage is yet another example of a speculative, idealistic, “industrial strategy” approach—as espoused by the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, in a previous debate—to the economy. It does not work. The beginning of this steep slippery slope is to be a £500 million investment, likely to be money down the drain for us, although certainly of benefit to the recipients of that money. In decrying this, I am not making a partisan attack: under Prime Minister Boris Johnson, an equally foolish £500 million investment was made in OneWeb, for example, and it is worth pretty much nothing now. It is always the “we know best” attitude that is the problem; as said in the remark some attribute to the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson: “We thought we were picking winners, but it turns out that the losers were picking us”.
In short, the nation and the Government are being led up the garden path, at a cost in order of magnitude above the already eye-watering prediction of £50 billion—and that is even if the idea works, which it may well not. It is time to rethink. The risks, as well as the costs, are currently too large for “wind plus green hydrogen” to be a sensible choice. That in turn means that we do not have a solution to the unbelievably expensive problem of paying for wind power that is not needed and will not be used. Green hydrogen is not the only major problem with the overall net-zero speculation, but it is a big one.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as noted in the register, most particularly as president of the British Chambers of Commerce and as a director of Peers for the Planet.
Last year, the British Chambers of Commerce published its green innovation challenge report, and there is much overlap with this excellent report, so expertly introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown. We share concerns about the UK’s energy transition. We also emphasise the need for robust, long-term strategies and institutional frameworks to address gaps in policy and delivery. Some of the specific policies we called for include a new public body to oversee climate policies, strengthened resources for the Climate Change Committee, and faster grid upgrades to support net-zero goals. Both reports advocate for better cross-sector collaboration and government/business partnerships to overcome the challenges in infrastructure, financing and policy consistency.
There are a couple of themes I would like to build on. The first is speed: “get on with it” is the perfect mantra. Both reports emphasise the need for immediate action. The Lords’ report warns that delays in LDES deployment could derail 2035 decarbonisation targets. Our BCC work similarly calls for swift implementation of policies to address grid bottlenecks and accelerate renewable deployment. As a live example, Sizewell C currently has 1,000 people on the ground working, and significant plans for local supply chain investment and skills development, yet it is still waiting for a decision, which has taken years, so that it can become a functioning and sustainable energy source. A process has been promised in the CSR, but this is too slow and is indicative of a national issue. I could not agree more with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Drayson, on the importance of more infrastructure investment and planning, and I defer to his great expertise on this issue.
As I have travelled about, talking to businesses of all sizes, a common theme has been the incredible urgency of local infrastructure decisions. The BCC is calling for grid upgrades to support renewable integration and storage deployment. For example, we are asking for the speeding up of investment into the electrification of the London-Sheffield line, which is estimated to create over 4,000 jobs and £61 million in local economic value. An example from a different area is the decision to build the Rampion 2 offshore wind farm. This project is projected to add 60 gigawatts to our supply, as well as thousands of jobs, but the decision is delayed in DESNZ. There are too many examples of unacceptably long timeframes.
Secondly, supporting innovation is non-negotiable. Both reports highlight the importance of partnerships between government and industry to overcome barriers to innovation. I hope the Government build on some of their early announcements and unlock more opportunities for growth in climate-based innovation and entrepreneurship, of which there are so many. There is much that is positive, such as the introduction of 10-year R&D budgets, which can help address short-term funding cycles that hinder innovation. This stability is expected to foster meaningful collaborations between research institutions and industries, particularly in clean energy and climate technologies.
However, I was dispirited to read in some recent research that, while the UK benchmarks pretty well with other European countries on venture capital investment into climate tech, the total amount in 2023 and 2024 fell from its high in 2022 and is set to fall further this year. If you look at the total itself, I believe it is shockingly low, at just £4.5 billion. It needs to be 10 times this if we want to enable the innovation we need as a society and the growth we want as an economy.
The announcement of regulatory modernisation is welcome, and the planned regulatory innovation office is a step forward in enabling regulators to adapt to emerging technologies, including those in the area of clean tech and the AI overlap. This could accelerate approvals for climate innovations, but the details are still scarce, and more clarity needs to come quickly.
However, I have never been more confident and excited than now: one of the UK’s leading entrepreneurs is on the Government’s Front-Bench team. I welcome my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Gustafsson, to the Front Bench. Known for her commitment to the UK and its innovation, as well as her experience of scaling a global company, there is no doubt that her knowledge will be invaluable. I could not be more thrilled to call her a colleague and wish her good luck through the inevitable butterflies of her maiden speech.
As has been noted, we debate today against the backdrop of the horrifying fires in LA, and we are witnessing the climate catastrophe in real time, so I add my voice to the calls for the Government to adopt the committee’s friendly mantra of “get on with it”. The direction of travel is welcome, but the pace of decision-making and execution is not.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, at this late stage of the debate, I am bound to be repeating much of what has already been said. I beg your Lordships’ indulgence for this. My speech may therefore be regarded as a summary as much as a commentary.
Today, we depend largely on renewable sources of energy for generating our electricity. Wind power is the largest component in the mixture of renewable power, and its highest share was achieved on 19 November 2023—between, I believe, 4.30 am and 5 am—when it reached 69%. Such widely proclaimed facts tend to divert our attention from the unreliability and intermittency of renewable sources of power. They are in short supply in periods when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.
In such circumstances, our present recourse is to rely on gas-fired power stations to fill the gap in the supply of electricity. These stations are a legacy of a previous era of electricity supply, when North Sea gas was plentiful and cheap. The gas-fired power stations rapidly replaced the coal-fired power stations. However, gas is not cheap and, moreover, burning it releases carbon dioxide, which is the principal agent of global warming. If we are to continue to rely on these power stations, the carbon dioxide that they release must be captured and sequestered underground.
In the absence of gas-powered electricity generation, additional sources of power must be found. Also, a means of storing energy must be found that is available for generating electricity at times when the renewable energy is in short supply. Two leading questions arise. The first concerns the urgency with which these recourses should be pursued, and the second concerns the proportions in which the storage and the additional power should be provided.
The report of the Science and Technology Committee that is the subject of today’s debate emphasises the urgency with which long-term energy storage must be provided, and makes it abundantly clear that the necessary actions to avert an energy crisis are not being taken in good time. To substantiate this aspersion, one needs only to read the recent documents published by NESO—the National Energy System Operator—which is the agency responsible for advising the Government. A simple way of assessing its outlook is to search for “storage” throughout its documents. One will discover that it is to be found mainly within the phrases “carbon capture and storage” and “storage heaters”. There are few instances of the phrase “long-term energy storage”, nor is there any assessment of the available capacity for such storage.
A truth that is revealed by the report of the Science and Technology Committee is that there is only a limited capacity in the UK for storing gas. The current capacity is devoted to storing natural gas. We are told that the UK stores 10 terawatt hours of natural gas, compared with 217 terawatt hours in Germany, 122 in France and 162 in Italy. This startling disparity is explained by our tendency in the past to treat natural gas from the North Sea as if it were on tap. It is no longer readily available to us in this manner.
We must envisage a greatly enlarged future demand for gas storage in underground locations. It will have three aspects. In the short term, there will be a continued and, indeed, increased demand for the storage of natural gas. An enlarged store should partly protect the UK from the volatility of gas prices. There would also be a requirement for the underground storage of captured carbon dioxide, which would permanently pre-empt some of the storage capacity. There should also be a requirement for storing the hydrogen that would be required to alleviate the intermittent scarcity of renewable energy.
The committee report tells of a lack of concern on the part of officials in the face of these circumstances. They are unable accurately to assess what the future requirements for gas storage might be. In the absence of certainty, they are disinclined to take action. The report suggests that action must be taken immediately despite this uncertainty.
The report also suggests that long-duration storage facilities can take seven to 10 years to build and require considerable upfront investment. The problem in providing this gas storage is due in part to the difficulty in devising appropriate incentives to encourage the private sector to undertake the task. A so-called strategic reserve of gas, to be called upon in the rare event of a prolonged dearth of renewable energy, does not offer an attractive investment prospect for private enterprise. This has been demonstrated by the partial closure by Centrica of the Rough offshore gas storage facility on the grounds that it was uneconomic to maintain it. I would suggest that the appropriate word here should be “unprofitable” rather than “uneconomic”.
Neoclassical economic doctrines have come to dominate the thinking of politicians and civil servants, which has made it difficult for them to accept that there is no viable market solution to this conundrum. They hesitate to accept that such a strategic reserve should be in public ownership.
The next matter concerns the sources of our energy. A report from the Royal Society proposes that we should rely almost exclusively on renewable sources of energy—on the wind and the sun. It is proposed that surpluses of electricity from these sources should be used to generate hydrogen by the electrolysis of water. Then, in times of a dearth of renewable energy, the hydrogen should power turbines and reciprocating engines, driving electricity generators. The proposal would involve a major investment in energy infrastructure. Facilities for generating hydrogen and using it to generate electricity are also required. Additionally, a network for piped hydrogen would be required. The electricity network would need to be updated to transfer the power from the remote places where it is generated to places where it might be used. Alternative recommendations involve various amounts of electricity generated by nuclear power.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
I shall be fairly brief. One recommendation, which I strongly support, proposes that small advanced modular reactors should be deployed to provide heat and power for both domestic and industrial users. The inherent safety of fourth-generation nuclear technologies will allow the reactors to be located near the industrial users, thereby reducing demands.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
Please let me encapsulate this final point. The time is advisory, not mandatory. I have a major point to make.
The small size of the reactors would be an advantage in this connection in comparison to the so-called small modular reactors which typically have a power output of 300 megawatts, which is more than an industrial user might require. Batteries of advanced modular reactors could be used to create large electricity-generating power stations. A sad fact to which I must testify is that Britain is losing its projects for developing such reactors—they are closing though lack of funds or finding sponsors in other countries.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the Science and Technology Committee on this report. It really hits the nail on the head in the need to think about things. One thing that always amuses me is that people keep talking about doing these things “at pace”. Surely they mean “speedily”. A pace can be slow as well as fast, so it is an ambiguous word to use.
Anyway, enough of that. We all talk about transmission and central storage, not always but quite a bit, whereas living in the country I am only too aware of the importance of having electrical back-up. We have a diesel generator, which cuts in sometimes two, three or four times a year. We are not very far from London, only 60 miles, just off the A1, but nothing like that is reliable. We need reliability because, for us, internet communication is essential for filing stuff to the Government on time. If you are late, you get fined, so it is not an option.
The other thing about local storage is that it reduces the load on central systems. It does not necessarily have to be electric. I was just looking at heat batteries because I am putting something in in Scotland and thought they might be good because they use phase change materials to store the heat and you get it back when you want it. We should look at that sort of stuff.
How we use whatever energy source we are going to use is key. I want to focus on the problems of heavy-duty transport, particularly vans and lorries going out from depots, with everyone buying from central depots on the internet. They have problems with this, because fuel cells are not commercially viable or affordable. Electricity is an obvious thing, but in moving machinery batteries are not an option for much of the market—they have been tested and shown not to work. Two large companies are delaying putting them into effect although they were under pressure to do so; they are not buying them at the moment.
Another problem is that you cannot get power through the grid to distribution depots. One site was quoted tens of millions of pounds to get a sufficient supply. The planning system is blocking delivery of electric charging points, which are needed for a lot of stuff in northern and remote parts of the motorway and for A-roads. The planning system is blocking them because they want substations or need more heavy-duty copper cables. That is a big problem, so I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and support everything she was saying about prevarication in the planning system blocking a lot of stuff that will be needed in future.
Transport fleets have a problem in reducing their overall carbon emissions and modern adapted diesel engines are ideal for heavy transport. The problem is that the DfT is blocking the approval of hydrogen internal combustion engines, or H2ICEs. The technology was adopted by the EU in April 2024 but it is blocked over here and therefore cannot get research funding, grants or support from the Government. It also will not be approved by the DfT when trying to evaluate sites or companies in getting towards net-zero targets. The fact that this British modern technology in research is not eligible for support here means, I have been told, that a leading UK company is actively considering moving to the EU and the US because it will get subsidies and government support over there, and that saddens me.
Another part of the solution would be to generate the hydrogen near the depots. You would have wind farms and solar, say, next door to the depot, hydrolyse the hydrogen directly, and then it can be used there locally. Again, that takes the pressure off trying to centralise all these systems. Another area I heard about that is apparently not getting any government support is carbon-negative ways of generating hydrogen locally. They should be supporting innovative stuff such as that. As mentioned by several noble Lords, small modular reactors would also take local pressure off the grid. That would be very sensible. Many of these ideas are quick and affordable and it saddens me when I hear that the British Government have apparently given £188 million to Tesla over the last eight years. We could have been supporting innovation in the UK instead—that would be far more productive.
Another point that I was thinking of making, but I did not know whether I would have the time and I do not know whether my science is faulty, is that hydrogen has a much lower energy density than the hydrocarbon in natural gas. Therefore, you cannot just shove hydrogen down the gas system into houses for heating and all the things that system is used for at the moment because you will not get the same heat out at the other end from the same volume of gas. I do not know quite what is happening on that; I think there is a lot of research, and people talk about adapting boilers and all sorts of other wonderfully expensive ways of trying to get round the problem. Sometimes everyone thinks that there is a magic word that will solve all the problems, but very often that is not true. However, we need to get on with it. That is the most vital thing in this report.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, for her leadership of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, of which I am a member, her expert chairing of this inquiry and her compelling introduction to the debate. She brings great expertise to the committee and has an ability to horizon scan in a way that has been vital to the committee. She will be missed as our chair as her term comes to what feels like a premature end. I also thank the staff members who supported this inquiry, in particular Thomas Hornigold, our policy analyst, whose clarity and brilliance were an enormous help to us and certainly to me.
I too look forward to the Minister’s maiden speech. As Minister of State for Investment, she has a key responsibility in this area. Is she already looking at it? I am extremely glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is alongside her on the Front Bench. Both have a track record of delivering.
The noble Lord, Lord Drayson, is right to emphasise that this is not an area for hesitation or delay. As he put it, consultation and review are not what is required here; it is action. Indeed, the greatest risk is, as he said, indecision. Does the Minister agree? The noble Lord, Lord Wei, pointed to the Vaccine Taskforce as a model for how this might be taken forward. What does she think about that model?
As others have mentioned, we need only to look at what is happening in Los Angeles or at the floods in Manchester over Christmas to remind ourselves of the greater extremes in weather that we are experiencing and the urgent necessity to address climate change. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, who I am glad to see is just returning to his place, has flagged cost-benefit, but I wonder what the financial cost of rebuilding Los Angeles will be, let alone the human cost.
It is very welcome that the Government have brought forward plans to reach net zero. This requires huge scaling up of renewables and major changes to the grid and to planning regulations. As the economy moves away from fossil fuels and to greater consumption of electricity generated renewably, there are, of course, major challenges. As other noble Lords have said, a major challenge is, if you anticipate huge demands for electricity, what you do when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, potentially in the European winter—the Dunkelflaute to which people have referred.
Therefore, there is a need to store energy for those times. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, that is a no-brainer, and that is agreed. It is a matter not of short-term battery storage but, as the title of the report says, of long-duration energy storage. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, said, this issue has become even more urgent because of the change of Government and the welcome determination to decarbonise the economy earlier than the previous Government aimed to do.
The Royal Society made a thorough investigation of long-duration energy storage and reported, but seemingly with little traction. It also fed into our deliberations. Like the Royal Society, the conclusions we reached were that the best option is hydrogen storage and that the UK is well suited for this with salt caverns that could be used for this purpose. Given that potential UK capacity, energy could be exported at time of need to the continent. Therefore, does the Minister recognise this as an important economic opportunity? This also means that, when there is overproduction from renewables, it could be stored as opposed to being switched off or wasted. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, said, to build such storage could take up to a decade and would need capital investment up front because of the delayed and unpredictable nature of the return on this investment. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, is right about the urgency of public education and engagement on this.
Relying on fossil fuel back-up in the short term, as the Government seem to be emphasising, has its risks. Clearly, this is not environmentally friendly, and the point at which such back-up is required could well be when others too are seeking such assistance, and prices are likely to be high. In addition, it potentially means that any excess renewable energy cannot be stored, and the gas plants may need subsidies to keep going, as they are not likely to be fully used since they are intended to fill gaps.
Our report laid out what we heard about the need for planning our energy needs, the necessary infrastructure to be built and planning reforms to be taken forward. I look forward to the Minister’s response on these. As many speakers have said, given the scale of what is required, are the Government seizing this responsibility and, if so, how?
If the hydrogen storage proposed in this paper seems an expensive route to go down—one or two noble Lords mentioned that—then it is worth noting, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, said, that the Government spent almost £80 billion on support for energy bills after the invasion of Ukraine and the shock increase in energy prices. Even then citizens faced high bills, and they still are. That was not, of course, just in the UK. We need only to look to the destabilising effect of the invasion of Ukraine, the sudden and huge increase in gas prices that followed that, the pressures on the cost of living and the economic, social and political fallout of that. The rise of populist and nationalist parties across the world owes much to that cost of living increase.
The first duty of a Government is to keep citizens secure. The noble Lord, Lord Rees, is right to emphasise risk, including from technological breakdown and malign attacks, but that is the significance of the security of energy supply that we are addressing in this paper. The Minister has our report. I hope we will hear substantial answers today—the potential actions of a CEO. That is why this Government have brought some wonderful experts into ministerial positions, including the noble Baroness herself and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Vallance. If she does not yet have the necessary answers in her brief, I hope she will go back to her new department with her new responsibilities and make sure that planning for long-duration energy storage is urgently taken forward. In other words: get on with it.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, and her committee on initiating the research that led to the production of this important report, and the noble Baroness on setting the scene so well in her opening speech. I know that we all look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gustafsson. She brings much-needed technical expertise and business experience as a leading light in a sector which we hope will serve the country well. I offer her a very warm welcome.
It is clear that most noble Lords participating in this debate agree with the report’s central tenets: that long-duration energy storage is essential if the Government are to achieve the target of net zero by 2050, as introduced by the previous Conservative Government, and that we do indeed need to get on with it. The OBR estimates that the Government spent some £78.2 billion between 2022 and 2024 on support for energy bills during the spike in prices resulting from the Ukraine war. Some of these costs could have been mitigated had we developed more long-term storage capacity earlier.
This need is even more urgent considering the Government’s ideologically ambitious target of clean energy and a decarbonised grid by 2030, which will ensure that fossil fuels are phased out. Of course, as noble Lords would expect, at this point I take the opportunity to remind the Government that a greater proportion of nuclear power providing baseload would also reduce the amount of energy storage required, even with the risk of cyberattacks, as rightly warned by the noble Lord, Lord Rees.
To replace fossil-fuel derived energy, the Government are ramping up renewables—onshore and offshore wind and solar which, by their very nature, are unreliable. As I said at Second Reading of the Great British Energy Bill, over the last few months we have seen another Dunkelflaute—an extended gloomy period of low winds and little sunshine. In March, the measure of how often turbines generate their maximum power failed to reach 20% and we have recently seen levels drop to near zero. Relying on new interconnectors to Belgium and Holland will not offer energy security, if either their wind farms suffer the same weather conditions as ours or their countries’ needs are greater.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was right to say that we need to start with first principles. That is: how much power the whole system needs and, importantly, for what periods of time. The Royal Society makes a start by estimating that the need is to store approximately one-third of current annual UK electricity generation, well over 100 terawatt hours, and that the annual demand for electricity could reach 570 terawatt hours by 2050. It found not only that a strategic reserve of long-duration storage would be particularly important to address supply shortfalls from renewables but that a portfolio of different types of storage would assist in lowering the average cost.
Britain has just 2.8 gigawatts of long-duration energy storage capacity, from four pumped hydro plants in Scotland and Wales—not yet much of a contribution—so I urge the Government to provide more support for what is often called the poster child of storage technologies. The Dinorwig hydro scheme in north Wales, set up 40 years ago by the then CEGB, is still operational and two of the original four shafts are being brought back into service by the current owners, EDF. The Government now have the chance to support the proposed Dorothea project in the Nantlle valley, using the lake in combination with the nearby slate mines, which extend well below sea level. Supported by the local Gwynedd council, the construction phase would bring 1,000 jobs to the area over the next 10 years. Many of the engineering and other relevant skills already exist in that area. Ofgem has been charged with devising the business model to support long-term storage projects, including a cap and floor scheme. I urge the Government to resist devising a one-size-fits-all scheme. The projects in Wales and Scotland face very different challenges and costs.
The storage of power increases the flexibility of the grid and minimises the likelihood of wasted renewables in instances of excess supply. This waste is expensive: I note that the cost of paying wind farms to switch off soared by 91% in 2024 to nearly £400 million. It has sadly meant that constraint payments have made it very lucrative for wind farms to be switched off. While we must investigate and consider all solutions for long-term energy storage, we must not lose sight of pursuing the most efficient means for energy storage. The previous Government recognised all of this, which is why we consulted on policy mechanisms to support low-carbon storage and introduced a target in the British Energy Security Strategy to deploy enough to balance the electricity system. Not only that but we moved to reform the energy systems, establishing the future system operator and consulting on a long-duration energy storage business. We also addressed the challenging economics of these storage projects and actively consulted on introducing a cap and floor mechanism to implement additional financial support.
Domestic energy storage is not solely about a resilient decarbonised grid; it is about the security and stability of the whole economy. It is vital that we acknowledge the UK’s North Sea oil and gas industry when discussing the future of our energy storage and security. That industry has suffered under this Government: their tax on the North Sea oil and gas industry is punitive. For three consecutive days in December, 60% of electricity came from gas, as wind output dropped at the same time. German consumers were then having to pay an average of €395 per megawatt hour, for the same reason. We shall still need gas in the transition while storage technologies and grid improvements catch up with needs.
By increasing the windfall tax by 3% in the Budget, the headline rate imposed on UK oil and gas firms is a staggering 78%. This hike has already cut investment in UK natural resources and will make the UK increasingly dependent on imported supply. Not only will this compromise the UK’s energy security but consumers will be exposed to price fluctuations. This country could become increasingly dependent on imported electricity and therefore be forced to pay the market price for power, as fossil-fuel power generators are closed quicker than the rate at which we are increasing the necessary capacity to replace them.
The development of long-term energy storage technologies must also occur alongside the development of the national grid. Increasing energy storage is pointless if we have no means to transmit and distribute the electricity. It has been reported that, to achieve their target of clean energy by 2030, nearly 1,000 kilometres of new power lines will have to be built to support these efforts. The Government need to confront the fact that the infrastructure for the electricity network will need to be built at a far faster rate than it has been over the last decade if the Government are to meet their pledge.
The timeframe for obtaining grid connections for a new energy project can be as long as 10 years. This is not a new phenomenon: the previous Government understood these complexities and commissioned the Winser review, which laid out 43 recommendations to reduce grid connection wait times. The Government must be prepared for this connectivity challenge, as it will directly impact the delivery of our renewable energy projects.
I will make a few final points. It is right that the urgency of this issue requires Ofgem to devise support mechanisms in a much shorter timeframe than historically has been achieved. The role of Ofgem has been expanded inexorably over the past few years, and I hope it continues to receive adequate support. Although research into all technologies is equally urgent, attention must be paid to their relative efficiencies. Direct electrification—namely, not converting it to anything else before use—obviously delivers very high efficiency. Converting it to anything else for storage obviously delivers less. The main issues with using hydrogen or ammonia as an energy carrier or a storage medium is that they are energy inefficient—between 25% and 40%—added to which, ammonia is horrendously damaging to the environment.
The noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, are right to be cautious. Many hydrogen projects around the world are being scaled back or abandoned due to the high costs and unrealistic projections on adoption. Less than 1% of global hydrogen production is green; the other 99% is either blue or grey, which has a significant impact on CO2. I urge the Government to place emphasis on the energy efficiency of technologies—not only pumped or compressed air storage but some of the newer forms of advanced battery technology, where the efficiency is much higher, despite other challenges such as their capital cost.
In summary, I acknowledge that there are no easy answers. I wish the Government well in navigating the technologies available and in the critical evaluation of the many claims made by their competing proponents. The noble Baroness, Lady Brown, is absolutely right to urge the Government to just get on with it, but please do so with an eye to their relative efficiencies.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and Treasury (Baroness Gustafsson) (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, for initiating this debate, and I thank both her and the members of the Science and Technology Committee for their work. It is a privilege to respond on behalf of the Government in my maiden speech to the House. Before I address the points raised, allow me a few moments to introduce myself and share the passion that drives me in this role, along with the profound sense of responsibility that I feel in undertaking it. Noble Lords can watch me as I tackle the butterflies that the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, referred to earlier.
I come to this Chamber via a route that probably differs from that of a typical Government Minister—and I am not just talking about the fact that I keep getting lost in the long winding corridors of this very beautiful building. My career to date has been spent at the sharp end of innovation, which, as I have learned, is both a gift and a challenge. It is a duality that is particularly clear in the world of cybersecurity, where attackers and defenders are fighting for dominance in ever-shifting digital landscapes.
I began my career as a mathematician, drawn to the precision and clarity of numbers. Mathematics offers a comforting world of absolutes: zeroes and ones, truths and proofs, which are the binary building blocks of certainty. But life is rarely so straightforward. Just as mathematics moves from neat formulas to complex algorithms, life reveals shades and uncertainties. My path led me from the abstract elegance of equations through training in accountancy and working in venture capital to the dynamic and unpredictable world of technology. As the co-founder and former CEO of Darktrace, I had the privilege of witnessing first hand the daily progress that technology can make.
Working in innovation is exhilarating and, at times, exhausting. It is a constant project—innovate, or be out-innovated. It is like running along a beautiful mountain path: around the next corner could be the most beautiful view that takes your breath away, but the next runner could be right behind you. Stop for even a moment, and you might just find yourself caught. It is ambition and a quiet confidence that keep us running and protect us from complacency.
This Government are not short of ambition. The UK’s goal to become a green energy superpower by 2030 is what drew me to this role, and there is no better place to build an ambitious company than the United Kingdom. We have the lowest corporation tax in the G7; some of the most competitive R&D tax incentives in the world; world-class universities; and forward-thinking policies. We must celebrate what we do well. The UK is a global leader in technology and innovation, with a tech ecosystem worth over $1 trillion. We are rightly proud of the companies that have been built here and of the talent that continues to drive our success.
As I turn my focus to energy, I am inspired by that same sense of ambition. Energy is the lifeblood of progress, and the challenges that we face—achieving net zero, securing supply and driving innovation—demand bold thinking and confidence in our ability to lead, innovate and turn challenges into opportunities. Just as innovation must balance opportunity with risk, so too must our energy policies balance sustainability with security, and ambition with pragmatism. I look forward to contributing to these debates with the same spirit that has defined my career: one of ambition, collaboration and an unshakeable belief in the potential of this country.
I extend my thanks to colleagues across the House who have welcomed me so warmly and shared their thoughts and insights into parliamentary and ministerial life, particularly to my two supporters, the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and to my two predecessors as Minister for Investment, the noble Lords, Lord Grimstone and Lord Johnson. I also thank the staff of the House, Black Rod and her staff, the doorkeepers and clerks, and those who have kindly pointed me in the right direction when I have been going the wrong way down those winding corridors. I thank noble Lords for this opportunity to serve, and I look forward to working with them to achieve great things.
Today, noble Lords have offered their thoughts on this and the report from the Science and Technology Committee. I want to reflect on these contributions now and respond to as many of the points as I can. First, on progress made on hydrogen, the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, asked what progress the UK has made on long-duration storage since the publication of the report by the Science and Technology Committee back in May. The answer is: a great deal. In the Government’s procurement of hydrogen infrastructure, we have published an early market engagement notice. What does that mean? Well, it allows developers to register their interest early and start planning ahead. We recognise that these projects will be vital, and we are going to need colossal amounts of hydrogen storage. That is why we have already started engaging with a range of potential suppliers in the hydrogen storage market, which is the right approach to take. In addition, government recognises the value of strategic energy reserves as a source of energy resilience and security of supply, balancing system flexibility, particularly during periods of energy supply shortage—Dunkelflaute periods, as the noble Baroness and other noble Lords have noted. Government will continue to explore options around the role that storage can play, including providing strategic energy reserves in supporting future energy system resilience in a changing energy landscape.
I move on to progress made on electricity, which the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Moynihan, asked about. Of course, in the committee’s report and today’s debate, we have seen a lot of discussion about long-duration electricity storage specifically. Here again, I believe the Government are making real progress. In October last year, we announced the long-duration electricity storage support scheme, which will be delivered by Ofgem. The next steps are as follows: a technical decision document will be published next month with the final design details of the scheme. Applications will then open in the second quarter of this year. After that, we expect the first agreements under the cap and floor scheme to be agreed early next year.
It is important to stress that this scheme is tech neutral. What does that mean? It means, basically, that any technology that meets the definition of long-duration storage with electricity in and electricity out can be part of an application. These applications have to show that the technology would not be built without the cap and floor scheme, which is the additionality principle. For example, longer-duration lithium-ion batteries and closed-loop hydrogen-to-power systems may be eligible, as would traditional technology such as pumped storage hydro, liquid and compressed air, and flow batteries, but to get approved, all applications need to prove that they represent the best deal for consumers.
Some noble Lords raised the subject of costs to consumers. This scheme works on an insurance-type model, unlocking investment in these assets without upfront subsidy. A very similar approach has been used for electricity interconnectors; these have delivered about 10 gigawatts of capacity without a single penny of taxpayer subsidy. That is enough to power about 750,000 homes, and revenue was actually returned to consumers via the cap, so this really can be a model for success. However, I am keen to stress to noble Lords that neither the Government nor industry are waiting for the cap and floor scheme to be rolled out before making headway in this area. There is already significant development under way in anticipation of the cap and floor scheme. SSE, for example, has completed its exploratory tunnelling on the Coire Glas pumped storage hydro project in northern Scotland, ensuring that it is ready to seize the potential for future growth. Meanwhile, Highview Power has reached a £300 million final investment decision on a brand new liquid air energy storage site near Carrington; it is a major step forward in both the company’s and our country’s journey to net zero.
To specifically address curtailment costs, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, beyond storage, a key priority for the Government is to accelerate the building of electricity network infrastructure to increase capacity on the network and reduce constraints. This will also ensure new sources of low-cost, homegrown and clean generation that can connect to the grid. We are working with Ofgem, the National Energy System Operator and the transmission owners to break down the barriers to this. The work includes reforms to the planning system, unlocking supply chains and mobilising the investment required via the upcoming transmission price controls.
A number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Jones and Lady Lane-Fox, and the noble Lords, Lord Drayson and Lord Wei, spoke about electrolyser supply chains and wider support for green energy. We are building on the momentum we have already generated, ensuring that the right financial tools and support are there for those businesses that are leading the UK’s charge towards becoming a clean energy superpower. Our new national wealth fund and the creation of Great British Energy ensure that tens of billions of pounds of investment are there to support clean energy supply chains. This builds on the achievements we have already seen in the industry.
Take green hydrogen equipment suppliers: they doubled the number of electrolysers produced in 2023 compared with 2022, which is extraordinary growth in this part of the market. ITM Power’s gigafactory in Sheffield boasts one of the largest electrolyser factories in the world, with massive levels of capacity, and certainly enough to produce low-carbon hydrogen for use across the economy. It is fair to say that UK hydrogen companies have some of the best fuel cell, hydrogen production and material technologies going. I want them to retain that competitive advantage.
As noble Lords know, we have identified clean energy as one of the key growth-driving sectors in our industrial strategy. We want to channel investment into these sectors so that the UK remains ahead of the pack when it comes to the development and deployment of green energy. We have already taken action to inject some much-needed agility into our planning system. Our planning and infrastructure Bill is set to speed up the process for the delivery of major infrastructure projects. At the same time, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is running a pilot hydrogen planning unit programme. It has been charged with upskilling planners working in councils on hydrogen. We want them to feel confident in taking decisions on hydrogen planning applications, and, with support from central government, they will be.
DESNZ is also in the process of drafting planning guidance for industry to support projects going through the planning process. That is because we know that clear regulatory guidance will be a game-changer in helping get novel hydrogen projects off the ground. It will help build even more confidence and investment into UK hydrogen development.
Let me turn my attention to progress with the National Energy System Operator and the strategic spatial energy plan, which my noble friend Lady Young, among others, asked about. One of the report’s recommendations, which we have already discussed today, is the establishment of the National Energy System Operator. As noble Lords will know, this was formerly known as the future system operator. The Government’s position is this: we believe that the National Energy System Operator is perfectly placed to help different parts of our energy system work in harmony. It can act as that whole energy system planner.
We formally launched NESO in October last year. Working alongside the Scottish and Welsh Governments, we commissioned it to develop a strategic spatial energy plan. This is really exciting. It is the first ever spatial energy plan for Great Britain. It means a hands-on, planned approach to energy infrastructure across land and sea. It builds on the independent advice provided by NESO on how to deliver clean power by 2030. This plan will cover energy and hydrogen. It will identify super cost-effective locations for hydrogen production, transport and storage, working in tandem with electricity network development. The committee’s LDES report called for more details on how the National Energy System Operator will produce this plan. We are now consulting on the methodology and will provide further details shortly.
My friends, the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked about government ambitions for hydrogen energy storage development and what the future holds. The point raised by noble Lords in this debate was about the Government’s long-term commitment to hydrogen transport and storage, alongside the setting of capacity targets. Our position is clear: we will design business models for hydrogen transport and storage. We are delivering on that commitment, ensuring that the support is there for both, while maintaining a rigorous and fair assessment process.
As noble Lords will be aware, we want to see this next generation of infrastructure being delivered by 2030. As further evidence on hydrogen production and demand emerges, we will have more details about how our needs for infrastructure will guide business models in the future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, raised questions about the public perception of the health and safety of some of these ideas. I want to touch on another issue that the Science and Technology Committee has acknowledged, which is the public perception. Although there is no evidence that hydrogen is unsafe, I am aware that the committee has challenged the Government to up our game in building public support for the technology. Here we are taking a common-sense approach. Safety obviously has to be our number one priority. We have a proud record on the safe production, transportation, storage and use of hydrogen. Projects developed by UK firms such as Bramble Energy, Ceres Power and ITM Power have helped establish us at the forefront of the global shift to hydrogen.
We want to maintain that reputation, and we recognise that health and safety regulation will be key to that. On this point, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is working in tandem with the Health and Safety Executive. The HSE in turn is making sure that the right regulations are there to help, rather than hinder, the safe adoption of net-zero technologies, including hydrogen. It is taking into account all the potential risks for those who build, operate and maintain hydrogen facilities.
Allow me to comment further on carbon capture and storage. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, in particular, addressed this. This relates to some of the points also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, on ensuring that we have sufficient transport and storage infrastructure for carbon capture, usage and storage, and our planned use of gas post 2030. Last year the Government reached commercial agreement with the private sector and announced up to £21.7 billion of available funding over 25 years to launch the UK’s new carbon capture, usage and storage industry.
In December, contracts were signed with Net Zero Teesside, the world’s first at-scale gas power plant with carbon capture, supplying up to 1 million homes with low-carbon secure power from 2028. Combined with the Northern Endurance Partnership, the supporting CO2 transport and storage project, the East Coast Cluster will capture and store carbon emissions from the region.
In addition to the East Coast Cluster and the HyNet cluster, the UK has an exciting pipeline of further CCUS clusters at a mature stage of development. These include Acorn in north-east Scotland and Viking in the Humber, which contain power CCUS projects at the heart of their plans. The gas system will continue to play an important role as we decarbonise, but the amount of gas that we use must decline, and the way we use gas must change in order to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and achieve clean power by 2030, accelerating to net zero by 2050. As we do so, we are working across government and industry to better understand the future of the gas system through various credible scenarios, identifying key challenges and opportunities along the way.
I am conscious that there are some points I have not yet addressed, particularly those raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and I will make sure we write to him in detail on all the points raised. I will endeavour to include the word “Dunkelflaute”, which is clearly the word of the debate.
Let me turn to the phrase of the debate—“Get on with it”—and, in that spirit, allow me quickly to conclude. A huge amount of work has been under way to support long-term energy storage, whether that is investment, skills, health and safety, or the cap and floor scheme that we generated with Ofgem. The continued support and scrutiny of the Science and Technology Committee are vital in holding the Government’s feet to the fire for the scale and pace of our delivery. But the Government are not doing it alone. We are working with industry across the clean energy sector to ensure that the UK remains a world leader in this space. We are taking action to push forward long-duration energy storage in the UK as part of our pursuit of net zero and our ambition to become a clean energy superpower by 2030.
The Government are looking forward to working with noble Lords in delivering on that pledge, and I am looking forward to working with them too. Together, we will realise a cleaner, greener future.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
It is my pleasure to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gustafsson, on her maiden speech and again welcome her to the House. Most of us will be feeling enormously grateful that we did not have to give our maiden speeches under such pressure and on such a challenging and complex area. She has clearly mastered her brief with great skill, and it is encouraging to hear her passion for this important area.
I will make just a few comments. On the urgency and timescales, we have heard about a range of positive developments but there is an optimism on timing that worries me. The noble Baroness talked about business models being designed for hydrogen storage; they are not yet available, but the desire is for infrastructure to be delivered by 2030. She is a mathematician so I do not need to remind her that it is only five years away, yet those sorts of infrastructure projects typically take seven to 10 years—that was the shortest kind of timescale. We have to recognise that some of this will not be delivered by 2030, but we also need to make sure that we are driving this and, as many noble Lords said, taking appropriate risks to really try to accelerate, use the new technologies and deliver the cost reduction through implementation, because that is the only way we will reduce the cost of these new technologies.
I hope we will start to see more evidence of the public engagement that we need, and get the public on board with the changes that the future energy system is going to deliver, whether that is getting them to understand that we need pylons, even though they do not like them, or that hydrogen storage near their homes, for example, will be done in a way that genuinely will be safe. We need to start to see that public engagement, and I do not think it is yet happening or visible.
The Minister has said many positive things which I very much endorse, but I am still concerned that we need clarity about a strategic energy reserve. Do the Government see this as a reserve of energy—of joules—or do they see it as a generating capacity issue? Talk about a cap-and-floor mechanism for long-duration energy storage makes me worry that we have not quite got the concept of a strategic energy reserve. If we incentivise the development of a strategic energy reserve—meaning that you make money by moving energy in and out of it—then almost certainly it will not be full when the Dunkelflaute happens. We really need clarity on how the Government see a strategic energy reserve and whether they are thinking that we perhaps need a reserve, as the report suggested, that the Government own. It is hard to see how to make a business model for keeping a lot of something that is quite expensive to use just in case it is needed every 10, 20 or 30 years. I want to make absolutely sure that we have got that very important point across.
Finally, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, who has given me a timely reminder that I need to fill in my tax return. He reminded me of some useful numbers that will be appearing on it, and that I need to take the advice of our report and just get on with it. I commend the report to the House.
Civil Servants: Compulsory Office Attendance
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Farmer
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to change requirements for civil servants to work in government offices following a vote for possible strike action over compulsory office attendance at the Land Registry.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, the issue of the amount of time civil servants are required to work in their offices rather than in their own homes has been raised several times in Oral and Written Questions, and there will be a Select Committee on home-based working starting shortly. I understand that this is going to be based here and not in people’s homes. This is a welcome opportunity to have a longer debate in advance of that. It is a very important issue for the country, as we try to pull together after a tumultuous period, especially during the pandemic, when many social norms were turned on their heads. The norm that people had separate work and home spheres was completely inverted. There were, of course, exceptions to this norm, but there were also reasons why it was a norm.
To set this debate in the broader context of requirements on the Civil Service, the last Government mandated civil servants to work together in offices 60% of the time. Phrased as an “expectation”, it had flexibility built in, so that many exceptions could be made—for example, on the grounds of disability or childcare responsibilities. The Cabinet Office said that department leaders would listen to staff and make adaptions where required to ensure that the policy meets business needs. This was part of the Civil Service People Plan, which points out that the
“programme of modernisation is no end in itself. It is about delivering to every part of our country and every family, and doing so better, more effectively and efficiently”.
The current government focus, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, is on fundamental reform of our public services to drive greater efficiency and productivity. They renewed their commitment to the 60% office attendance mandate on 24 October 2024, doing so with reference to a wide range of studies showing the benefits of hybrid working.
However, Land Registry employees in the Public and Commercial Services Union will strike indefinitely from 21 January over their managers’ application of this mandate, refusing to cover for colleagues or to take on anything they deem to be beyond their job description. The PCS cited concerns about reduced work flexibility, extended working days due to commuting, financial impact, well-being, and impacts on disabled workers and carers. Limits to flexibility and the time, money and energy spent on commuting are all costs of employment that were normal before the pandemic catalysed the mass movement out of the workplace and into the home.
As an employer, I have first-hand experience of how hard it is to assess performance when people are working from home. Major changes to stamp duty are coming in April this year, which the Land Registry will have to administer, yet commentators in the FT have described the Land Registry’s current inefficiency, with some registrations now taking 12 to 24 months, and its service levels are already far below what any private sector business would deem to be acceptable.
The PCS general secretary, Fran Heathcote, said that imposing mandated targets on office attendance
“doesn’t increase productivity and is unpopular with staff”.
How can she be so certain? I am sure that others here will talk about the benefits of home working. However, assessments of its impact on productivity are inconclusive, and the Government are very clear on the benefits of collaborative face-to-face working, particularly in the Civil Service. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan, whose shareholders require him to run an efficient business, announced on Tuesday that all staff will be required to work in the office five days a week, as
“staff work better together in-person”.
Dimon has been critical of the US Federal Government’s lax expectations of their officials in this area.
The taxpayers of this country are the shareholders of the Civil Service, and we require the Government to run it effectively. In 2019, the TUC described home-based working as a “win-win-win” that
“can boost productivity … But too many employers are clinging to tradition, or don’t trust their staff enough to encourage homeworking. They need to catch up”.
The implication is that remote working was previously underused and that we are now in a brave new world of greater efficiency. Frankly, the TUC needs to catch up on the realities of human nature. The companies that I have managed and started have taught me that the sentiments expressed by the TUC are rather naive. It is not necessarily clinging to tradition to want to have the team work together, united in the aim of furthering the business and building relationships through interaction. Moreover, trust must be earned; it comes with a good track record. Accountability must be learned and observed. If you can see no evidence that work is happening, how can you know that it is taking place? Furthering the business is existentially important when its survival is at stake.
Flourishing businesses are indispensable for employees’ economic well-being and require employers to take a risk, often working long hours themselves. My experience is that home working has been a brake on creativity and productivity. The IFS warns that people might, in fact, now be working too much from home and undervaluing the benefits of in-person work. It says that externalities—the bigger picture—need factoring in, but the employee looks only narrowly at the costs and benefits of their actions. Externalities include the effects of a personal decision to home-work on everyone else in the office and their productivity. More people in the office can better facilitate collaboration and creativity, such as with a quick five-minute chat to resolve issues instead of a diarised Teams meeting.
Importantly, the costs and benefits of home working are spread very unevenly across each firm’s workforce. Older and more experienced workers may just want to get their heads down and finish early. Their pre-pandemic work-based social networks have kept going, reducing the benefits of going into the office. Often having bigger homes, they can work in separate spaces from the families that they spend time with after work. However, psychological impacts on younger, newer workers are likely underestimated. Working in their bedrooms, struggling with loneliness and flailing around with little help and social support, they need informal chats and to observe first hand those with greater experience. Much is better caught than taught.
Older and more senior workers who insist on home working for personal convenience are often pulling up the ladder that they were able to climb. Since the Budget, there has been a cloud of gloom over business, given ever-increasing levels of taxation and constantly mounting pressures on employers. These include ever-increasing rights of employees. If many rights are given on day 1, when people have not shown that they can even do the job, this will deter hiring. Entrepreneurialism is being dampened and the spirit of adventure required to start and drive a company and create wealth is evaporating. Many companies are fast reaching the limits of sustainability in such a hostile environment and urgently need their staff to do the work that they are paid to do in the most productive way possible.
We are still in the wash of the pandemic, so in this nationally vital area of employment it is time to evaluate what is good, what is bad, what is right and what is wrong. Frankly, it cannot just be what the unions and employees want. The home working norm, which emerged in very abnormal circumstances that now no longer exist, has been sustained. Why? Will the Government confirm that working from home and even hybrid working will not be treated as a right? The employer should be able to require what is needed for delivery. Will the Government confirm that they do not intend to reduce the Civil Service office attendance mandate? They should, as employers and stewards of our taxes, act on the bigger picture, the externalities mentioned by the IFS, and enable other employers to do the same.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for enabling us to discuss this topical issue, though I am unable to endorse the approach that he adopted in introducing it. The noble Lord brought to my mind the First World War generals fighting the last war rather than the current one. I do not recognise the hostile environment to which he referred. To advocate 100% workplace attendance being compulsory suggests a lack of trust in staff, which can hardly improve productivity.
I declare an interest, about which the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, will perhaps not be surprised, being in my 50th year as a member of Unite the Union and a former full-time official with one of its constituent unions. My instinct has always been to support workers who vote for industrial action, because no union member does so, particularly as regards strike action, without careful thought, due to the obvious personal financial implications.
That said, with regard to the Land Registry, the basis on which the PCS union feels that it has a case in terms of employment law is not clear to me. Unless someone explicitly has a home working contract—which I understand virtually nobody in the Civil Service does—then the employer is within their rights to say that they want staff in the workplace. Given that hybrid working was almost unknown prior to the pandemic, most civil servant contracts presumably say that they are expected to attend the department to work, unless they are out and about as part of their responsibilities.
However, people now expect flexibility from their employer in terms of working arrangements, a trend given impetus by the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023 introduced by the previous Government. That legislation does not specifically involve home or hybrid working, but hybrid working can be a useful retention tool for employers who cannot simply throw money at staff in response to pay demands. Cutting commuting costs can be an indirect boost to an individual’s disposable income.
I have arrived at a position where a requirement to attend the workplace three days a week does not seem excessive and seems to offer considerable flexibility, and I support the Labour Government’s decision to maintain their predecessor’s 60% office attendance mandate for the Civil Service.
However, we should be aware of the potential discriminatory outcomes from the attendance issue. Flexible working arrangements can offer people with disabilities and those—mainly women, inevitably—with caring responsibilities opportunities to work in both the public and the private sector that were previously denied to them. The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, referred to that being part of the Civil Service people plan. It is of course much more likely that people with disabilities and working mothers will simply not apply for jobs where attendance criteria are at their tightest, so this has been recognised within the people plan.
Those arguing for 100% workforce attendance seem to be unaware of its potentially damaging effects, focusing as it does on inputs—where and when the work is done—rather than outputs, which is what use is made of the work done, and most important of all, outcomes, what benefit results from that work. It begs the question: what is work? Is the employee’s job to get something done or to be seen to be getting something done? Monitoring office work in too rigid a way surely runs the risk of creating distrust, which can lead to anxiety and stress, undermining job performance.
There are legitimate concerns about the impact of relatively empty workplaces on such things as collaboration, sparking ideas, culture and professional development—all these, I acknowledge. Opportunities for networking and learning directly from more experienced work colleagues bring many benefits, but that does not mean that having some kind of hybrid system leads to an absence of those benefits. A balance needs to be struck, and where that balance falls will depend on the individual workplace, its employers and its employees.
The world is a very different place today from what it was five years ago, and the world of work no less so. Attitudes and expectations have moved on, something that the vast majority of employers and employees have recognised. Responsible employers will ensure that they facilitate a regular discourse with their employees and their representatives, a role most effectively delivered by a trade union. I hope the dispute between the Land Registry and the Public and Commercial Services Union will soon be resolved and that it will point the way to further development of modern working practices, not just throughout the Civil Service but across the public sector—and, indeed, the private sector.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for securing this debate on what is a very interesting and valuable subject, but I fear that, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, pointed out, he is fighting the last war. For most of my career, being in the office was seen as essential—and not merely Monday to Friday. Sunday newspapers required Saturday working, just as Mondays required a team to be in the office on Sunday, but when I embarked on a career in journalism, we used typewriters and carbon paper. Technology has moved on, and so have working practices. Indeed, one weekly newspaper to which I contribute does not even have an office, but it succeeds in coming out on time every week and is making a profit. We have to accept that what was seen as essential for us may not be appropriate for today. That is why I cannot support an insistence that most civil servants should be in the office 60% of the time.
Surely what is important is getting the job done as effectively as possible. There is not yet conclusive evidence—as the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, pointed out—as to whether the job is done more effectively with home working or less effectively. The noble Lord asked: if people are not in the office, how can one tell if they are working? Well, if he cannot tell whether the work is being done, there is something wrong, and it is not with the way that people are working; it is with what is being measured. What is surely important is not the hours spent but what is delivered in those hours.
What we know is that many people place huge value on the flexibilities that modern working practices—many introduced because of Covid—have brought them. They have made major life decisions on the basis of that flexibility that working from home has permitted. Whether they are civil servants or other workers, they should not be asked to sacrifice that at the whim of their employer. Some jobs simply cannot be done remotely. I understand why some of those who have no choice but to leave their homes and head to work may feel a degree of resentment, but that might be a reason for employers to examine their pay and conditions, not to penalise those who are able to work more flexibly.
People differ just as jobs differ and I can see no reason why modern workplace practices cannot take some account of this. If employers, including the Government, share my belief that a strong team culture is important in building success, they should insist on a minimum presence in the office, but does it need to be for more than 20% of the working week? If that was, as far as possible, the same day for every member of a specific team, a degree of bonding and shared culture could be achieved.
Some people will want, and may need, to spend much more time in the office—for instance, those who live in cramped circumstances or wish to escape from loud children. When people were confined to their homes because of Covid, there were some individuals who had to struggle to turn an ironing board into an office; that does not work well and no doubt they would leap at the chance of spending every day in their working week in the office. But we should surely strive to avoid the cult of presenteeism that so bedevilled workplaces for so long and is still present in some of the investment banks, among other institutions. The jacket left on the back of the chair to signify that the owner was definitely in the workplace but had merely slipped away from the desk for a moment was symptomatic of a culture of silly competition to try to indicate a devotion to the job—certainly not a recipe for a healthy working environment. Of course, it penalised many women who wanted to work but wanted the flexibility to do so in their own time. Just being present in the workplace is no indication of effectiveness.
Too many people seem to go to work to have a social life. A poll by YouGov for the TUC found that one in three people had had a relationship with a colleague, and 22% were married to, or in a civil partnership with, someone whom they met at work. The basic question is whether or not they were doing everything effectively for their job while they were there. I do not think that the Government should legislate to insist that everybody is present in the workplace even 60% of the time, or 40% of the time. Let us look at what is produced.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Farmer for introducing this topic and giving us a chance to debate something that is important, because it relates to the productivity of the Civil Service, which is vital to the success of the United Kingdom as a country.
There are no absolutes in this: there is no absolute sense that working from home is terrible or that being required to be in the office all the time is perfect. There is plenty of evidence that a degree of hybrid working can increase productivity. Before Covid, there was evidence that people doing office jobs, working, perhaps, one or two days a week from home, could actually increase productivity. There was less time spent travelling—all of that—and productivity could improve. There are, however, some big “buts” on this. Generally—and my noble friend made this point—for more junior staff with less experience, often living in much more cramped circumstances at home, it is important to be able to learn from example and from interaction with each other, and to learn from people more experienced and senior than themselves.
The second “but” is that this is and should not be an entitlement. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, made the point that you would not expect Civil Service employment contracts that make working from home an entitlement, because business need has to be paramount. That is key. As many have observed, we all want civil servants and other employees to be happy, contented and motivated, but business need is paramount. We have seen the way that civil servants have tended to move, almost randomly and in an unplanned way, from job to job. That is the enemy of serving business need and of effective productivity.
Allowing working from home or hybrid working depends on effective management capability. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, just said, it is about not just watching people working but managing their outputs, which requires skilful and rigorous performance management. Frankly—and this is not just my complaint from recent times; it goes right back to the Fulton committee and earlier—that kind of rigorous performance management has been lacking in the Civil Service for a long time.
There has been a huge lack of discipline in controlling staffing levels. The coalition Government reduced the size of the Civil Service, like for like, by 21%. Since then, without any Ministers having made this decision, headcount has gone back to and beyond where it was in 2010, because there was no one in charge. Of course, it is impossible to have an effective workforce plan when pay is being decided in one part of government—the Treasury—and the size, shape, composition and capability of the Civil Service is in completely other hands. How can you have effective, holistic workforce planning in that context?
The truth is that it is much easier to manage hybrid working or working from home if you start from the baseline of people working in the office. That is the reverse of the position: we are starting from the baseline of people expecting during the pandemic to work from home. There is a strong case, which I urge on the Government, not just for saying that we are expecting people—but with lots of exceptions, as my noble friend made clear—to work in the office 60% of the time, three days a week, but for resetting this. To reset the baseline, we should have a requirement for no working from home at all. Once that has been put in place, we could allow some hybrid working to begin again much more easily and more effectively, but in a controlled and disciplined way. That discipline does not currently exist.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Maude who, as his thoughtful remarks showed, was one of the few Ministers to have taken public sector reform seriously in recent years. I also thank my noble friend Lord Farmer for securing this debate and setting out the issues and concerns so clearly. I can only echo most of them. In the short time available, I will make just one short point about why working from home seems to be such a problem in the public sector.
Working from home is often conflated with working shorter hours. There is a suppressed assumption that the one should facilitate the other. This happens either formally, as we have seen in the South Cambridgeshire case, or informally. The suspicion, which I think is well founded, is that those working from home do not always put in the same hours as they would if they were in the office.
It is true that working hours have gradually reduced over time, from the six days of the Victorian era to the five and a half days I dimly remember my father putting in during my childhood to the five-day standard now. One might ask why we should not see this continue, facilitated by home working. The answer is very simple: those reductions in working hours over the years came from steadily increasing productivity, and the gains were taken partly in wages and partly in increased leisure. But we have not had those productivity increases over the last 20 to 25 years. Rather, we have had them to some extent in the private sector, but we have not had them at all in the public sector. Public sector productivity is lower now than it was in 1997.
One might argue that, if there are to be shorter working hours, these should be in the successful parts of the private sector, and public sector workers should be working longer until they can work better as well. Yet, in fact, the reverse seems to be happening: private sector staff are coming back into the office for five-day weeks, as my noble friend Lord Farmer noted, while the public sector is working more and more at home, with ever shorter hours. It is therefore not surprising that we see output falling and the problems that have been mentioned at the Land Registry where, rather than acknowledge and deal with this problem, the workers preferred to strike and make it worse.
Now, of course, there has been a technological shift, as remote working has become more feasible. There has been a cultural shift with the pandemic, and it would be foolish to pretend this does not exist. It would also be foolish to claim that, in certain circumstances, home working cannot make sense, at least for part of the week. Given the issue that I have just explained and my noble friend Lord Maude alluded to, the only way it can work is if it is coupled with top-quality management, assurance that the working hours are being carried out, clarity about outputs, relentless improvement of processes and proper performance management including, if necessary, firing those who will not work in this way.
The problem is, as I and many of us know—I from my 25 years as an official—that such management is pretty rare in the public sector. This is not because the people in the public sector do not want to do it, although I think that that is sometimes the case, but because the tools for proper management do not exist. It is impossible in the public sector to really change incentives, positively or negatively, and it is virtually impossible to fire anybody. The only real tools that public sector managers have are personal leadership and moral suasion within their teams, and these are exactly the attributes that are difficult to exercise remotely. Therefore, it is not surprising that extensive home working in the public sector sees output and productivity fall.
The best solution, of course, would be to revolutionise the way the public sector runs itself, to try to improve its woeful productivity record, perhaps to get its workers contributing to better output by using the time saved on commuting to work instead. Alternatively, it might ensure that those who choose to take their rewards in the currency of flexibility or shorter hours see that reflected in their cash wages as well, but I do not expect that that will happen anytime soon. We must therefore require the second-best solution, which is to get people into the office and working together again. That is why it is so important that the Government really insist on their target of three days in the office and, ideally, reforms public sector working more broadly. I hope that, when she responds, the Minister will be able to reassure us of that.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
This has been an interesting debate, and we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for introducing the subject and giving us an opportunity to discuss these issues. In fact, it is interesting to follow the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, because, in preparation for this debate, I was re-reading the debates that took place in this House on the Factories Act 1847, which introduced a 10-hour day. There were plenty of speakers in this Chamber who opposed the revolutionary concept that people—in that particular Act, it was only women and children—should not have to work for more than 10 hours in a day. Clearly, ideas on what is the right way of working move on.
As well as hybrid working, there is the issue of the four-day week. It is interesting that PCS is seeking agreements in other areas of employment for a four-day week. These standards and expectations move on. The key—in some ways, what the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, said is correct—is to deliver the job in hand. There is no shibboleth that we should have about actual attendance; that in itself is not important. The issue is the delivery of the job in hand. It is quite clear, and it has not really been spelled out in the debate, that the Land Registry has failed to deliver the job in hand: there is a massive backlog.
I will not pretend that I totally understand why there has been such difficulty, but, clearly, getting into an argument with the staff does not seem to be a great way of solving the problem. Forcing your staff to undertake a ballot for industrial action, where 84% of the staff believe they should take action short of a strike in order to defend their working conditions, seems to me an indictment of the management rather than of the union.
I would just correct the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, on one point. There is no strike planned from 21 January; there is action short of a strike, where the staff concerned will refuse to do work outside of their allotted grade and to fill in time for absent colleagues. There is no strike at this stage, although 69%—again, a relatively high figure—voted for the potential of strike action. However, the decision has not yet been made on whether that will take place.
We can see here the need to understand the position of the union. Why are we here with the union? It is not an arbitrary decision on its part. In fact, it should be emphasised that the industrial action relates not just to hybrid working but to the issue of how work is assessed and who does the work. The workforce there are extremely concerned that people are, in effect, being asked to act up, presumably because of the delays and shortfalls, without the necessary training that they need to undertake that work.
Overall, we can see here a pattern of management—other speakers emphasised the importance of good management—failing to deliver the job. Whether that is an issue of lack of resources is difficult to tell from outside. The key issue is leaving it to the people involved—the management and the unions—to undertake the proper collective bargaining to arrive at a satisfactory solution.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we are having a debate both on a general principle and a particular situation. I have not discovered enough about the strike at the Land Registry and the issues involved there to want to comment on it. We would need to know what sort of work they do there and whether they need to be in the office most of the time to do that sort of work.
I live in Saltaire at weekends, 200 miles from London. I have a new neighbour who works for a London publisher, and she tells me she will need to be in the office at least once a month. But she is an editor; it is relatively easy for her managers to discover how effectively she works because, if she rapidly turns out an edited book on screen, her productivity is clearly rather good. I have another neighbour who works as an accountant for an accountancy company in Canary Wharf, and he goes down at least twice a month. There are reasons why, if you do that sort of job, you can easily work from home. If, on the other hand, you have a public-facing job, you need to be facing the public in the right place every day. We should not have hard and fast rules on all this.
By and large, post Covid, there are many jobs in which a 60/40 balance is just about right. I say with amazement that a member of my extended family is head of the risk analysis team of an international bank. The team is based in the City, but part of it is based in the other capital of the international bank. He works at home two days a week. He works extremely effectively and hard, and I am happy to say that his bank pays him a great deal. It would have been unthinkable some years ago for those people not to have been in their bank all the time, but computers now allow you to do a lot of that work at home.
Incidentally, it is quite right to say that the better-off have it easier here. If you can afford to have a larger house and a special place to work, that is much more comfortable than working on your kitchen table. However, the world in which we were 25 years ago, where the assumption was that you were always in the office, has gone. Covid and computers have changed that.
I declare an interest in that I have spent most of my life as an academic. As an academic, you never go into the office more than three days a week. The quiet that you need to do your research and write your lectures is not one easily interrupted by your colleagues coming in and saying, “Hey, how about a coffee?”. However, when I worked in a think tank, I needed to be in at least four days a week. Since I was in an international think tank, I worked over the weekend very often, flying from one place to another. It depends on the sort of job you have.
For parents, childcare is clearly an important part of the work/life balance. I notice that from those in my family who have children. I am happy to say as a grandparent that the obligation on grandparents to pick up the children from school has declined with the ability of parents sometimes to work from home and stop in the middle of the afternoon. That is good. I hope that we get away from the world in which City law firms and banks expect their younger people to work 10 to 12 hours a day and on Saturdays in the office, killing their social life and their opportunities to meet others and have children. That is an appalling obligation, which I trust is going.
Where we are now, with good management—I accept all that has been said about the poverty of decent management and good HR within the Civil Service—we ought to be able to reach a stage at which, one by one, looking at the variety of different jobs, we agree a different pattern of working that will probably come out at between 60/40 and 80/20. We should not weaponise the debate. I know there are some—the Jacob Rees-Moggs of this world—who would like to be able to go around and leave little cards on desks. He does not seem to be aware that the Civil Service does not have sufficient office space for everyone if they now came in. One by one, we are able now, I think, to accept that society and the economy are changing.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Farmer for securing this important debate on whether civil servants should be obliged to work from their offices or their own homes. It has been prompted by not only the recent strike action in the UK’s Land Registry but the broader shift in working practices in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. It is an issue that speaks to the heart of productivity and the future of public service delivery.
Amid the upheavals of the pandemic, our GDP remained surprisingly robust, in part thanks to the last Government’s furlough scheme. The resilience of the economy showed that remote work, for some parts of the workforce, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, observed, not only was feasible but could be effective. However, my noble friend Lord Frost is absolutely correct that, while the private sector continues to improve its output, public sector productivity continues to lag well behind. This disparity has contributed to the growing backlog in public services that in turn hinders wider economic growth. We face significant budget deficits, a high level of national indebtedness and backlogs in courts and hospitals and elsewhere. We simply cannot afford to ignore the need for drastically increased productivity within the public sector, particularly in our Civil Service.
Can the Minister provide statistics on the number of civil servants who, first, have contracts that expressly allow them to work from home, and what proportion of them exclusively so; secondly, have informal arrangements with their management that permit them to work from home but with no revised contracts; and, thirdly, have no formal arrangements but none the less continue to work remotely? Do the Government have plans to allow civil servants to make other revisions to their terms and conditions by stealth, or is the intention simply to let remote work arrangements proliferate unchecked? If so, what safeguards are in place to ensure that these changes do not undermine the effective delivery of public services? Who within the Government holds the authority to stop civil servants working from home? Does the Prime Minister or the Cabinet Secretary, or is such discretion left to individual departments with no overarching leadership on this issue?
There are also practical implications, such as how much unused government office space exists within Whitehall and beyond. Can the Minister provide us with statistics on these costs? As my noble friend Lord Farmer said, taxpayers deserve to know whether their money is being spent effectively, and users of public services—the public—deserve better services.
Senior civil servants should generally be required to return to the office full-time by default. Not only does this demonstrate that office working is important but it sends a strong message to junior colleagues. As my noble friends Lord Farmer and Lord Maude of Horsham observed, there is immense value in learning through observation, mentoring and collaboration with peers. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, argued, remote work has the advantage of flexibility, but it is no substitute for working alongside colleagues in an office environment.
A failure to grapple with an issue so fundamental raises serious concerns about the Government’s ability to tackle the more challenging issues of Civil Service reform. In lieu of ambitions to streamline the state to 2016 levels, we instead have the Cabinet Office’s voluntary redundancy scheme, which falls short of what is required. Recent inflation-busting pay rises for civil servants have not been linked to any measurable improvements in productivity.
The most successful organisations in the private sector have made office working most of the time compulsory. Working from home cannot be treated as a right. As my noble friend Lord Maude so rightly observed, business need must always be paramount. The Government must act decisively and embrace the necessary reforms to ensure that public services deliver what the public expect and need.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for securing this really interesting debate on an important issue. Rightly, we have heard a range of views; I will do my best in the time I have to respond to the various points made. I will also make sure that the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office, who is responsible for the Civil Service, receives a copy of the record of this debate as she works through planned work in this area.
Rapid advancement of technology in the past few years, particularly since the pandemic, has enabled the Civil Service, like many other private, voluntary and public sector employers in the UK and abroad, to strike a balance of remote and office working that benefits both employers and employees.
In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, about a move by some organisations to full-time office working, it is clearly up to each individual organisation. Like all employees in the UK, civil servants have the statutory right to request flexible working, including working from home or contractual home working, under legislation which came into force on 6 April last year. They are able to make a statutory request to make permanent changes to their contract from the first day of employment. In this regard, civil servants are no different from employees elsewhere in the wider economy.
The Government believe that a balanced approach to office attendance and remote working across the Civil Service provides best value in the services that it delivers. I welcome my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton’s point about the fact that approaches to work—how and for how long we should work, and under what conditions—have changed over time and will continue to do so.
There was a point—my apologies, but I cannot remember which noble Lord raised it—around an expectation from civil servants during the pandemic to be able to work from home. I remind your Lordships’ House that employees were told explicitly that they should work from home unless they had a business need not to do so during the pandemic. At that time, I had a letter in case I was challenged as I went into work—I was expected to work in the office—that gave me permission, should the police challenge me as to why I was out of my home. So this was not a stealth move, nor was it necessarily a demand from workers, but a shift in how people imagined the workplace. That has shifted back slightly towards the office environment, but it can be seen as a shift that happened because people realised that they could have that hybrid working.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, made clear, there is no doubt that the pandemic has created such a shift. The technology that we have now, which not all of us had immediately before the pandemic, has enabled effective flexible working, including hybrid working. This is why, in October 2024, heads of department made it clear that the 60% office attendance expectation for all office-based civil servants, introduced under the previous Administration, was to continue. To address the question from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, directly, there are no plans to change or lower that 60% office attendance expectation, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, that business need is paramount. This is our expectation as a Government.
In our view, the 60% office attendance expectation for office-based civil servants reflects the benefits of regular office-space working and the instances where remote working is either required or useful. Today, for example, I was briefed by a civil servant who is based in the Manchester DCMS office, who 10 years ago might have been expected to come down on the train or be London-based to brief the Minister. There are distinct advantages to hybrid remote working as well. What we have now reflects office attendance requirements broadly similar to those of other employers in the UK, including in the private sector.
I agreed with many points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer—although not all of them—particularly around the benefits to younger or newer members of staff. Going back to my experience during the pandemic, at the Greater London Authority we found that a significant number of younger staff who lived in rented accommodation were literally working and socialising online from their bedroom. There was a mental health aspect to that. Now they are no longer in lockdown that situation is limited, and those younger members of staff may find it beneficial to have hybrid working as well.
However, it is clear that physically working together is proven to have many benefits, such as collaborative working, which increases productivity, with complex tasks and problem-solving undertaken more efficiently when ideas and views are exchanged more spontaneously. I really recognised the noble Lord’s point about not having to schedule a Teams meeting to have a conversation if you are able to have a five-minute chat.
I know from experience that being together creates better opportunities for coaching, hands-on learning and more project collaboration. It can help with well-being and the development of effective relationships across teams. As the noble Lords, Lord Farmer and Lord Maude of Horsham, said, junior colleagues in particular benefit from having face-to-face time with managers, mentors and senior leaders. Those early in their careers can find that working face to face with their peers and managers enhances their learning and makes them more effective more quickly.
As the noble Lord, Lord Maude, also said, managing that hybrid working requires a different and rigorous type of management, but that is not impossible. It all plays an important role in effective and efficient service delivery to the public. However, it does not need to be a binary choice—a point that my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie made clear very well.
At the same time, we need to recognise the benefits to employers and employees of working remotely and from home, particularly for specific tasks that require quiet concentration and confidential conversations. The ability to offer hybrid working is also a key attraction, retention and talent management tool. It helps to enable recruitment in a competitive job market, particularly in specialist or highly skilled roles, such as digital experts, where the Civil Service cannot always compete with the remuneration—I have never been able to say that word, even when I was running a committee called the remuneration committee—available in the private sector.
We want the best of the best to work with us in the Civil Service. This is how we will deliver the change that this Government feel the country needs. We hope that hybrid working helps to make the Civil Service an employer of choice, including for those with valuable skills who may otherwise be economically inactive or find accessing the workforce difficult. This includes parents, carers and people with disabilities—a point made by my noble friend Lord Watson.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, asked for statistics on the number of home workers and how this is tracked. Like the previous Administration, we publish regular data on office occupancy, et cetera, but not the number of flexible working arrangements, which are held at a local level. This information is not held centrally as it is for each department to manage the contract arrangements of its own staff. However, I understand that it is a relatively small number overall for specific home workers. The numbers are published in the same way as they were under the previous Administration.
The authorisation of various types of contracts or arrangements varies from department to department, but it would normally be done by the line manager of the individual in question, in line with the department’s overarching HR policy and any relevant legislation. It is tempting to think that Ministers should wade into this but actually, for a task-based approach, where the task is at the heart of whether it is appropriate for somebody to work from home or of the level at which they should come into the office, I feel this should be for the line manager. We potentially deskill line managers if we take that aspect away from them.
It is worth thinking about the interesting report from Nationwide’s chief executive, Debbie Crosbie, when we look at who can progress in the workforce. She recently said that it is important for career growth to have a “physical presence” in the workplace. We need to recognise that, although flexible working can be useful for those with caring responsibilities, it is important for businesses to make sure that they support those who take up flexible working opportunities so that they do not lose out on career progression opportunities. It is important for workers to see leaders in action in this regard.
As noble Lords may know, the Cabinet Office publishes data on the average occupancy of Civil Service headquarter buildings, and I am pleased to report that the latest data demonstrates that rates are regularly in excess of the 60% expectation and were higher compared with the same period in 2023 for the vast majority of government departments. Departments have tools in place to deal with where office attendance falls below the required level.
I got a bit enthusiastic about the subject, so I think I will run out of time, but I will try to get through as much as possible before my 12 minutes are up. It is clearly not the case that all civil servants have hybrid working. Many civil servants, such as prison officers, immigration officers and those working in our courts and tribunals, have to be in their workplaces or on official business every working day. This has not changed. My private office is in the office whenever I am, so there is clearly a business need for some people to be in.
However, I find it regrettable that some of the push towards greater office attendance is around the issue of trust. A number of noble Lords spoke about trust, which is clearly vital, but I do not think that mistrust is a good starting point for this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, noted an instance of a certain Minister leaving notes for civil servants who were away from their desks or working from home. I do not think that contributed to a constructive relationship between the Government and the Civil Service.
I am going to finish by saying a little on the wider issue of public sector reform, which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Maude. Where I agree with noble Lords is on the importance of public sector reform. I had a number of points relating to the speech from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on reform of the state, which he made shortly before Christmas. I refer noble Lords to that.
I have now run out of time, and I apologise for cutting my intervention short—it is through enthusiasm and not from lack of planning on my own part. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for introducing and initiating such an important debate. The Government have set out a clear position, and we do not intend to change it.
UK Strategy Towards the Arctic (International Relations and Defence Committee Report)
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That this House takes note of the Report from the International Relations and Defence Committee Our friends in the North: UK strategy towards the Arctic (1st Report, Session 2023–24, HL Paper 8).
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to introduce this debate on the report of the International Relations and Defence Committee, Our Friends in the North: UK Strategy towards the Arctic. I had the very enjoyable privilege of chairing the committee for this inquiry, and I start by thanking the members of the committee for their tolerance, the current chair, my noble friend Lord De Mauley, for allowing me to introduce this debate, and the staff of the committee for their excellent work, especially the clerk, Jennifer Martin-Kohlmorgen, together with Alex Nice and Rob Jones. We also received great help from FCDO officials for our visit to Norway and Finland, for which we are very grateful.
Way back in 2023—and it seems a long time ago—the committee set out to hold an inquiry into the Arctic, given the unprecedented geopolitical and environmental changes impacting the region. Some people might ask why it matters to us. The answer is that the Arctic may be remote, but what happens there has a direct impact on us in the UK. We heard time and again that what happens in the Arctic does not stay in Arctic. As the Arctic’s closest neighbour—and let us not forget that parts of Scotland are closer to the Arctic than they are to London—developments in the region have a significant impact on our national, environmental and energy security, and implications for our foreign and defence policy. Our report is just over a year old, but its conclusions are still—if not more—relevant today, and it is a good thing that we are able to highlight them. I am grateful to the Government Chief Whip to allowing us time to debate the report today.
As we all know, the Arctic is undergoing a profound transformation. Climate change is accelerating at an unprecedented rate, with parts of the region warming four times faster than the global average. That has far-reaching consequences, from the melting of the sea ice and permafrost to the impacts on indigenous communities and global climate patterns. Despite their importance, we did not investigate the science of Arctic climate change or ecological pressures on the flora and fauna, including endangered species—although I must say, as an endangered species myself in your Lordships’ House, I feel even more sympathy for them now than I did during the inquiry. Our inquiry revealed that the Arctic is not only a region of ecological importance but an area of growing economic and geopolitical significance—and that is what we concentrated on.
Melting sea ice is opening up new shipping routes, and the region’s vast natural resources, including oil, gas, minerals, rare earth metals and fish stocks, are going to become only more accessible. This has sparked a new era of competition that includes both Arctic and non-Arctic states, with Russia and the US leading the charge but China and others vying for influence and control.
As we might expect, China is taking a long-term approach to the region. Its strategy for the Arctic is to make it international, in which it, as a leading world power, can influence the rules on how the resources I just mentioned should be distributed. While its footprint is currently limited, this is likely to change. For example, China is easily the largest consumer of fish in the world and has the largest distance water fishing fleet. If the central Arctic Ocean, which is part of the high seas and therefore accessible to all, becomes ice-free for considerable periods, this could lead to overfishing and the depletion of local fish stocks. The UK has a direct interest in the sustainable management of fish stocks, not least because around 10% of the fish that make it to our fish and chip shops comes from the Arctic.
For now, China has subscribed to a fishing moratorium via the Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement, but we heard that it could allow that to lapse in 2037 when the moratorium is up for renewal and as the protective ice caps start to recede. To enable us to continue to advocate effectively for the prevention of unregulated fishing in the central Arctic Ocean, we need to rejoin the agreement on the prevention of unregulated fishing in the central Arctic Ocean that we had to leave because of Brexit. What steps are the new Government taking to rejoin the agreement? Until then, will we announce that we will voluntarily abide by its provisions?
As Russia, weakened by the war in Ukraine and Western sanctions, turns eastward, this could provide China with an opportunity to increase its influence. Since we published our report, China’s coastguard entered the waters of the Arctic Ocean for the first time, in a joint patrol with Russia, and last summer, the Chinese air force conducted a joint air patrol with Russia off the coast of Alaska. In themselves, these are not hugely significant developments, but they point to a deepening co-operation with Russia. The Government will therefore need to pay very close attention to Chinese ambitions in the Arctic and the developing Sino-Russian relationship. Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine has been a major catalyst for change in the region. Not only is it drawing China and Russia closer together but it led to the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO. These two nations bring a wealth of expertise and experience to the alliance, including their ability to operate in cold weather conditions and a long experience in managing Russian pressure.
NATO enlargement provides an opportunity for the UK to deepen its already extensive defensive co-operation with the Nordic countries. Finland’s accession also doubled NATO’s border with Russia, and the UK has an important role to play in supporting deterrence in the High North. I am pleased to note that our Armed Forces have increased the scale and frequency of cold weather training and exercises in the region. The establishment of a new Arctic operations base in Camp Viking in northern Norway is a welcome development, and the Royal Marines are experienced and well placed to operate in the region. We are one of the few non-Arctic states that has the military capability to operate in the High North and we are valued, in particular, for our role in antisubmarine and air policing. However, our report also raised concerns about the limits of our capacity to operate in the Arctic. Our fleet of P-8A maritime surveillance and patrol aircraft is small and our single dedicated ice patrol ship, HMS “Protector”, is stretched impossibly thin, covering both polar regions.
The Arctic is a priority for the UK, where it can add real value, but as a mid-sized power with global ambitions, the UK’s Armed Forces face a perennial risk of overstretch. The UK needs to do more to articulate clearly its priorities and the hard choices that are required in the face of competing pressures on resources. The strategic defence review, led by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, who was a member of the committee throughout our inquiry, provides an opportunity to do so, and we trust that the Minister will take the lessons of our and his report into consideration.
Fears that NATO enlargement could result in an increase in Russian hybrid activity appear to be materialising. The commander of the Finnish armed forces raised the alarm about GPS jamming and other disruptive activities last May. Here, we heard from the director-general of MI5 that agents of Russia’s military intelligence agency are conducting arson attacks, sabotage and other dangerous actions with increasing recklessness. As recently as Christmas Day—just over two weeks ago—the Estlink 2 power cable between Finland and Estonia was cut and four telecoms cables were damaged. We must therefore work to bolster our national preparedness and resilience to such attacks through a whole-of-society approach. Our report sets out that we can learn from the Nordic concept of total defence, which integrates civilians into national security efforts.
The Arctic Council is the region’s premier governance body. Russia’s actions in Ukraine have put it under significant strain and led to a steep drop in co-operation between Russia, on the one hand, and all the other seven Arctic states on the other. Cautious re-engagement with Russia at official level is taking place to attempt to ensure that vital scientific co-operation can resume. This kind of low-level co-operation is not universally welcomed. But we considered it desirable, not only for scientific purposes, but also as a bridge to foster mutual understanding and, crucially, to reduce the risk of escalation in the event of a crisis. The probability of an incident or mishap swiftly turning into a major crisis is greatly increased by the growth in maritime activity in the Arctic and Russia’s remilitarisation of the area. While the Arctic Council does not formally deal with security matters, we think it is important that the channels that could be used for deconfliction purposes are retained.
The UK’s existing Arctic strategy addresses many of the points raised, but the committee was concerned that the Arctic is not receiving in the ministerial attention it deserves outside the security sphere. Recent UK Ministers have rarely attended multilateral fora on Arctic affairs. This sends the wrong message about the importance of the Arctic to the UK. We also recommended the appointment of an Arctic ambassador, in line with many other non-Arctic states. This recommendation was rebuffed by the previous Government. Could the Minister confirm whether this is something that the new Government will consider and whether ministerial involvement will increase? Are there any areas where their strategy towards the Arctic may differ from that of the previous Government?
The Arctic is not a distant concern but a region of immediate and profound strategic importance to the UK. Although we are not an Arctic country, we can exert influence, not just through military means but through soft power. During our visit to Norway and Finland, everyone we spoke to was full of praise for the UK’s contributions to polar research. Our world-class scientific research provides a strong platform for legitimising our involvement and exerting soft power in the region. Our overall strategy towards the Arctic must be at once nuanced and comprehensive, balancing diplomatic engagement with strategic preparedness. I hope the Government will take our report’s findings into consideration and ensure that the UK stands ready to support our friends in the north in the years to come. I beg to move.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to participate in today’s proceedings and to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this report. Given the distinguished membership of the committee that produced it—not least the chair the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, whom I thank for his excellent introductory speech—the report’s thoroughness and forensic analysis are perhaps unsurprising, but valuable none the less.
Even the most cursory glance at the report’s structure demonstrates the breadth of its scope. It asks us to consider the UK’s role—historic and future—in respect of the Arctic. It points up the future of the Arctic as a sphere of potential great power contestation and analyses the implications of growing economic activity, consequent in part on the effects of climate change.
Mindful of the limited time I have available, and of the priority that should be accorded to the members of the committee which produced this report, my contribution will focus on a relatively small number of points, the first of which, and its effect, have to a degree already been diluted by some of the introductory remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde.
The Arctic Circle is only 380 miles north of British waters, which is only 64 miles less than the distance by road between my home in the west of Scotland and London. As the report reminds us, although the Arctic is a byword for remoteness, it is in fact extraordinarily close to our country, in terms of both geography and, much more importantly, our strategic interests.
I saw no inherent flaw in the previous Government’s expressed desire to give our foreign policy an Indo-Pacific tilt. Noble Lords will need no reminder from me that the sinews of diplomacy in that area are very often subject to strain, nor will they need to be reminded of the importance of that region in economic, political and military terms. But the report we are debating today, as well as the evidence session of 11 July 2023 in which the committee took evidence from the then Minister for the Armed Forces, James Heappey, makes it clear that there are real challenges of capacity if the UK is to maintain and increase its relationships operability in the High North.
In short, there are choices to be made. In that evidence session, Mr Heappey summed up this environment of choice very effectively, saying that:
“It is important not to specify ships”—
I say this with some trepidation in the current environment—
“to be extraordinarily capable in one environment to the exclusion of their capability in another. If we specify them to be extraordinarily capable in both environments, we will only be able to afford one, not six. There is always a balance to strike”.
That is as succinct a summary of the constraints and contextual challenges of defence spending as I have seen. Pierre Mendès-France, during his time as Prime Minister of France, repeated in speech after speech the mantra
“to govern is to choose”.
As part of the strategic defence review, currently in progress under the aegis of my noble friend Lord Robertson, we will be faced with just such choices: the allocation of finite resources to meet a multiplicity of threats across different spheres.
Given the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO membership, we have new obligations in the Arctic and the High North. As paragraph 105 of the report makes clear, we are now in the position of applying our NATO security guarantees under Article 5 to a new landmass of significant size. While I think interoperability between the Finnish, Swedish and NATO forces should be pretty straightforward, a capacity issue remains. Here, we have a challenge significantly greater, in some senses, than any other NATO allies because of our near unique capabilities and the demands of our geographical position.
As the report identifies, only the UK and US have the capability to conduct nuclear submarine patrols under the ice cap. Russia has made substantial investments into its northern fleet and we know, for instance, that, in 2019, 10 Russian submarines ran a drill of a size unprecedented since the Cold War, testing their ability to breach the GIUK gap without detection.
We know too that Russia’s latest maritime doctrine places the Arctic above both the Pacific and Atlantic as the highest priority region. It is unfortunately clear that, in the medium term at least, it seems unlikely that we will be able to return to our classic post-Cold War aspiration of the Arctic as an area of “high co-operation and low tension”. Indeed, the best way to abate the tension—or at least to mitigate its possible consequences—is to ensure maximal co-operation between the UK and its allies in the region. It seems clear that this will only be possible if we assign this theatre an importance that corresponds with the new risks present within it.
I have only been able to touch on the breadth of those risks, but among the other factors I do not have time to enumerate in any depth, I would mention President Xi’s openly expressed ambition to make China a “polar great power” and the see-sawing asymmetrical relationship between China and Russia that may allow the former to use the latter as a proxy for its own ambitions.
Complicating all these strategic calculations is the insidious threat of climate change, the effects of which are manifesting themselves in the Arctic at several times the average global rate. The Arctic states and the UK will need to consider their response to an Arctic that presents new commercial opportunities, as well as a different range of security threats.
Most topically, we have seen the President-elect insist that he should be allowed to buy Greenland for national security purposes. Though, as ever, there is a shadow of farce hanging over this pronouncement, it is clear that the incoming US Administration will be placing greater emphasis on strategy in the High North.
Although I concur with the report in thinking it unlikely that the Arctic will become a theatre of military conflict, it describes in compelling terms the opportunities that the changing character of the Arctic affords to our strategic adversaries who wish to operate in the grey zone of hostility.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, almost a year ago I had the privilege of visiting Camp Viking, where our commandos and marines are absolutely superb in their Arctic training and their work. That was part of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, which I would recommend anybody to join, and I know that a number of Members here have done that. It was a great experience. As all Members would, I utterly compliment our forces there, although I was less impressed by some of the artillery pieces, which reminded me more of World War II than of the current cybertechnology we have today.
I also congratulate the Government Whips’ Office on choosing this week for this subject. One of the great fears of this committee was that one of our NATO allies in the Arctic region would be threatened with military invasion, and that has happened this week. Of course, it was not from the beast of the east but from what we always aspire to be the best of the west—the future Trump Administration and Greenland.
I mention this not to be jocular but to note that French Foreign Minister Barrot, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who was the President of the European Council, all made very positive comments to say that Denmark’s sovereignty had to be noted and respected. Yet, as I understand it, we in this country—this Government—have not done so. When he was challenged on this on the “Today” programme this morning, David Lammy did not say that Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland must be respected. I challenge the Government and the Front Bench to make that comment. Like many of us, I believe that our relationship with the United States is absolutely paramount in terms of defence, but we have not to be meek. We have to show some backbone in pushing back and respecting the international order and law that we have promoted since World War II. I challenge the Government on that not least because we have a very close military relationship with Denmark. Whether in the Balkans, in Iraq or particularly in Afghanistan, we have trained, operated and fought with Danish forces. We owe it to that country—one of our closest NATO allies—to show it the respect of recognising its sovereignty over Greenland.
On fisheries, the chair of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, has said this so well, but it is so important from an ecological point of view that we protect the high seas beyond EEZs in the Arctic Ocean. It is great news that the moratorium was signed in 2021 and lasts for 16 years, but following Brexit we are no longer a member of that agreement. I notice that in the Government’s response to our report they say they are working to become signatories of that agreement again as soon as possible. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, I ask the Government when we will become part of that agreement again. Have we made a public declaration on supporting it? What are we doing with the scientific work that is also required as part of that treaty? It is important to note—exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, said—that the long-term threat there is the Chinese fishing fleet, which rapes and pillages many of our oceans with very little control at present.
I see the UK ambassador recommendation as absolutely fundamental. As other Members of the House have said, Out Stack, the most northerly part of the Shetlands, is only 300-odd nautical miles from the Arctic Circle. We are the nearest non-Arctic state. That area is vital to us. It is a changing environment in terms of security, climate change and critical minerals.
I am absolutely clear that we need to raise our game with our diplomatic activity. Why is it that Singapore, Poland, France and other nations have Arctic ambassadors, yet this country does not? We have not participated sufficiently in the Arctic Council. I am delighted to note that its chairmanship has now moved to Norway from Russia, which means that the body, which caused so much stability for so long, can now become rather more active, if not perfect, without Russia’s participation as chair. I am clear that we need an Arctic ambassador and to raise our game, and I hope that this Government will change that decision.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate, which was so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, the excellent chair of the International Relations and Defence Committee during the period of the inquiry. It is also a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who was the inspiration for the inquiry.
In the considerable time since the report was published, the two underlying issues that have driven so many of the conclusions have not changed. Polar ice is continuing to melt and, partly as a consequence of that and partly because of wider international stresses, the Arctic has moved from being an area of co-operation to one of contest and, potentially, conflict. This has to be of fundamental concern to the UK. Our geographical location means that instability in the Arctic threatens the security and prosperity of these islands, and we should therefore devote the necessary care, time and resource to protecting ourselves in this regard.
As the report makes clear, the Arctic is likely to see a dramatic increase in destination shipping over the coming years. There are two main reasons for that. The first is the increasingly accessible resources, particularly subsurface resources, in the area. The second is the geostrategic importance of the region, particularly to the nations that wish to reshape and then dominate the international order over the coming years.
Both issues have attracted the attention of the Chinese Communist Party, which has declared China a “near-Arctic state”. Although in 2013 Russia was reluctant to grant China observer status in the Arctic Council, events have moved on considerably since then. Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine has left it increasingly beholden to the Chinese for their support. There seems little doubt that over the coming years China will increasingly leverage that alliance into greater involvement in the Arctic. That involvement may be, at least initially, in pursuit of scientific and economic benefits, but it would bring China into NATO’s backyard, with all the scope for misunderstanding, accident or even direct competition that this would involve.
Meanwhile, Russia, which owns some 50% of the Arctic littoral, retains a significant military presence in the region. The war in Ukraine has impacted its ground forces in the Arctic, but its maritime and aviation forces remain formidable. Of course, the accession to NATO of Finland and Sweden has added a new dimension to alliance challenges, as well as opportunities, in the Arctic. Competition for resources, tensions over environmental issues and the search by some for military advantage all create the conditions for instability and insecurity.
While most witnesses to the inquiry asserted that neither Russia nor China was likely to initiate a conflict in the Arctic, unlikely is not the same as impossible, especially given the risk of miscalculation. That risk is exacerbated by the much higher likelihood of grey zone operations in the region. For example, greater access to Arctic waters is likely to mean a considerable growth in undersea infrastructure there. We have seen from the recent incident involving the “Eagle S” tanker how aggressively Russia is seeking to disrupt such infrastructure. The report highlights several other grey zone activities that are possible or even likely in the Arctic. These in themselves are a threat to our security, but they could easily escalate into something even more serious. A conflict involving NATO which started elsewhere could, and almost certainly would, spread to the Arctic.
We have long had a close military relationship with our Norwegian partners. In my younger days I flew in many NATO exercises in the Arctic, guarding against a potential Soviet attack through the Finnmark gap. We also have newer but equally strong connections to Sweden and Finland. The Arctic is therefore not just an area of strategic importance to the UK but one where we have experience and expertise. This is reflected in our leadership of the Joint Expeditionary Force. Unfortunately, our partners in that organisation are becoming concerned about the weight of effort and the priority that we are according to this crucial role. They look to us to set a strong example and they are not seeing it.
The inquiry report also highlights the inadequacy of our air and maritime contributions to the High North, which is scarcely surprising given the small number of platforms available to the Navy and the Air Force and the many demands placed on them. These are all particularly serious consequences of our already inadequate military capabilities being spread too thinly. The security of the Arctic is crucial to the safety of the UK, so we have a vested interest in deterring conflict in the High North. To do so, we and our partners in the Joint Expeditionary Force need to demonstrate the capabilities and the will to counter Russian aggression effectively. We are failing seriously and falling short in that regard.
We also need the capabilities and will to deal with grey zone operations in a way that protects our interests and guards against escalation. The recent announcement that the UK will lead Operation Nordic Warden in response to the threat to undersea infrastructure is welcome, but where are the necessary resources to be found? The forthcoming defence review needs to set out the unanswerable case for an increase in the defence budget to at least 3% of GDP, but it also needs to take a much more ruthless and realistic approach to priorities than its recent predecessors did. It must make clear that the security of the Arctic is of fundamental importance to the UK and should therefore be resourced accordingly.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, I rise as the current chairman of the International Relations and Defence Committee. I very much thank my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, and the committee’s members for their work on this important report. Although I did not join the committee until it had completed this report, I hope noble Lords will bear with me if I take this opportunity to focus on the pressing matter of the security of our critical national infrastructure in the face of emerging threats, particularly those being manifested in and coming from the Arctic.
The European Arctic has increasingly become an area of strategic importance. The rising tensions between NATO and Russia have created unprecedented security dynamics in the region. The Arctic and the Baltic regions are viewed as integral to Russia’s strategic interests. The Arctic’s difficult environment and related challenges for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance make that region particularly conducive to tactics which are difficult to detect. Russia has developed a range of capabilities to sabotage and disrupt critical infrastructure, including undersea data cables in the Arctic and further afield.
These specialist capabilities for deep-sea maritime sabotage are based on the Kola peninsula, which borders the European Arctic. Recent hybrid attacks, including deliberate disruption of undersea cables—one as recent as Christmas Day, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, said—and heightened surveillance activities highlight the vulnerability. Our critical national infrastructure, particularly subsea telecommunications cables, energy infrastructure and maritime communication networks, is facing a growing number of risks.
We are witnessing a troubling shift towards more aggressive tactics. NATO and western intelligence services have warned that Russia is behind a growing number of hostile activities across the Euro-Atlantic area. The interconnectedness of our modern world means that a single incident away from our shores can have far-reaching consequences. In January 2022, one of two subsea data cables connecting Norway’s Svalbard archipelago and the Norwegian mainland was damaged. Although it did not result in prolonged disruption, it clearly demonstrated the capabilities of a hostile actor and should serve as a wake-up call to the United Kingdom and our allies.
Russian naval intelligence, under the guise of oceanographic research, operates vessels such as the “Admiral Vladimirsky”, which is designed, among other things, for maritime sabotage. Moreover, civilian ships, including fishing trawlers, are being used to survey and potentially attack infrastructure in shallower waters, such as those in the North Sea. In spring 2023, four Nordic broadcasting companies mapped suspicious trajectories of Russian fishing trawlers, research vessels and merchant ships travelling in the region and detected 50 ships that appeared to be collecting data along the seabed and monitoring military and other sensitive activities. In November 2022, the “Admiral Vladimirsky” was spotted loitering near the RAF’s maritime patrol base at Lossiemouth in the United Kingdom. It also passed suspiciously close to several UK offshore windfarms.
Returning to the experience of our Arctic partners, Norway, now Europe’s primary gas supplier, has been the subject of increased Russian surveillance of its energy infrastructure. Any disruption to its energy production would pose a significant risk for Europe’s overall energy security. Since Sweden’s NATO accession, several Swedish organisations have fallen victim to cyberattacks carried out by groups of hackers suspected of having ties to Russia. In this context, international collaboration is essential. Also important is collaboration between Governments and industry, as private companies often possess extensive monitoring and surveillance capabilities. The Norwegian oil and gas sector alone, for example, has 600 remotely operated underwater surveillance vehicles. The committee heard during its inquiry that military-civilian partnerships could considerably enhance deterrence. When infrastructure is designated for both civilian and military use, adversaries could perceive that the risk of sabotage leading to escalation would increase.
State collaboration with major tech companies will also be crucial for ensuring cyber resilience. As we confront the growing challenges to our critical national infrastructure, the role of our Reserve Forces becomes vital. Noble Lords may recall my interest in reservist service, as set out in the register. Our reservists, drawn from all parts of society, possess unique skill sets, linguistic capabilities, technical expertise and adaptable professional backgrounds that are invaluable. They can significantly enhance our capabilities and societal resilience in a way that is cost effective. However, in order fully to realise the potential of our Reserve Forces, we must ensure they are adequately funded, equipped and supported. This involves investing in their training and resources and recognising the invaluable contributions they make to our national security. The dismantling of mechanisms for mobilisation and civil defence after the Cold War has left us vulnerable. There is an urgent need for a whole-of-government effort to build resilience and improve protection of the UK’s critical national infrastructure. New Reserve Forces are needed to provide this protection.
The UK is far from immune to the hybrid threats experienced by Russia’s neighbours in the European Arctic. The protection of our critical national infrastructure is a pressing concern that requires our immediate attention. Reserve Forces, with their unique skills and expertise, are essential in addressing this challenge. I call on the Government, through the SDR, to prioritise the development and support of our Reserve Forces and recognise the vital role they play in defending our nation’s interests.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, as a member of the committee, I had the privilege of visiting the Arctic as part of our inquiry. I will confine my contribution to the issues we identified and received evidence on in relation to the indigenous communities of the Arctic.
More than 40 indigenous communities are spread across all eight Arctic states, speaking many different languages, and their status varies considerably. For example, the Samis in the Nordic countries enjoy a similar health and economic status to the general population, whereas the Inuits in Canada, Greenland and Alaska experience limited access to healthcare, high unemployment and poor housing.
The committee heard very troubling evidence about how Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has severely compromised the rights of the Sami and other indigenous groups to cross-border co-operation and contacts. The Russian Samis are closely controlled by the Russian Government and are reported to have been effectively coerced into declaring their support for the invasion of Ukraine. One witness told us that they were terrified that if there were a conflict between Russia and NATO, the Sami would have to fight each other.
From indigenous groups outside Russia, we heard of concerns that their interests are being overlooked when it comes to defence and security, economic development, and climate change. The good news is that the strongest guarantee that their voices will be heard is the structure of the Arctic Council, which includes the permanent representation of six participants from indigenous groups. This is an innovative, inclusive model, which has found a pragmatic way of continuing its work and dialogue, despite the formal suspension of Russia at ministerial level since the invasion of Ukraine. Every effort should be made, including by the UK as an observer state, to make sure it does continue.
Nevertheless, one of our recommendations was that the UK should prepare for the possibility that the Arctic Council may cease to function or diminish in importance, and that if a new governance structure were to emerge, we should advocate for indigenous representation that is at least equivalent to the status currently held. HMG’s official response to that recommendation was only partially to agree, though I am not sure it was clear which part was not agreed, so I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification on this point, including whether the current Government are still committed to funding UK-based research to strengthen engagement with the Arctic Council’s working groups. Specifically, can the Minister update the House on the support we are providing for a UK and indigenous initiative on scientific research, modelled on the Canada-Inuit programme, for the study and protection of Arctic indigenous languages, and for social science research to improve our understanding of the impact that climate, development and geopolitical changes are having on indigenous people?
I want briefly to mention two other issues. First, there is a fear that further militarisation of the region, as a result of geopolitical tensions and the enlargement of NATO, could have an adverse impact on indigenous ways of life and security—for example, through forced displacement to make way for new military bases, or from the damaging effects of leaked radioactive material. Can the Minister say whether, and if so how, these concerns are being taken into account by HMG and NATO? Given that security and military issues are excluded from the remit of the Arctic Council, the UK’s influence could be significant in this regard.
Secondly, there is widespread concern that while global warming is damaging traditional lifestyles by reducing the amount of grazing land for reindeer herds, economic investment in Sami lands—including so-called “green investment” to support the transition to a low-carbon economy—is being conducted without sufficient consultation with indigenous groups. Indeed, the green transition has been called the “green colonisation”.
We heard of plans to develop a large onshore windfarm near traditional reindeer lands, which the Norwegian Supreme Court ruled would violate the human rights of the Sami people but on which the Norwegian Government have not yet taken any remedial action. Another conflict of interest is over the development of deep sea mining by Norway of rare and battery minerals, which some indigenous groups believe will harm or diminish their access to fish, depriving them of both economic activity and a food source. Could the Minister update the House on the agreement between the UK and Norway on the development of a green industrial partnership, which was referred to in the then Government’s response to this report, and say how it will reconcile these apparently conflicting interests and what its priorities will be?
We recommended that HMG should promote a sustainable approach to UK investment in the Arctic, including by directing potential investors to the Ruggie principles and the Arctic investment protocol. Could the Minister also confirm that the current Government stand by the response to this recommendation on the importance of justice and remedy for victims of business-related human rights abuses, and of businesses conducting due diligence with respect to human rights?
I end by quoting one of the Greenlandic Inuit parliamentarians we met, who said quite simply that there should be
“nothing about us without us”.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this excellent and timely report. It confirms an urgent reality: the Arctic is no longer a frozen wilderness; it is the new frontier where climate change meets great power competition. Melting ice is reshaping trade routes, exposing vast reserves of oil, gas and rare earth metals essential to modern industry.
According to scientists, in 1987, planet earth experienced a global climate shift of unprecedented scale—a major step change or regime shift in earth’s biophysical systems, from the upper atmosphere to the depths of the ocean and from the Arctic to Antarctica. That very year, and with this unbeknown to him, Mikhail Gorbachev, speaking in Murmansk, envisioned the Arctic as a
“zone of peace and co-operation”.
Yet, under Vladimir Putin, the Arctic has become central to Russia’s quest to reclaim superpower status.
Today, Russia dominates the region, with its fleet of icebreakers, military bases and infrastructure along the Northern Sea Route. This route is not only economically vital to Moscow but geopolitically significant, enabling the rapid movement of its naval fleets and offering a platform for cyberattacks, disinformation and sabotage. We were recently made aware and reminded of Russian efforts and continuous attempts to sow discord across Europe, which is a stark warning of the risks posed by Russia’s Arctic pre-eminence.
Equally concerning is China’s growing interest in the Arctic. Although over 800 nautical miles from the Arctic Circle, Beijing now calls itself a “near-Arctic state”. By this logic, half of Europe, including the United Kingdom, could claim the same title, but China is far more than a passive observer. Between January 2022 and June 2023, 234 Chinese-owned firms registered in the Russian-controlled Arctic. China has built docks, railway lines and infrastructure in key Arctic ports, working hand in hand with Russia to consolidate control over energy supplies and resources. This partnership underscores the deepening Sino-Russian alignment in the Arctic—a development that we cannot ignore.
I will not comment on the US President-elect’s aspirations when it comes to Canada or Greenland, but we can be grateful that what Mr Trump is saying is not being uttered by Mr Putin, as I imagine there would be much chatter about Article 5 today. The strategic significance of the Arctic is clear; our collective response ought to be too. Although the UK is geographically distant, it is strategically intertwined with the High North. Securing NATO’s northern flank, ensuring freedom of navigation and maintaining vital energy imports from Norway all depend on our active engagement in this region.
I therefore welcome the report’s recommendations, in particular on partnering with businesses managing critical infrastructure, such as subsea cables and pipelines, to protect against emerging threats; on preventing unregulated fishing and supporting the creation of marine protected areas; and on its call to appoint an Arctic envoy or ambassador, and strengthen co-operation with other observer states on the Arctic Council while respecting the leadership of Arctic nations. The rules-based international order must shape the future of the Arctic, and I also welcome calls for a new international polar code to establish clear guidelines.
I also note the recommendation to engage with China on scientific research and climate change. Although it is important to engage with China on these issues, we must approach this cautiously, with a clear-eyed understanding of the challenges posed by the evolving partnership between Russia and China.
Part of this is a matter of our military capability. While our Armed Forces are not short of tasks, they are short of capability. They rely on a single polar-capable vessel, HMS “Protector”, which is regularly deployed between the Arctic and the Antarctic and has faced technical challenges. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, will be aware of this, and I hope the Minister agrees that we must make sure that his recommendations, made in the SDR, are not constrained by defence spending commitments or the lack of them. Defence spending is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Without investment, in this case in polar assets, we cannot safeguard our interests or support our allies.
As we rightly focus on the Arctic, we must do everything to strengthen existing transit routes, ensuring their stability and security, as the best way of improving the stability and security of global shipping. It is astonishing that a non-state terrorist group can disrupt global shipping in the Red Sea, and the same can be said about piracy off the Horn of Africa and in the Strait of Malacca. Moreover, closer to home, shifting global shipping from the Suez Canal to the Northern Sea Route would carry serious geopolitical risks. Increased reliance on this route could deepen Europe’s dependence on Russia, in the same way that gas dependence has, limiting our collective ability to counter Moscow’s choices.
The Arctic is not someone else’s problem; it is ours too. Climate change, great power competition and emerging threats in this region will define global security in the years to come. The United Kingdom must remain not only present but relevant, to safeguard NATO’s northern flank and to protect our own national security. This demands proactive engagement, investment in polar capabilities and support for our allies.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, this is the second time in recent years that this House has reported on and debated Britain’s overall Arctic policy, this second debate having been excellently introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde. That is to this House’s credit, because that dimension of our external policies, often overlooked, presents plenty of challenges, and even threats. The comparison between the reports produced demonstrates how quickly those challenges are changing, while some, such as those from the climate, have become more intense. Britain may not be an Arctic state itself but it is a close neighbour to the Arctic, and a friend and ally in NATO of several states which are, and an adversary to one, Russia, which is waging an illegal war of aggression in Europe against Ukraine. The scale of these changes is not altogether surprising. However, it requires policy responses from us, not just words.
What has not changed is the rapid melting of the Greenland ice cap and the other Arctic ice caps in Russia, Finland, Norway, Canada and the US, and the consequent rise worldwide of sea levels. This demonstrates beyond peradventure that global climate change policies are not yet sufficient, all the more so as the Arctic ice melt is occurring more rapidly than elsewhere for a number of technical and scientifically demonstrated reasons.
It is all the more shocking, therefore, that in 10 days’ time the incoming President of the US may decide to withdraw again from global efforts to brake and reverse climate change. What will our response be to that? Is the incoming President aware of our regret at any such move if it were to be made? Surely we will not be tempted to throw in the towel and simply accept that the sea rise, which will damage not only us but many developing countries around the world, should continue unchecked.
A second development, which has not changed, is the enlargement of the high seas areas in the Arctic potentially now available to fishing and the depletion of already threatened fish stocks, on which most countries, including ourselves, are for good and justified reasons supporting a moratorium, although we are no longer a legal part of it. If there is to be fishing in the future in these waters, it must surely be effectively regulated internationally and enforced. What is our policy in that respect?
When we first debated the Arctic, the opening up of the northern trade route from the Far East to Europe and elsewhere was more a matter of speculation than reality. We were inclined to treat that, and the competitive threats to routes using the Suez Canal, with what has turned out to be an excessive degree of complacency. The illegal actions of the Houthis in Yemen and the consequent damage to the Suez Canal route mean that such complacency can no longer be sustained or defended—the northern route, one should add, being vulnerable to Russian interference, perhaps supported by China. What is the Government’s medium and long-term response beyond the so far relatively unavailing action against Houthi attacks? This is a major threat to freedom of navigation under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which affects all nations.
The biggest change since the report by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, arises in the field of security and defence, which the scope of the Arctic Council does not cover—a council that in any case is in suspension since Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. What is the UK and the NATO response to that sharply increased threat? Will this aspect be fully covered in the strategic defence review of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, due to be presented in a few months’ time?
In the report by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the case was made for the appointment of a UK special representative for the Arctic. That proposal has received considerable further support during this debate. The case was summarily rejected by the then Government, but, as has been seen, much has changed since then, in particular the threat in the Arctic from defence and security issues and the multipolar nature of the challenges facing us in the Arctic—quite different from the essential and valuable work being done in the Antarctic by the FCDO’s polar regions unit. I welcome the present report’s reiteration of the need for strengthened UK diplomatic input in the Arctic. Is it not now time to look again at the case for a UK special representative for the Arctic, perhaps in the light of the increased prominence there of security issues? Such a post could be based jointly in the Ministry of Defence and the FCDO. Can the Minister respond to that suggestion when he replies to this debate?
Finally, a word about the sovereignty of Greenland. It is surely the height of irresponsibility to have raised that issue again, one which belongs more to the 19th century than the 21st century. In this way it has complicated and distorted the work that needs to be done to face the global challenges that are posed for us and others in the Arctic and which we need to face up to. I hope we will have nothing to do with the raising of that issue in recent days.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I have a personal reason for engaging in this debate. When I was a Member of the other place, it was my constituent, Commander Eddie Grenfell, who served on the Arctic convoys, who led the campaign for the Arctic Star, which he then received in 2013. Some 20,000 veterans have now received the Arctic Star, and that campaign was a reminder of the heroism of our Armed Forces in those treacherous waters.
My second reason for intervening in this debate involves wearing my hat as chair of the UK Space Agency. I hope to persuade noble Lords that space is a crucial domain for thinking about defence and security. The Arctic theatre is a vivid example of that, as I will briefly explain.
Traditionally, satellites were great big objects, 30,000 kilometres away, in geostationary orbit, always looking at the same part of the globe, with very little coverage of the polar regions because they were receding from view—but that did not matter because not much was happening there. Now we are moving to low-earth orbit constellations of much smaller satellites, a few hundred kilometres up, most of them in a polar orbit, with the earth revolving underneath them. That means that the data they collect and transmit is collected most efficiently in the Arctic regions. That is where the density of satellite coverage for LEO constellations is greatest. That is why Svalbard is now one of the most active centres for the collection of satellite data anywhere in the world and an intense scene of strategic competition. Those satellites collect earth observation data. They are also probably the best single fallback we have if we lose the cable transmission of data.
As well as the change in the orbits of satellites, we have as a result a change in launch. Historically, to get great big satellites into orbit, you had a launch site near the equator and used the power of the earth’s rotation to push them up into high orbit. Now, when you want to get small satellites into polar orbit, it is very sensible to launch northwards close to the pole, so the new competition is who is going to win the strategically significant northern launch sites.
It so happens that we have at SaxaVord one of the best candidates for a strategic polar space launch capability. It is currently the only UK CAA licensed spaceport. It is at 60 degrees latitude. The RAF, having closed its defence radar systems there about 15 years ago, is reopening them because it is a great location for a ground station. We expect the first space launch from SaxaVord to happen this year.
Of course, there are other opportunities. We are in competition with Norway and Sweden, but thanks to the legislative process in which this place played a significant role, we are ahead of them in the legislative framework. The US has Alaska. However, its sites in Alaska are very hard to reach, whereas at SaxaVord we can use the infrastructure created around North Sea oil installations. Also, the Americans are very worried that their Alaskan sites are too close to Russia. It is therefore true to say that the US DOD is far more interested in SaxaVord and UK space launch capabilities than the UK MoD, which I greatly regret.
The challenge now is to ensure that as the space domain becomes so significant in the Arctic region, Britain plays its part. I therefore have three requests for the Minister. I welcome his presence in the Chamber. First, it was excellent that last October the Defence Secretary signed up to the NATO initiative STARLIFT, which is about boosting space launch capabilities. It is undoubtedly thinking about polar launch. Will the Minister commit that the British Government will play an active role in promoting STARLIFT and will consider SaxaVord as a UK contribution to this NATO effort? Secondly, regrettably, the UK Government did not sign up to Northlink at the same NATO ministerial summit. It is a NATO system providing satellite communications in the Arctic. Is this something that the Government will reconsider? Thirdly and finally, overall, will the Government recognise SaxaVord as a UK strategic asset and consider space and the space domain as part of their future planning on defence and international strategic issues?
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to debate this excellent report regarding the UK’s strategy towards the Arctic. I share the view that this has been a somewhat neglected area and is now of increasing strategic importance, as the report clearly lays out. Obviously, the report was completed and published under the previous Government and was not intended to inform the current ongoing strategic defence review. However, it is more in the context of that review that I want to offer some observations, and I do so because since the publication of this report the strategic context has moved on.
Regardless of the specifics of how the situation in Ukraine is resolved, my view is that the position of Russia looks weaker. It is facing the reality of its own military limitations. By contrast, the relative strengths of European NATO are becoming more apparent, particularly given the additional membership of Finland and Sweden and the upward trend in defence spending of many NATO countries. Moreover, the advent of a Trump presidency looks set—I would say, wholly justifiably—to coerce all of NATO in Europe, including the UK, into assuming an ever greater responsibility for its own security. I am not suggesting that the threat from Russia has gone away. I am suggesting that it is now increasingly likely to manifest itself as malevolent activity below the threshold of formalised warfare, the human and material costs of which are huge.
In this changing context, there may be considerable good sense in the UK reimagining its commitment within NATO, and doing so in ways that play to our natural military strengths and permit the necessary enhancements to national resilience, doing so in a manner that might just be affordable within a defence budget of 3% of GDP.
The SDR will undoubtedly confirm that some of our defence expenditure is non-discretionary: most obviously, the deterrent. We must also now recognise our vulnerability to the threat of ballistic missiles, a threat to which events in both Israel and Ukraine have now sensitised public awareness. We obviously need to invest in those areas which give us a technological edge, especially where automation and autonomy relieve the pressure on physical numbers. But, more fundamentally, a strategic choice needs to be made in respect of where, within a newly configured and energised NATO, we should develop and focus the more conventional elements of our force structure. In deciding this, we need to better evaluate the balance between conventional deterrence and the active interdiction of sub-threshold threats. We need to do this in a way that is orchestrated on a NATO-wide basis.
To me, although it pains an infantryman to say it, logic and geography suggest that we should consider focusing on a leadership role in the maritime and air domains of NATO’s northern flank—a flank which should be envisaged as including the Baltic, High North, Arctic and north Atlantic. We should adopt an operational posture that is a combination of conventional deterrence and the active interdiction of sub-threshold—particularly subsea and airborne—threats. We should build on the innate dependencies and mutual trust born of our leadership of the Joint Expeditionary Force, which now needs to be renamed, and we should build on this in respect of capability development and procurement.
Because cost pressures will dictate, we should probably worry much less about mustering a significant high-readiness land commitment to central Europe, a contingency which, in societal terms, we seem, on a national basis, either disinclined to or incapable of embracing, and for which many continental partners display far greater national urgency due to geographic realities. This does not mean that we do not need an Army: far from it. The combination of national resilience, national regeneration and constitution, and what I would call focused lethality, which I use as a term for a more technically enhanced set of specialised forces, will more than justify a significant force structure.
But I simply cannot see how, in the changing strategic environment and with the cost pressures that seem set to remain, we can continue to delude ourselves that we are much more than a regional power, albeit one that more than delivers its fair share of regional security, particularly when the nuclear deterrent is costed in. I appreciate that these remarks fall well outside a more disciplined commentary on our strategy towards the Arctic but, to me, the true excellence of the report lay less in what it specifically said and much more in what it teasingly forebode; namely, that the security dynamics of the Arctic and northern Europe are now more interconnected and that the Arctic itself is potentially far more contested. The report offers the strategic defence review much food for thought regarding our national strategic options.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, I was privileged to be a member of the committee under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde. The debate on this report has provided a forum for exposing a great deal of expertise already in the House. The report itself illustrates the dynamic nature of changes in the Arctic and the importance to our interests, including security, environment and energy supply. It asks key questions about our geopolitical priorities. It is called Our Friends in the North but obviously touches on those who are not our friends, including Russia and China in particular. I hope the report will be the basis for continued serious debate about the Arctic and our role in it—particularly, of course, a key role for our friends in Norway.
I begin with the usual complaint about the delays in bringing this report to the House for debate. The inquiry was launched in March 2023, the report was published in November that year and the Government response was a year ago, in January 2024. Surely, procedurally, we can do better as a House. It is fair to say that there have been no dramatic changes in the context since the report was published, but there has been an intensification of trends, including, for example, the effect of sanctions on Russian activities. I think particularly of the abandonment—or at least mothballing—by Russia of that LNG facility in Murmansk, and the effect on the supply of spare parts for ships to Novatek and the Russian commercial fleet.
The old assumptions about the Arctic being an area of low tension and high co-operation have been undermined, perhaps most dramatically in the role of the Arctic Council. It is right that the ministerial meetings following the Ukraine invasion have been stilled, but I fear that Russia will increasingly try to use the wedge of expert co-operation to normalise relations with the Arctic Council, and we must be very wary of that. How do the Government see the future of the Arctic Council today?
Obviously, climate change is fundamental to changes in the area, including the development of the Northern Sea Route. For example, there will be a reduction of almost two weeks in the journey from Tokyo to Hamburg, and potential effects on the Suez Canal. There will be many advantages for Russia from the opening of the Northern Sea Route—pilotage and so on. Tensions between Russia and the West are unlikely to ease.
The committee stressed the relevance of China, which is a provider of money for development. For example, we know that President Xi visited Moscow in March last year and promoted co-operation. In April, in Murmansk, China and Russia agreed on what is euphemistically called “maritime law enforcement”—whatever that may mean. We can surely confidently say that, if the report were written today, there would be much greater emphasis on threats to critical national infrastructure and the grey zone, including GPS jamming, military exercises, cyberattacks and information warfare.
Most salient now is maritime sabotage. For example, we know that in November a Chinese vessel was stopped because of alleged damage to Swedish interests, and there was a very tepid response at the time. By contrast, when a Russian vessel was stopped on Christmas Day by Finland and spy matériel was found on it, there was a far more robust response by Finland—the vessel was impounded. Let us hope that is a precedent. I hope the Government will applaud the robust response of Finland and, if there is appropriate evidence, use that and say it should be a precedent. Although the time has been short, it would be interesting to know what stage the Finnish investigation is at.
There are strong geopolitical implications of the Arctic changes. Of course, every case cannot be a priority, but surely recent events have exposed our vulnerability—ballistic missile defence, for example—and the critical importance of the Arctic to the UK and what the report calls “Our friends in the North”. Perhaps we should reconsider whether the tilt to the Indo-Pacific is still as justified. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, mentioned, our good colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, was a member of the committee and concurred with its recommendations. I assume that his membership will colour some of the recommendations that he will make in his review.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Ashton of Hyde for his excellent introduction and chairmanship of the International Relations and Defence Committee. Unfortunately, I was not a member of the committee for this important inquiry as I joined just after it had been completed, but I welcome it and hope that the report’s findings will be taken note of.
Many noble Lords have already noted, as the report does, that parts of Scotland are closer to the Arctic Circle than to London. I hope to be on my way to the frozen north in Scotland, if your Lordships keep to time, on the last flight. I am keeping my hopes high. The High North is witnessing a change in its security environment for political, economic and environmental reasons, and thus represents a key area of interest for the UK. Former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said:
“The UK is the closest neighbour to the Arctic states. In addition to preserving UK interests we have a responsibility to support our Arctic allies … to preserve the security and stability of the region”.
Without territorial possessions in the region, the UK’s support will always be primarily focused on the naval aspect of the Arctic, as it is inherently a maritime domain. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, for his work on securing the Arctic Star. My uncle was killed in the Arctic convoys, and it was one of the great pleasures of his younger brother, my father, to receive the Arctic Star medal—so I thank him for highlighting that.
It is inherently an incredibly hard and difficult maritime domain. Our Royal Navy has led multinational task groups of warships and aircraft into the High North to demonstrate freedom of navigation above the Arctic Circle, to further develop joint working and to assert our joint commitment to upholding peace in the region. But this report highlights long-standing concerns as to whether there are sufficient resources to meet aspirations for a meaningful security presence in the High North. I am sure the Minister will point to the essential role of our Astute class submarines and to Camp Viking, which has been mentioned, but the Royal Navy has only one ice-capable patrol ship.
Whether military or commercial, maritime activity in the Arctic is growing significantly, increasing the risk of accidents, conflicts and pollution. Logistics are a frequently neglected aspect of strategic operational activity—but are not being neglected by China and Russia, as my noble friend Lady Helic has just highlighted. Logistics have to be prioritised in the Arctic. Whether dealing with extreme cold weather or terrain, the environmental effects on personnel, equipment and supplies force new solutions to be found to extend operational reach and enable freedom of action. Cold weather injuries, resupply operations, equipment capability shortfalls and maintenance must all be taken into account when planning logistics operations in the Arctic. Our US allies have realised this and are actively training and working on solutions.
In 2022, RFA “Tidesurge” joined NATO’s Exercise Cold Response, providing important logistical and refuelling support, highlighting the vital role of support ships and their well-trained crew in the region. Yet decreasing ship numbers in the Royal Navy have meant that the RFA fleet has been filling in capability gaps, even though the RFA itself has seen a drastic reduction in ship numbers—around 50% since 2003.
The RFA is losing crews, either to the Merchant Navy or to those leaving seafaring professions altogether. In addition, the number of recruits is down as many opt for other careers or shipping lines. Deployments have become longer, with the number of ships laid up due to a lack of crews also increasing.
The RFA is in crisis. Its vital role in logistics and supply is in danger of being forgotten by both the public and our politicians. Ongoing industrial action has already affected operational capability, and I was relieved to see that the RFA voted only yesterday to end its current pay dispute. However, the fleet remains at a low ebb. While the current settlement may be enough to stop those currently serving leaving prematurely, it may not be enough to persuade significant numbers to choose to join the RFA instead of taking commercial jobs. Recruitment is difficult, as there is a global shortage of mariners and young people wanting to start careers at sea. In a Written Answer to me in November, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to the Royal Navy’s RFA35 programme to determine the long-term future of the RFA, defining its purpose, size, function and optimal crewing model to meet future requirements. I have yet to find any further information on the progress of the RFA35. Can the Minister update the House?
I urge the Government to ensure that the essential and increasing role played by the RFA in national defence, not only in the Arctic but across the world’s seas, is recognised and supported. The UK cannot claim to be a leading maritime nation and capitalise on the opportunity to play an influential convening and leadership role in the Arctic, particularly in Arctic security, as this report recommends, without strong logistical support. As this excellent report outlines, developments in the Arctic are of critical importance to the UK’s security, environment and energy, but without a functioning RFA, large-scale operations will simply struggle to maintain momentum over extended periods.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, a fellow Glaswegian and therefore inured to Arctic weather, and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, on this admirable report and his splendid introduction of it. I have only two criticisms of his report, and one of them is totally unfair, so I will start with the other one.
The report says that we have
“insufficient key military assets, such as submarines, maritime patrol or airborne early warning aircraft, to support this increased focus on the Arctic”—
which we should have—
“alongside the UK’s growing interest in other regions such as the Indo-Pacific”.
That is obviously true, but it is also a huge understatement. It is not just the posturing about the Pacific that creates the credibility gap. I believe that, as with the Joint Expeditionary Force, on which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, spoke, which we are supposed to lead but our role is disappointing our partners, we lack the deployable assets to play the part we should be playing, and NATO expects us to play, in the High North. We still talk a good game, but our firepower does not match the rhetoric. In this, as in so many other ways, we need to learn from our front-line friends, the Finns, with their 1 million trained reserves and their society alive to the threat that Putin poses.
The unfair criticism of the report is that it nowhere discusses the largest immediate risk to the High North remaining an area of international co-operation and low tension, the risk to which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, drew attention, which is that America grabs Greenland. The report’s authors might reasonably reply that when they completed the report, 13 months ago, no one saw Trump back in the White House, but, in 11 days’ time, he will be back, and he has this week refused to rule out taking Greenland by force. He said on Monday that if the Danes declined to let him buy it, he would put punitive tariffs on their trade. On Tuesday, he explained that the US needs Greenland for its national security and said:
“People really don’t even know if Denmark has any legal right to it”.
This last point is one known in diplomatic terminology—I apologise for using a technical term—as cobblers. Danish sovereignty over Greenland has been unchallenged since the Treaty of Kiel 1814 and was formally accepted and acknowledged by the United States and the United Kingdom in 1916.
However, I do not think Mr Trump is joking. He has form. He has to be taken seriously and, in this case, probably literally. Five years ago, he ordered the National Security Council under John Bolton to arrange the purchase of Greenland. Fiona Hill, who is now assisting the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, in his review, was personally involved in discussions with the Danish Government, who demurred. When the row went public in August 2019, Secretary of State Pompeo was able to calm things down, but the President was so cross, he cancelled a state visit to Copenhagen. I suspect that he has learned nothing and forgotten nothing. This time, he will not have Fiona Hill or Mike Pompeo to rein him in.
Whatever his motive, I think Mr Trump is not talking about military issues when he says that the US needs to have Greenland for national security; I think he is thinking in commercial or economic terms. If he was interested in making greater military use of Greenland, he could renegotiate the 1951 defence agreement, which is already strikingly permissive. The United States pays no rent and does not have to seek permission for any overflights or landings. I suspect that what he is after are the rare earths and the uranium, or the oil and gas, which are all now becoming much easier to exploit as the ice melts. I suspect that he is thinking also about China. China already has the biggest outside investment in Greenland, and Greenland exports more to China than to anyone else other than mainland Denmark. The noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, rightly drew our attention to growing Chinese interest in the High North. Whatever his motive, I agree with President Macron, Chancellor Scholz and President Tusk that the forced transfer of sovereignty is no way to treat an ally. Like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I hope that our Government will find a way of making the same point that they have made. We owe it to the Danes to show them that we stand with them. On 18 October, a UK Minister, Mr Doughty, told the Arctic Circle Assembly that the UK
“will not tolerate attempts to wreck regional stability”
in the High North. He probably had Russia in mind, but sauce for the goose.
NATO Secretary-General Rutte has a big job on his hands in the next four years, with a dominant ally likely to interpret the concept of alliance rather eccentrically. Fortunately, we have an ex-Secretary-General, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, calling on the help of Fiona Hill, with her close-up experience of eccentricity, to advise us now on how we should best cope with it and its consequences as we reassess our priorities. I hope we build our shrunken forces.
Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)
My Lords, I feel honoured and privileged to sit on the International Relations and Defence Committee. I am privileged to have sat under the enlightened and skilful chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Ashton of Hyde, from whom I have learned a great deal. It is now a pleasure to sit under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord De Mauley. I join in acknowledging the exceptional work of the committee’s staff, who are brilliant, patient and a genuine pleasure to work with.
Having said all that, my noble friend and others have shot all my foxes, so I will make only a few points. Before I do, let me say how much I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, about the RFA, and with my noble friend Lord Willets about the importance of the space agency.
I will put into context again the matter already expressed by my noble friends and many others: that parts of Scotland are closer to the Arctic than they are to London. Therefore, this is a region in which we must of necessity take a profound and carefully worked through interest, since as my noble friend said, developments in the region have a significant impact on our national, environmental and energy security, and have very serious implications for our foreign and defence policy.
We argued in the report that it was highly unlikely that the United Kingdom’s long-term goal to return the Arctic to a state of low tension was achievable. We concluded that the United Kingdom policy had to reflect the new reality that the region was becoming an area of competition and potential confrontation. Indeed, we were being pretty restrained in what we said. I believe that it is likely that the Arctic is going to become a fulcrum of increasing contention, especially in the grey zone of operations.
The fact remains that Russia already exercises a significant, malign and growing threat, including GPS jamming, military exercises which simulate attacks on its neighbours, maritime sabotage, cyberattacks and information warfare. In the report, we call for the United Kingdom Government and their allies to prepare, with urgency, contingency plans to detect, deter and respond—and let me say how strongly I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard.
Because of the nature of the theatre, we assess that close co-operation between the state and the private sector, which already operates most of the subsea cables and pipelines, is key, and that the Government need to establish partnerships with businesses to combat threats to critical infrastructure—I know my noble friend Lord De Mauley made this plain in his speech. Frankly, we need to do much the same at home.
In contemplating these threats, we were concerned that in this theatre, as in all the others in which we have an interest, our country has insufficient key military assets, including submarines and maritime patrol or airborne early-warning aircraft to support the new realities of the Arctic. Of the first importance would be that we should continue to train sufficiently and regularly with our NATO and magnificent Nordic allies, an operation now made less easy by the ill-advised removal of the two commando carriers from service.
My noble friend has dealt thoroughly with the problem of China’s activities in the Arctic. I would emphasise that these are increasing, but they are only possible thanks to Russia’s facilitation. Indeed, a commercially viable shipping route along Russia’s Arctic coast could soon become a reality, which would be economically beneficial for both Moscow and Beijing. Beijing will clearly seek to ensure that the northern sea route remains free of western interference through its co-operation with Russia.
I think that two developments are possible. If tensions between Russia and the West remain high, due in particular to the ongoing war in Ukraine, it is likely in my judgment that Russia’s joint ventures with China in the Artic, by China, will expand dramatically. If the Trump Administration encourage Ukraine to cede land to Russia and continue to interfere with Greenland, as they say they are going to, and return confiscated Russian assets, then perhaps American and European companies would begin to engage with Russian Arctic projects again, although this of course will take time.
In conclusion, as the report spells out very well, the Arctic holds the most extraordinary abundance of natural resources, including oil, gas, minerals and fish, with its untapped oil and gas reserves estimated to comprise about 25% of the world’s undiscovered resources. The British Government need to maintain the highest degree of alertness possible as these developments play out. It is likely we will see this pristine wilderness turn into something quite different.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, given that this magisterial report includes recommendations on shipping and search and rescue services, I declare my interest as chair of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, along with a personal interest over many years in the Arctic. I do not know whether other Members of your Lordships’ House here today have, like me, had the opportunity to visit the North Pole on an icebreaker or to sail in the Barents Sea into Svalbard.
However, anybody who cares about the Arctic—and that is everybody here today—knows that, although it is only 3% of the planet’s ocean surface, it exercises an outsized impact on climate security. This includes the ice cap reflecting heat and the unique hydrography of the Arctic, where we find warmer water beneath a surface layer of colder water that then interacts with the Atlantic in the Denmark overflow. This has as yet not completely understood impacts on the currents that transit, including producing shifts of excess heat from the equatorial regions to the polar regions with impacts on our own climate.
It is, therefore, incredibly disturbing to learn in a paper published in Nature Communications last month that it is now modelled that there is at least a distinct possibility that we may see the first largely ice-free day in the Arctic summer by the end of this decade, not by 2050 as we had complacently previously told ourselves. It would therefore be not only ironic but potentially tragic if the very fact of the melting of the ice means that we as humanity collectively use that as an opportunity to exploit more hydrocarbons and accelerate this cycle in the Arctic.
Given that four fifths of the unexploited hydrocarbons in the Arctic lie within individual countries’ exclusive economic zones, we must clearly have the humility to recognise that they have the right to exploit those hydrocarbons if they so choose. My first question to the Minister is: given that this report is titled Our Friends in the North, many of these countries that might so do are our friends, so what action can the UK Government take to try and persuade others not to take the apparently easy option of exploiting these hydrocarbons in a way that will be further detrimental to the planet?
Relatedly, it is worth drawing attention to one of the other recommendations of the report, at paragraph 244, which notes that there is still the opportunity to prevent further exploitation of the seabed in the central Arctic outside of the EEZs and potentially the continental shelf claims that have been lodged by a number of Arctic nations. One way in which the UK can play our part there is to get on and ratify the so-called BBNJ treaty, the Agreement on Marine Biodiversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction. Can the Minister tell us today, at the prompting of this report, when Parliament will see a Bill that will enable the ratification of that important agreement?
At paragraph 290, the report says that the UK should continue to
“work with its partners to uphold the rules and obligations set out in UNCLOS”.
That is clearly right. Can the Minister also use this opportunity to put on record the UK’s repudiation of Russia’s distorted interpretation of international maritime law as it applies in the Arctic? In particular, can he confirm that the northern sea route is not covered by a “legal regime of inland seawaters”, as claimed by the 2022 Russian maritime doctrine? Instead, will the Minister confirm that these seas are subject to freedom of navigation and the same right of innocent passage that Russian vessels and warships use when they transit the English Channel and UK territorial waters? Will he also confirm that nor is Russia entitled to misapply Article 234 of UNCLOS, the so-called “ice clause”, to apply discriminatory requirements on foreign-flagged vessels such as tolls, prior permission requirements and the mandatory use of the Rosatom icebreaker fleet?
We might argue that these do not matter for the time being, certainly for merchant shipping, but they will over time. As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, strategically it is obvious that Russia cannot be allowed to assert control over the Arctic and the sea lines of communication, including the approaches to the Bering Sea, the Barents Sea and other sensitive areas, such as the Kara Strait, the Laptev Strait and the Sannikov Strait.
For all those reasons and the points that were made, but which I will not repeat, by a number of distinguished noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Stirrup and Lord Houghton, and others, it is quite obvious that the UK, through the SDR, will have to step up its capabilities in the High North. Like several other noble Lords, I have had the opportunity to spend time with the Royal Marines in Bardufoss at Camp Viking. As has been described, they were highly impressive, but nevertheless, without going into detail publicly, there are obviously some equipment and capability gaps that the SDR would be wise to address. On that basis, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, for the magisterial introduction he gave to this excellent report, the conclusions of which I fully concur with.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in this debate and a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Ashton of Hyde and the International Relations and Defence Committee on their fascinating report on the UK’s strategy towards the Arctic. I congratulate my noble friend on his excellent introductory speech.
I admit that I was not very well informed on this matter before I read the report, and I found it very illuminating. I have always had a fascination with the Arctic because, when I first lived in Japan in the 1980s, we flew over it and refuelled at Anchorage. From the mid-1990s we would fly over Russia, but in recent years we have reverted to flying over the North Pole.
It is always a little surprising to see just how close eastern Siberia is to Alaska. We are so used to looking at a Mercator projection view of the planet, but a globe gives a much better perspective of proximity and shows the significance of the Arctic. It also shows that, of the eight members of the Arctic Council, Russia possesses almost half of the shoreline of the Arctic Ocean. Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has paralysed the work of the Arctic Council. Given the close alliance between Russia and China, the remaining members of the “Arctic seven” are increasingly cautious about Chinese strategic investments in the region.
It may be true that China has, so far, sought to work within the Arctic’s existing governance framework; however, it is clear that China is now intent on challenging the existing world order so that is very likely to change. As the report finds:
“Concerns regarding Chinese strategic investment in the Arctic and its long-term intentions in the region are legitimate”.
It suggests:
“One region where the deepening partnership”
between Russia and China
“may manifest itself is the Arctic”.
This presents a particular problem for India, which continues to sit on the fence. The committee’s witness, Captain Bisen, acknowledged that India has
“an interest in preventing a strong Sino-Russian partnership”.
The report welcomes the FCDO’s decision to resume working group level projects of the Arctic Council, including Russia, whereas it remains committed to excluding Russia from co-operation at a ministerial level. I wonder whether such an ambiguous policy will be viable for long. The report rightly states:
“Russia must not be allowed to take advantage of its participation in working group activities to undermine the steps taken by the UK and others to isolate Russia diplomatically in response to the war in Ukraine”.
I cannot see that there is any possibility of Russia not seeking to take advantage. Does the Minister think that our ambivalent position can be maintained?
The report strikes the right tone in suggesting that
“the UK’s influence in the Arctic depends on strong diplomacy and coalition-building”.
Those with whom we should work in coalition include Japan and South Korea. I am a little puzzled that the report identified a significant difference between the positions of those two countries. I believe that the Japanese general trading companies, to speak only of one sector, are just as interested in the development of Arctic maritime routes as the South Korean private sector. It is essential that Japan and Korea, which face similar security risks in the western Pacific Ocean, should work more closely together in the defence and security sphere and in collaboration with other Arctic observer nations. The United Kingdom, which enjoys closer defence and security relations with both nations, can play a key role here.
The committee’s report identified that the UK, as the nearest neighbour to the Arctic Council states, co-operates actively with them on search and rescue missions in the High North. As noble Lords are aware, the scrapping of the RAF’s Nimrod fleet in 2011 before it was commissioned was a very controversial decision that left the RAF without any maritime reconnaissance capacity for some years, until the commissioning of the Poseidon P8 aircraft based at Lossiemouth. It is no surprise to read that questions are being raised as to whether the current fleet of nine aircraft is enough to meet our commitments, especially given the deteriorating geopolitical situation in the north Atlantic and in the Indo-Pacific region.
Last week, newspaper reports covered recent statements by the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, that defence spending should go up to 3% immediately and that the Government’s current strategy of waiting until after the strategic defence review and then doing it in the June financial statement is ludicrous. The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, have both said that we need to spend 3.5% to maintain our existing military capabilities and commitments to NATO. Does the Minister agree with his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord West, that the Government’s approach to defence spending is ludicrous?
As honorary air commodore of 600 (City of London) Squadron in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, I entirely endorse what my noble friend Lord De Mauley said about the contribution of the Reserve Forces to the resilience of the defence of the United Kingdom. Again, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Ashton and other noble Lords on an excellent report and excellent speeches, but regret that the report is already a year old. Debates on recently published work tend to be livelier and receive more media interest.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, and all the committee on a first class report. This is a very important region, set only to increase in importance given the current geopolitical situation and outlook. As the Minister for the Polar Regions, Stephen Doughty, said in a speech late last year:
“There is no global security without Arctic security”.
As noted in the report, the UK is the closest neighbour to the region, and of the eight Arctic countries, seven are now NATO allies. All can be numbered among the UK’s very closest friends. In fact, with the exception of some Commonwealth countries—other than Canada, which was already included—there are not so many other countries that would be added to that list. The UK shares values and long trading histories with Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland. An important additional tie, as noted by other speakers, is Norway’s key position as leading energy supplier to the UK. Of course, our links with Canada and the USA, while different and more recent, are profoundly strong.
The report is admirable—stellar—in its comprehensiveness. There is so much that is rightly highlighted. I will not go through that, in the interests of brevity, but in the time available I will elaborate on some of the questions raised and pose a few of my own.
My career and background have been in maritime. The report notes that reduced ice coverage and the richness of the region in energy and rare minerals are both likely to lead to an increase in maritime activity and resource extraction. In the meantime, Russia regards the Northern Sea Route as its seaway. As noted by the noble Lord, Lord Soames, it wishes to treat this as a domestic channel, which is a very serious matter for us all. There are numerous challenges to safe navigation, including sea ice, limited availability of meteorological data, of charts and of other navigational aids, and, at times, restricted visibility. It is worth taking a moment to consider the difficulty of locating and assisting casualties, be that ships or aircraft.
Dealing with pollution is also particularly challenging. The ice moves and oil can then shift under the ice, making it very difficult to locate and harder to disperse. With seaborne movements of oil from Alaska, there are arrangements in place to locate specially equipped planes there quickly in the event of an oil spill. The Norwegians also have arrangements in place.
In those latitudes, the distances are sometimes not great. However, in the event of a spill off Russia, in current geopolitical circumstances one has to question the prospects for any immediate co-operation. Without going into specifics, is the Minister satisfied that the UK is adequately supporting capacity for search and rescue, perhaps as well as anti-pollution measures? Will the UK Government support calls for a review of the governing polar code? The report asks more than once whether the UK is devoting adequate resources and training to meet possible future needs, protect UK interests and meet NATO obligations.
A specific point made in the report and highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, is that the UK has one ice class patrol ship. The ship, HMS “Protector”, will be 25 years old this year. In the meantime, she is required to perform duties in both the Arctic and the Antarctic. Early ordering of a second ice class patrol ship would do much to boost operational security and demonstrate UK commitment.
More widely, the Minister will not be surprised if I add my voice to the calls to increase defence expenditure. Very many outside government acknowledge the need for defence expenditure to rise to a minimum level of 3% of GNP at the earliest opportunity. I know it is easy to say it standing in this Chamber, and we all know the pressures on the Government, but with the greatest respect, the defence of the nation and its interests has to be the number one priority of any Government.
The report notes the importance of contributing to the fullest extent possible to discussions with the Arctic states, be that with the seven friendly members of the Arctic Council or through other fora. The report pressed for ministerial as well as cross-government engagement. From what I have gathered, there has been some progress on the cross-government aspect since the report was published, and it is pleasing on one level to see UK ministerial engagement upgraded from a junior Minister in the last Government to Minister of State level in the new Government in the shape of Minister Doughty. However, the Minister’s responsibilities include Europe, including Gibraltar; central Asia; the US and Canada, which are both very demanding briefs at this time; the overseas territories, including the polar regions; NATO and Euro-Atlantic security; sanctions—another big file at this time—and more. The Minister is of course part of a team headed by the Secretary of State and supported by other Ministers but, with the best will in the world, he would appear to have a very heavy workload. Is there a case for the appointment of a junior Minister to support the Minister of State on polar matters?
I have some other questions for the Minister. What level of China-Russia co-operation do the Government expect to see in the region? Can he enlighten us in any way? Are the Government seeking to identify business opportunities for the UK in the Arctic? How committed are the Government to ensuring that we take advantage of business opportunities, and how can the business opportunities be exploited in a responsible manner? Finally on business, what scope is there to enhance government co-operation with business so as to optimise Britain’s efforts, contributions and success in the Arctic? There may be lessons to be learned from Norway, especially in the area of protecting critical infrastructure. What plans are in place to co-ordinate with our allies to combat Russian grey zone activity in the Arctic? Is the Minister able to enlighten us on this?
In conclusion, this is a critical region for Britain and the world. It is an area where, once again, the rules-based order may be expected to come under pressure. Can the Government gear up Britain’s contribution? We are widely viewed as a significant and benign actor in the Arctic; I make a plea that we do not let our position ebb away.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to wind from these Benches in what has been a fascinating debate. I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, for opening the debate in a magnificent way that really drew out so many key issues about the Arctic: the importance of the Arctic for the United Kingdom, for our security and more generally. It is commonplace to say, “This has been an excellent debate”, but this afternoon we have heard not just from people who have worked on the International Relations and Defence Committee on this report but from people with a genuine interest in the Arctic. I suspect few of us can match the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, in having been to the North Pole. If I were in my normal environment of a university classroom, I would be asking people to put their hands up. It is not the custom or practice in your Lordships’ House to do that, but I am not getting a great sense of noble Lords saying, “Yes, I have been to the North Pole”. Like several noble Lords, I have been to Bardufoss, to the cold weather training with the Royal Marines.
I declare my interests as a member of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme and as a trustee of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust, under the auspices of which several noble Lords, and in particular Members of the other place, have had the opportunity of engaging in cold weather training with our colleagues in Norway. The Dutch were there as well. In particular, I am very grateful to the Norwegians because they gave me a pair of army boots that were much more comfortable than the NATO-issue army boots. That really was co-operation in practice in a practical sense.
Clearly, there are very serious issues at stake with the Arctic. I was slightly taken aback by the Library’s opening line in its briefing for today’s debate, which reminds us that there is not really a technical definition of what constitutes the Arctic or what the region is. The Arctic Circle is very clear, but what do we count as Arctic? Clearly, we take eight countries as being Arctic states, and the closest neighbour then, after the seven NATO Arctic countries and Russia, is the United Kingdom. We genuinely have a claim to be a near neighbour—unlike China, whose geographical relationship is rather more distant. Yet in 2017 Russia and China were already talking about a polar silk road. Just days before the Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine in 2022, they carried on discussions of a polar silk road. The Russia-China relationship—in particular relating to the Arctic—has significant ramifications for the region. That includes the United Kingdom.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, reminded us, we might now be a medium-sized state that may have global aspirations, but we are a state that has very long-standing and deep commitments to the North Atlantic area and to the High North. Their security and ours are closely linked, which we discovered, if anyone had forgotten, in the last few days, with former President and President-elect Trump’s view that Greenland is so important. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Teverson and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, for talking at some length about the views of the United States—or at least the views of President-elect Trump, because I doubt that they are the views of the United States. I suspect that there is not, in the rust belt, a sense of people saying: “We’ve got to take Greenland; Greenland is so vital for our security and economic interests”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out, this is not the first time that Donald Trump has talked about wanting to buy Greenland or to have Greenland. Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, it is the height of irresponsibility to raise the status of Greenland. It is very easy to assume—or it was during the last Trump presidency—that this is just being said in jest and that it is not a serious suggestion. But this time around it is very clear that Donald Trump has an interest in Greenland that goes beyond simply his son, Donald Trump Jr, visiting Greenland and putting on social media—on a platform that I shall not name, owned by somebody who does not need any more airtime than he has had in recent times—that “Greenland is beautiful”. For those Members of your Lordships’ House who have not had the opportunity of visiting Greenland, I strongly recommend it. Greenland is indeed beautiful.
Visit Greenland uses as its slogan “Colourful Nuuk”—that is the capital. It has also just been investing in an international airport to make tourism easier. I raise tourism, which has not come up today, because it is one of the aspects of climate change and changes to global interdependence and co-operation that comes to the fore when we think about both the Antarctic and the Arctic. It is not just the freeing up of shipping lanes for commercial trade that has become increasingly important, but a sense among many people that they want to engage in tourism to the South Pole—or, more likely, somewhere in Antarctica—or the Arctic, which is in easier range for many.
For Greenlanders who want to expand their economy in a way that looks sustainable—without getting into the discussion about rare earths—tourism might seem attractive. But the more tourists they attract, the more in danger are the UNESCO sites in Greenland. The reason for visiting Greenland is precisely the beauty that comes from it being part of the frozen Nordic area, but the more visits there are, the faster climate change will be. So it is vital that we think about not just a general discussion of climate change, but local issues for our Nordic partners.
There is a significant question about the sovereignty of Greenland, which needs to be considered. This report, like His Majesty’s Government’s previous strategic defence reviews and policy on the Arctic, thinks about China and Russia as threats. While I am in no way suggesting that the United States is a threat to the United Kingdom or to any of our NATO allies, the suggestion that one sovereign NATO state has an interest in buying part of another NATO state raises some questions about our alliances and how we work with our partners. I join others in asking the Minister whether he, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, will join the voices from France, Germany and the European Union in reminding President Trump that, actually, Greenland is not for sale and that this is not the way we work with our partners in NATO.
Beyond that, there are clearly questions about the UK’s role in the Arctic and our military contributions in particular. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and others about the lack or inadequacy of military capabilities. I am not, on this occasion, talking about the size of the defence budget, but I ask the Minister—if he is actually listening at the moment—whether he feels that the equipment and capabilities that we are currently able to deploy in the Arctic region and in the NATO area are adequate and fit for purpose. Is there a case for talking to the Treasury to stress the need to bring forward major defence procurements, such as an icebreaker or other ships and patrol vehicles that would be of benefit to our security as well as that of the Arctic?
This has been an important debate which has raised many timely questions. While I would normally agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that a debate should take place as soon as possible after a report has been written, on this occasion this debate is timely. It is a perfect opportunity for us to ask His Majesty’s Government whether they will reiterate our commitments to the Arctic and whether their position changes from that of the previous Government in any way.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to participate in today’s debate on this excellent report from the International Relations and Defence Committee. It was ably introduced by the committee chairman, my noble friend Lord Ashton of Hyde—of our very own endangered species, as he reminded us. He was the Chief Whip in the Government in which I served as a Minister; in the tragic event of him becoming extinct, he will be greatly missed in the same way as we miss the sabre-toothed tiger.
As many speakers have observed, we live in an increasingly dangerous world and it is vital that we get this Arctic strategy right, with threats from Russia and China increasing in this and other areas. On these Benches, we take the security of the Arctic region as an utmost priority. That is why the previous Government commissioned an integrated review in 2021. That review recognised that the UK, as many other noble Lords have reminded us, is the nearest neighbour to the Arctic region, and it committed the Government at the time to contribute to maintaining the region as one of high co-operation and low tension. I am not sure we succeeded in that, but the Government stated that they would do this by
“working with our partners to ensure that increasing access to the region and its resources is managed”
as safely as possible. When he summarises the debate, can the Minister update the House on what work the current Government are doing to take forward that work, to ensure that the Arctic’s resources are being safely and responsibly managed?
In addition, in March 2022, the Ministry of Defence published a policy paper titled The UK’s Defence Contribution in the High North, which set out the then Government’s aim to preserve the stability and security of the Arctic region. It set out four key objectives:
“Protect our Critical National Infrastructure and our other national interests, and those of our Allies … Ensure our freedom to navigate and operate across the wider region … Reinforce the rules-based international system, particularly UNCLOS … Contest malign and destabilising behaviours”.
Could the Minister outline whether those objectives are still shared and being prioritised by our new Government? If so, what progress is being made on achieving those goals?
In February 2023, the previous Government published the policy paper Looking North: The UK and the Arctic, which recognised that the Arctic is critical for UK interests, most notably in respect of our future climate and security. The paper maintained the three key principles established in the UK Government’s Arctic policy framework of 2013: respect, co-operation and appropriate leadership.
The 2023 integrated review refresh reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to the priorities set out in Looking North: The UK and the Arctic, while also committing the UK to continue its work in the Arctic with the Arctic Council, the Joint Expeditionary Force and NATO. Could the Minister outline what conversations the Government have had with the Arctic Council, the JEF and NATO on these matters?
The previous Government took active steps to ensure a safer Arctic region, which, of course, benefits the United Kingdom as a whole. Worryingly, we have not heard much yet from the current Government to suggest that the Arctic region is still a priority for them. Since entering office, the current Foreign Secretary has given the Arctic only a brief mention, during his Kew lecture in September last year:
“In the Arctic and Antarctic, global warming is driving geopolitical competition over the resources lying beneath the ice”.
I looked in vain for any further references. Again, could the Minister expand on what specific actions the Government are taking to address the many geopolitical challenges posed by Russia’s increased militarisation in the Arctic? How do the Government intend to safeguard the UK’s national interests in the High North, particularly on these matters?
Although security is paramount, and has featured in so many speeches today, we must also acknowledge that the Arctic plays a crucial role in the global climate system. The melting of Arctic ice is not only a warning sign of accelerating climate change but a trigger for geopolitical tensions as nations vie for newly accessible resources. That is why the Government’s approach must integrate environmental responsibility with strategic security.
The 2021 review set out the UK’s commitment to sustainable development in the Arctic, and the 2023 review refresh reaffirmed that stance. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government continue to align their Arctic strategy with the principles of environmental stewardship and international collaboration, as outlined in both those reviews?
The UK’s presence in the Arctic is enhanced through our alliances. Our membership of NATO and of the Joint Expeditionary Force enables us to contribute meaningfully to regional stability. Our observer status in the Arctic Council provides, as many have remarked, an avenue to influence policies that help shape that vital region’s future. Will the Minister provide an update on how the UK is trying to leverage those partnerships to ensure that the Arctic remains a region of peace and co-operation? Have the Government engaged with Arctic nations such as Norway and Denmark to help us strengthen those bilateral defence and environmental agreements?
Of course, we commend our ally Denmark for increasing spending on Greenland’s defence at this vital time. I find myself agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and, slightly surprisingly for me, with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that it would be nice to see some UK ministerial pushback to President-elect Trump’s frankly ridiculous threats against Greenland. I read them with great interest and there are frightening parallels with what Putin had to say about Ukraine and what President Xi has said about Taiwan. Although the UK is proud to have the US as our closest international ally, we should condemn any attempt to redraw national borders by force from wherever those threats come.
The Arctic is an area of immense strategic importance, not only for our security but for our environmental and economic future. The previous Government laid, in my view, a strong foundation through these integrated reviews, the defence contributions and our international partnership. I hope the current Government will help to build upon those relationships, especially at a time when the region is becoming a focal point for global power struggles. We all understand that resources in this area are limited but I hope the Minister will be able to provide some clear assurances that the Arctic remains a priority for this Government and to outline how they plan to uphold the UK’s vital interest in this critical region.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, for securing this long-overdue debate and I congratulate him on his opening remarks, which set the right tone for a comprehensive debate.
As everyone says, this is a challenging time for the Arctic. High co-operation and low tension remain this Government’s long-term objective. Yet there is no doubt that the region is at an inflection point. Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has undermined the peaceful co-operation that has characterised the Arctic Council, including collaboration on science and research, since its inception in 1996. Climate change is impacting the region, warming places up to four times faster than the global average, fuelling mass wildfires, and melting ice. Greenland alone is losing 30 million tonnes of ice every hour, while growing global interest in the Arctic from state and non-state actors threatens a new era of competition for resources.
All these things put the region’s stability, security and environment at risk and threaten to replace its reputation for co-operation with competition. These are, of course, huge issues for its 4 million inhabitants, and the wider ripple effect has profound implications for the United Kingdom as the nearest non-Arctic state. As noble Lords know, that includes impacts on our weather, climate, ecosystems, fish stocks and domestic resilience, along with wider threats to the United Kingdom’s regional and global security.
This Government recognise the gravity of these issues and their significance for UK interests. As the Minister for the Polar Regions, my honourable friend Stephen Doughty, noted at the Arctic Circle Assembly in October, we are determined to navigate the challenges ahead in a spirit of co-operation and respect with our partners in Europe and elsewhere. We will put internationalism and multilateralism at the heart of our work and be guided by the Arctic policy framework, which we will continue to update and develop in the light of the science and the strategic challenges we face.
Critical to this co-operation, as the committee’s report identifies, is the Arctic Council, which we consider the pre-eminent intergovernmental forum in the region. Following a pause in relations with Russia, the council has re-established collaboration at a technical level over the past 18 months, as noble Lords have mentioned. While challenging, such efforts have seen progress in science and research co-operation for the benefit of the region as a whole. We commend and support Norway’s work as chair of the council in bringing these developments about, because effective governance, characterised by co-operation and constructive dialogue under its auspices, is key to building a secure and peaceful region.
To address the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and others in relation to some of the statements currently being made, we will offer our support to the Kingdom of Denmark when it takes the chair of the Arctic Council in May.
Constructive progress in the council has been a welcome development, but our objective for an Arctic of high co-operation and low tension depends on more than that alone, and of course there are some who may seek to undermine that objective. That is why we have been clear that we will protect and, if necessary, assert our rights to support wider regional governance and security. This includes protecting the centrality and integrity of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which I addressed recently at the United Nations General Assembly, in the face of attempts to undermine stability, disrupt critical infrastructure and restrict freedom of navigation in the region.
Alongside our resolute support for Ukraine, we are working tirelessly with partners, including the Nordic states and beyond, for peace, security and stability. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that the UK’s commitment to NATO, the Joint Expeditionary Force and the Northern Group is ironclad, because while we recognise Russia’s rights and role as an Arctic state, we are not naive about the challenges we face in the High North or their importance for the UK. There can be no global security without Arctic security. The recent reports of damage to electricity and telecommunications cables in the Baltic Sea connecting Finland, Estonia and Germany underline the importance of partners, including the United Kingdom, continuing to work together on these shared challenges. The Foreign Secretary made these issues a focus of his first 100 days in office with visits to Sweden and Norway, where he discussed Euro-Atlantic security, and the Prime Minister joined leaders of other Joint Expeditionary Force nations in Tallinn last month to discuss the security threats and challenges in the Baltic, north Atlantic and High North and reiterate our commitment to the security of the region.
It is also clear, as we have heard in the debate, that climate and environmental change are exacerbating the growing geopolitical competition, including for the critical minerals necessary to power the green transition, while being critical issues in their own right. The committee’s report rightly identifies the United Kingdom as a world leader in polar science. The UK has invested over £135 million in Arctic research over the last decade, including through UK centres of expertise. The UK’s Royal Research Ship “Sir David Attenborough” paid its first visit to Greenland last summer. The Minister with responsibility for the polar regions, Stephen Doughty, took the opportunity to engage with many British and international polar scientists on his visit to Norway and Iceland in October.
Additionally, the United Kingdom’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency recently launched an £81 million call for proposals for research around Greenland to explore the potential for an early warning system for climate tipping points of global importance. Given that this is the critical decade for climate action, and as we head towards the next International Polar Year, in 2032-33, our efforts and collaboration have never been more important. We will work closely with Arctic state partners, wider allies and, critically, indigenous people to better understand and assess climate and environmental change in the region and beyond.
However, to address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, while we expect other countries to deliver their climate commitments, we also respect their right to determine the routes they take to meeting these goals, including how they regulate the production and use of hydrocarbons. To address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, the UK continues to actively encourage UK polar science. In addition to our bilateral Arctic science research partnerships, the Government have recently committed additional funding to support engagement of UK researchers with the Arctic Council working groups. In total, government support for this engagement now amounts to £710,000.
On the other issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, raised, which I have just mentioned, I reassure her that Minister Doughty met a number of Arctic state representatives and representatives of indigenous people, among others, on his recent visit to the Arctic Circle Assembly. In respect of indigenous people, he conveyed that we are committed to better recognising the vital role that they play in the region and to working with them in genuine partnership to tackle the challenges we face. We have much to learn from their experience and knowledge.
Noble Lords will understand that the committee’s report also highlights the need to give the Arctic sufficient attention, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, for his questions on this point. As I have sought to highlight, what happens in the Arctic has wide-reaching implications for the United Kingdom, thrown into ever sharper relief by the climatic, environmental and geopolitical challenges it faces.
The Minister for the polar regions has established a cross-governmental ministerial group on those regions, involving Ministers from nine other departments. This will meet for the first time in February and play an important role in supporting the agreement and delivery of a strong and co-ordinated Arctic policy. This is how we can ensure that we are best placed to support the long-term peace, sustainability and prosperity of the region and protect the UK’s long-term interests. The group will also help to ensure that the Government tackle the issues of climate change, nature and security in a joined-up way across the polar regions.
To address the point made by many Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Hannay, this is not something to be delivered just from the United Kingdom. As I have highlighted, FCDO Ministers are actively engaged in the region, with support from wider ministerial colleagues and at official level by the head of the polar regions department and the senior Arctic lead, part of whose role is to represent UK interests with partners in the region. With UK interests co-ordinated through a lead Minister for the polar regions, we consider this an effective way of co-ordinating and delivering our Arctic policy. That is a specific answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ashton.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord for his further questions. I hope that I have already given a flavour of the Government’s position on key areas of Arctic policy, but let me highlight three key things. First, there is our desire to see strong collaboration under the auspices of the Arctic Council, as part of our commitment to multilateralism and deepening our relationships in Europe and beyond. We see the council as key to binding together the growing global interest in a region characterised by ever increasing economic competition. Secondly, there is our steadfast commitment to the security of the Arctic, including through NATO, the Joint Expeditionary Force and the Northern Group. Thirdly, there is the centrality of action on climate and nature to the Government’s work. There are few places where the impacts of climate and environmental change are more clearly seen than in the Arctic. We will continue to press for action to reduce emissions and build collaboration through the United Kingdom’s contribution to Arctic research, including with indigenous people.
In relation to the Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement, we support the objectives of this agreement, which came into effect in 2021. It seeks to prevent unregulated high seas fishing in the central Arctic Ocean. As noble Lords have said, it places a moratorium on commercial fishing in the area covered by the agreement until 2037. We remain committed to joining the agreement at the earliest opportunity. This requires an invitation from existing parties. However, there is currently no formally established accession process. The United Kingdom recently attended the third CAOFA conference of the parties in the Republic of Korea in June 2024, where a discussion on the United Kingdom’s accession took place for the first time. All parties but one were supportive, but the parties agreed to discuss an accession process. In the meantime, we continue to engage as an observer.
I turn to some of the other questions raised in the debate but that I have not addressed so far. Noble Lords particularly asked about my noble friend Lord Robertson’s strategic defence review. While the UK is not an Arctic state, our capabilities in the Arctic and the High North are being considered as part of the strategic defence review, the outcome of which is due to be published in the first half of this year. We have strong relationships as allies with seven of the eight Arctic states, with which we will co-operate to ensure the stability of the region. The SDR will help to determine the nature of that co-operation, but our commitment to our allies through NATO and the JEF will remain steadfast. That review will precisely address those priorities that noble Lords have raised in this debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, raised a really important point in regard to space. We are supportive of the ambition to launch satellites from spaceports across the United Kingdom. Assured access to launch capability is important to the MoD, and we will seek to achieve the greatest value for money from providers which can meet this requirement. We are supporting our partners and allies, as the noble Lord said, as a participant in the STARLIFT programme, which will create a network of space launch capabilities across the alliance. He also asked about Northlink. We will continue to engage with NATO to understand the vision and concept of Northlink.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, asked about biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. The ratification of that agreement is in line with the Government’s determination to reinvigorate the United Kingdom’s wider international leadership on climate and nature, and we are completely committed to ratification. Precisely when is a question of parliamentary time, as he knows.
There was a question about search and rescue in the Arctic, which of course rests with the Arctic states. We are ensuring that the rescue agreements allow for co-operation to ensure timely and effective response. HM Coastguard works closely with them in the North Atlantic Coast Guard Forum, as well as other multilateral research projects. Certainly, HM Coastguard also represents UK interests in search and rescue discussions in the Arctic Council.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, raised the issue of increased shipping across the Arctic, which, of course, is not risk-free. As such, the United Kingdom will continue to advocate for the highest possible shipping standards and adherence to the polar code. New technology will be required to regulate and predictably meet the challenges of operating in the Arctic.
Despite the delay in considering the report in the Chamber, this has been a timely opportunity for us to consider all these challenges. I certainly welcome the attention that noble Lords have given to this at this critical time. The Government are committed to working together with partners and allies in a spirit of collaboration and co-operation to ensure effective governance, underpinned by a strong Arctic Council; to support regional security and, more importantly, uphold international law; and to strengthen our science and research collaboration to tackle and respond to climate and environmental change, for a more stable, secure and sustainable Arctic for the future.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will be brief because I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser—and every other noble Lord, I expect—is anxious to go home in this appropriately Arctic weather. It is not my role to defend the Government but, in fairness, I should acknowledge that we refused an earlier date because it was in the Moses Room.
I also must own up and accept that we failed to predict President Trump’s views on Greenland 14 months in advance and before he was re-elected. That was obviously a failure, so, tomorrow, I will try to learn: I will search Hansard over the past year to read all the warnings of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, on this subject.
I thank the Minister for his detailed reply and all noble Lords who contributed to this excellent debate. What the contributions have in common is demonstrating the many reasons why the Arctic and High North are so important, directly affect the UK and require sustained government attention. We all look forward to the SDR from our former colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson; military resources have been referred to by many noble Lords this evening. They are obviously vital, but this debate has shown that the Government need to consider and prioritise many other things, such as polar research, indigenous people, fish stocks, ecotourism, search and rescue, space, and so on. I promised to be brief, and I thank again all the contributors to this debate.