House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
Before I respond, I am sure that the whole House will want to remember PC Rosie Prior, who was tragically killed on Saturday while helping at the scene of an accident, and Ryan Welford, who was also killed. PC Prior’s death is a tragic reminder of the dedication and bravery that police officers show every single day to keep us safe. All our thoughts are with her family, friends and colleagues at this difficult time.
As the Prime Minister announced last month in the “Plan for Change”, we are determined to restore neighbourhood policing and to put 13,000 additional police, police community support officers and special constables back on the beat.
Shockat Adam
I refer the House to my registered interests, and I echo the sentiments expressed by the Home Secretary.
Last year, the Leicestershire police panel raised serious concerns about being underfunded, having received a real-terms cut of 20% over the past 13 years. Due to this funding crisis, the police simply do not have enough manpower for night-time patrols. In the Clarendon Park area there has been a wave of burglaries in local businesses—the Christopher James Deli, Loros and Spice Bazzar are three of eight that have been smashed and grabbed over the past two months. At the local crime summit that I arranged to discuss the situation, one owner, Jaskaran Dutta, said:
“We do everything we can to survive in this incredibly difficult economic time. All we ask is that the government supports us by improving policing and security”.
What is the Secretary of State doing to address these concerns?
Yvette Cooper
Under the previous Conservative Government, neighbourhood policing was decimated. The proportion of people who said that they never saw the police on the beat doubled. They took police off the beat and did not put them back, which is why we are setting out a neighbourhood policing guarantee. We have increased funding for police forces by £1 billion next year, including £100 million specifically to kickstart recruitment for neighbourhood policing.
Bobby Dean
A Carshalton resident had her car stolen from her driveway. There is video footage of it, but the police just gave her a crime reference number and closed the case. Local businesses on Wallington high street tell me that organised shoplifters are acting with impunity. The Home Secretary touched on recruitment being part of the solution, but what else can the Government do now to help my constituents feel safe?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member is right to talk about the deep frustration felt in communities, including local businesses and town centres, about not just the absence of neighbourhood policing, which we need to turn around, but the weakening of powers over the past 14 years on things such as shoplifting. That is why we are introducing new respect orders and strengthening powers on shoplifting and assaults on shop workers.
Dr Allin-Khan
We all know that well-resourced neighbourhood policing, with bobbies on the beat working in the community, is central not just to solving crime but to preventing it. We saw some great results in Tooting just last year, with a special operation resulting in a 70% cut in crime. Fourteen years of Tory government have decimated our local police teams, despite our brilliant London Mayor pulling out all the stops to bolster the numbers. Will the Secretary of State pledge that our local communities will have properly resourced policing teams under the new Labour Government?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right about the importance of having neighbourhood policing teams working in communities with local residents and businesses, knowing the kinds of crimes and challenges that that area faces. That is why we are determined not just to get neighbourhood police back on the beat, with funding in place to do so, but to ensure that, as part of a neighbourhood policing guarantee, the officers are not abstracted to deal with other things.
Perran Moon
In 2022 the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall Police was suspended for misconduct, and last November the interim chief constable was also suspended. Now the deputy police and crime commissioner has also resigned. Does the Home Secretary share my concerns about the leadership of Devon and Cornwall Police and the impact on neighbourhood policing morale, as well as the fact that the taxpayer is paying for three chief constables, two of whom have been suspended?
Yvette Cooper
I am aware of the points that my hon. Friend raises, and I do have concerns. It is really important that all police forces can strengthen their neighbourhood policing and have strong leadership right through the police force. We will set out a new police reform White Paper to ensure that measures are in place to strengthen leadership and standards across policing.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
A focus on neighbourhood policing is welcome; we have seen it in Staffordshire for some time. Police leaders have said that if they do not have the flexibility to recruit as they need to, there is a risk that police officers will end up having to fill vacancies in specialist areas. Will the Home Secretary listen to police leaders and give them that flexibility?
Yvette Cooper
The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee makes an important point. We have said that the neighbourhood policing teams, which we are determined to support, should include police officers and police community support officers, as well as special constables, who too often are underused and underappreciated, in order to recognise the mix of disciplines that we need for the strongest and most effective policing.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Excellent partnership work between Gwent Police, Newport city council and our business improvement district saw crime down by 25% in our city centre at the end of last year, although there is still much to do to improve confidence after neighbourhood policing was slashed under the previous Government. Does the Home Secretary agree that visibility is key, and will she update us on police numbers in Wales?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes an important point, because this is about visibility, partnership and powers, and she rightly talks about the impact that this kind of work can have. We want to strengthen the work of police officers across England and Wales by strengthening the powers they have to tackle shoplifting and street theft—snatch theft—which have both increased in recent years.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
The previous Government left office with record police numbers, but police and crime commissioners are deeply concerned that the funding formula and settlement, combined with the Government’s national insurance tax raid, will force cuts to frontline police numbers. My Labour police and crime commissioner faces a £3 million shortfall, and there are projections of 3,500 officers being lost nationwide. Will the Home Secretary take responsibility if police numbers fall in the coming years?
Yvette Cooper
I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that his Government took neighbourhood police officers off the streets, meaning thousands fewer on the streets—the number of PCSOs halved and the number of special constables dropped by two thirds. That is the Conservatives’ shameful record, which people know because they can see it—they do not see police on the streets, as a result of his Government’s actions. He raises the issue of funding. This Government have had to add an additional £170 million to police forces this year because the settlement that his party left them with was not enough to cover this year’s pay rise. They let policing down.
Matt Vickers
The Home Secretary proudly quotes the funding settlement while failing to mention that £230 million of it will be snatched straight back as a result of her Government’s national insurance tax raid on our police forces. What can be invested in frontline policing is largely determined by how she manages the Home Office budget. Does she agree that it was wrong to spend £10,000 on a swanky dinner for civil servants, and how will she ensure that never happens again?
Yvette Cooper
I am afraid I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that his party not only let policing and communities down by taking neighbourhood police off the streets, but let police down on the funding. This Government are providing an increase in police funding of up to £1 billion next year, on top of the additional funding we had to provide for policing this financial year because his party left a huge black hole in not just Home Office or police officer funding, but overall funding for public services across the board—a shameful legacy that we have had to turn around.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
We engage regularly with the Fire Brigades Union and we take very seriously the health and safety of firefighters, who risk their lives for our communities every day. The Home Office is reviewing recent academic research to evaluate risks posed by contaminants and the effectiveness of decontamination procedures. We will share our findings with the fire and rescue authorities, which hold the legal responsibility to protect firefighters against those risks.
Brian Leishman
I thank the Minister for her answer. Exposure to toxic substances is an avoidable risk and every firefighter should have access to the resources they need to protect themselves. The dangerous nature of being a firefighter has also been amplified as the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has had more than 1,400 frontline firefighter jobs cut since 2010, a reduction of nearly 20%. Does the Home Secretary agree that the fire service needs proper investment and a national body with legal standing to set standards on fire cover, training, equalities, and health and safety?
Dame Angela Eagle
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention is looking at all fire and rescue issues and considering all possibilities, including potential reorganisations, as we move the services forward.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Will the Minister look at early diagnosis for firefighters because, very sadly, many suffer very bad ill health in retirement? If they are diagnosed early, treatment can be provided to improve the quality and the length of their lives.
Dame Angela Eagle
I agree that this is an important area and that much more work needs to be done to consider effective contaminants and risks from the dangers that firefighters put themselves in every day to protect life.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
We all understand the devastating harm that crime can cause in rural communities. The Government are committed to taking action, which is why we will be enacting the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 to tackle the theft of agricultural machinery and equipment. We will strengthen enforcement on fly-tipping and antisocial behaviour, and we will deliver more rural patrols through our neighbourhood policing guarantee.
Helen Morgan
I thank the Minister for her answer. She will know that the funding allocations for policing are based on reported crime, not underlying crime rates. In rural areas such as North Shropshire, people say that they do not always report a crime when it happens. Residents in Oswestry and Whitchurch tell me that they do not bother to phone the police because they do not think anyone will come. Will she consider reassessing the formula to ensure that in rural areas the funding reflects the level of underlying crime?
Dame Diana Johnson
I reassure the hon. Lady that funding for the year 2025-26 for her police force will be £316.3 million, an increase of £80 million on the figures from this year. I encourage all people who are victims of crime to report it. We need that information so that the police can then make the required resources available.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
In my constituency, fly-tipping on farms and private land and the targeted theft of heating oil are causing profound problems for families and businesses alike. Will the Minister update me on progress to tackle rural crime, and will the Home Office consider setting up a rural taskforce, working across Departments, to tackle these issues?
Dame Diana Johnson
I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s concerns about the extent of rural crime, particularly fly-tipping. Recent research shows that 80% of farmers say they are affected by fly-tipping. I am particularly concerned about the targeted theft of heating oil from families and businesses at this time of year. As I said, we will be strengthening neighbourhood policing and we will see more patrols in rural areas, which will help. We will also have forthcoming legislation to provide the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with the powers it needs to support local authorities in exercising new fly-tipping enforcement powers.
Charlotte Cane
Will the Minister meet me to discuss the effect that rural crime, particularly hare coursing and, as we have heard today, theft from farms and sheds, has on residents in Ely and East Cambridgeshire?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am always very happy to meet hon. Members. The national wildlife crime unit has been doing some very good work, including overseeing the national police response to hare coursing and Operation Galileo, which has resulted in a 40% reduction in offences in that area, but I am very happy to meet the hon. Lady.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Right across the towns and villages I represent, people have seen, as the rural policing presence has declined, predictable increases in shoplifting, antisocial behaviour, farm break-ins and fly-tipping. We cannot allow that to be tolerated. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that my local police have the resources and powers they need to take those crimes seriously?
Dame Diana Johnson
The neighbourhood policing guarantee applies not just to towns and cities, of course, but to rural communities, so we will see a far greater police presence out and about in those communities. The Home Office is currently working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council on a rural and wildlife crime strategy, to crack down on some of the crime and disorder that has worsened in recent years.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
Burglary is a particularly invasive crime that has a profound impact on the security of individuals—as I know from personal experience—as well as on the wider community. For too long a culture has been allowed to develop whereby victims of burglary and other crimes fear that even if they report what has happened, no one will come and nothing will be done. That is the culture we are determined to tackle through our safer streets mission and our commitment to neighbourhood policing.
Monica Harding
In my local authority area, 92% of burglaries went unsolved, with police failing to identify suspects—that is the worst figure for any community in the country—and in Surrey as a whole, 63% of burglaries were not even attended by police. This has contributed to a decline in confidence in local policing among my constituents. How, specifically, will the Government’s new police performance unit and their neighbourhood policing guarantee ensure that my constituents can feel safe in their homes, and will the Minister join my party in committing to a statutory burglary response guarantee to ensure that all domestic burglaries are attended by a police officer?
Dame Diana Johnson
The police have made a commitment in England and Wales to attend the scene of every home burglary, so I am concerned by what the hon. Lady has said about her local force. The College of Policing has set out good practice for the investigation of burglaries, which should be followed by police forces, and which sets standards for what should be expected as well as explaining how best to deal with victims. I am mindful of what she has said today and will write to her with details of what more can be done.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
This Government will treat violence against women and girls as the national emergency that it is, and later this year our new comprehensive violence against women and girls strategy will spell out how we plan to fulfil our unprecedented commitment to halve that violence. In the interim, we have announced Raneem’s law, whereby domestic abuse specialists will be embedded in 999 control rooms, and we are working with police to develop a national framework to track and target high-harm offenders. We are piloting new domestic abuse protection orders in selected areas, and we have outlined new measures to protect women against stalking and spiking.
Dr Chambers
The entire country was appalled by the terrible crime of girls being groomed by gangs of older men, and outraged by the lack of action taken by authorities to help protect those victims. It is about 10 years since these crimes first came to light. Since then we have had the Jay inquiry, which has made 20 recommendations. Will the Government commit to implementing all those recommendations, in full and at pace, to help protect future victims?
Jess Phillips
I thank the hon. Gentleman for both the tone and the sentiment of his question, and I hope that everyone in the House agrees with him. I spent the weekend in my surgery dealing with cases that are live today involving the grooming of both boys and girls by organised groups of varying sorts. It is, in fact, 15 years since the original Jay report on the events in Rotherham. As for the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, we will work at pace with the stakeholders, including the victims and Professor Alexis Jay, to ensure that what was intended in those recommendations can happen. I will do that as quickly as it can possibly be done, but I will not do what was done by the last Government and just say, “Yeah, sure” and then leave it to chance.
Alison Hume
North Yorkshire is the largest rural county in the country. Behind the beauty of the villages and hamlets in my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby lies an ugly truth: on average, victims in rural areas are subject to domestic abuse for 25% longer than those in urban areas and are half as likely to report it. Can the Minister reassure the House that more funding to tackle rural domestic violence is part of the Government’s strategy to halve violence against women and girls?
Jess Phillips
The strategy to halve violence against women and girls is for every single part of our country. The Government recognise that victims in rural and remote areas face particular barriers in fleeing abuse and accessing support. We are already driving forward a range of activities that will support rural victims. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 will require local commissioners to develop joint needs assessments for victims of domestic abuse, to identify gaps in support. I encourage all Members to engage with that process when it comes to their local area, and I will happily work with rural MPs in this House to make sure that that is the case.
Steve Witherden
Palestinian women detained in Israeli prisons face sexual assault, beatings and threats of rape and death, according to United Nations reports. Given our commitment to tackling violence against women and girls, what discussions is the Minister having with Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office colleagues about the implications of the gender-based violence faced by Palestinians, particularly as Israel continues to deny access to detention sites?
Jess Phillips
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. My FCDO colleagues sit on the violence against women and girls sub-group for the mission, and I have every faith that they take the issues that he talks about incredibly seriously. We have to protect women the world over.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
A consistent finding of the serious case reviews into child sexual exploitation is that the authorities have turned a blind eye in cases where they believe that a child, often as young as 13, is in a consensual sexual relationship with an older man. Of course, regardless of whether the girl believes that she has given consent or not, the adult is committing a criminal offence. Does the Minister agree that one way we might stop the next child rape gang is by insisting that, in all cases, adults who have sex with children are investigated and prosecuted?
Jess Phillips
Absolutely. From my years of working on the frontline, I know that the boyfriend model of consent to get young people into these groups is undoubtedly one of the most common in that field. I absolutely agree that in any case where any adult has sex with any child, they should be investigated, charged and convicted. A fundamental part of our violence against women and girls strategy is about prevention and working with young people, who are a growing cohort of both abusers and victims in this space, to ensure that we are acting to prevent and not just to protect.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
When it comes to keeping children, especially girls, safe from violence and abuse, there has been a lot of talk about inquiries over the last week; indeed, some comments have been more constructive than others. Inquiries can be a powerful tool for uncovering the truth about injustice, but they only reach their full potential when there is a duty of candour that requires public officials and authorities to co-operate fully. The Government have committed to bringing that duty into force, so can the Minister and her colleagues commit to a timeline for introducing the Hillsborough law to Parliament?
Jess Phillips
The number of national public inquires that we have had—for example, into Hillsborough, for which nobody has been held accountable—shows the importance of the Hillsborough law and the duty of candour. Obviously, we committed to it in our manifesto, and it will absolutely be introduced by this Government. We will keep in touch about the timeline for that.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I commend the hon. Gentleman’s work in bringing forward this legislation and reiterate the Government’s commitment to safeguarding rural communities. We will implement the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023, and we fully support its intention to tackle the theft and resale of high-value equipment, particularly for use in an agricultural setting.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for his kind words and to the Government for their support for what was my private Member’s Bill and is now the Act. The commencement date for the Act was in January last year, but it requires a statutory instrument to be moved to bring it into full force. When will that statutory instrument be moved? Can he assure me that there is no delay because of the equipment manufacturers, who of course benefit massively from crime because they get to sell another one?
Dan Jarvis
Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, the Act requires secondary legislation to take effect. We are currently considering the views of those who may be affected by the legislation, but we intend that the regulations will be in place by the summer.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
We are strengthening how we tackle crime throughout the country, including in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Our safer streets mission aims to halve knife crime and violence against women and girls and to restore confidence in the criminal justice system. The Young Futures programme will divert young people from a life of crime and the neighbourhood policing guarantee will deliver an additional 13,000 neighbourhood policing roles.
Adam Jogee
Can I say how excellent it is to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), in her place on the Front Bench? I have heard concerns from many constituents in recent days about the grooming of young people, particularly young women, and those are concerns that all of us in this House clearly share. Given that only 6.9% of violent or sexual crimes in the west midlands were solved in the year ending June 2024, what steps are being taken to hold the thugs to account and to protect young people, particularly young women and girls in Newcastle-under-Lyme, so that they can live their lives safely?
Dame Diana Johnson
I echo my hon. Friend’s comments about my hon. Friend the Safeguarding Minister. On the point he raises, there is an interesting article in the papers today where the Minister is quoted as saying:
“It is completely unacceptable that fewer and fewer violent and sexual crimes are being solved, with more victims being let down time and time again.”
I cannot think of a better champion to take forward the work to protect young women in particular than the Safeguarding Minister.
Mr Speaker
There will be wizardry in the way this question from Sir Julian is delivered.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister accept that it would greatly assist the police to investigate crime in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and indeed elsewhere, if they were not spending an estimated 60,000 hours investigating and recording so-called non-crime hate incidents?
Dame Diana Johnson
The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and I, as the Policing Minister, have said that we want a common-sense approach to dealing with these matters. The Government have been very clear on this. We have set out our priorities as the incoming Government: halving knife crime; halving violence against women and girls; restoring confidence in the justice system; and—one of the big issues for me—tackling antisocial behaviour through our neighbourhood policing guarantee.
Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
We remember those who have lost their lives to knife crime, including 17-year-old Thomas Taylor, killed in Bedford, and 14-year-old Kelyan Bokassa, killed in Woolwich just last week. Kelyan’s mother said:
“I tried to prevent it. I’ve tried so many, so many times.”
No mother should live with that grief or feel that level of fear for her teenage son. That is why this Government have set up the coalition to tackle knife crime, which involves families, alongside taking new action on serious violence.
Joani Reid
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and of course my sympathies also go out to that mother this weekend. Recently published data showed a sharp rise in serious violent crime in Scotland, particularly in our cities and towns. Too many of my constituents feel unsafe in East Kilbride town centre and the Village, particularly at night. Meanwhile, the SNP Government’s chronic underfunding of Police Scotland has resulted in officer numbers being at their lowest level since 2008. Does the Secretary of State agree that the SNP now has the funding in place to increase police numbers, and that protecting our community and citizens should be its priority?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to say that the Scottish Government have a significant increase in funding, so they can take action to improve public services. This Government have made it a mission to halve knife crime over the next decade, including taking action to get dangerous weapons, such as zombie knives and ninja swords, off our streets by preventing the unlawful sale of these lethal blades, particularly to children.
Yuan Yang
My constituents in Whitley had their Christmas disrupted by an alarming threat of knife crime. We have seen too many tragedies of this kind in Reading over the last few years, so I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s mission to halve knife crime. I have applied for my Earley and Woodley constituency to be a trial location for the new respect orders. Will the Home Secretary meet me and my constituents to discuss how we can tackle the root problems that cause people, particularly young people, to carry knives?
Yvette Cooper
The Policing Minister and I will happily talk further to my hon. Friend. She is right that we need to prevent young people from obtaining and carrying knives in the first place, as well as making sure there is swift intervention. We are also taking action, working with police forces across the country, to tackle knife-enabled robbery, which is one of the areas that has seen the biggest increases in recent years.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Home Secretary for her response. Over the past five years, there have been 900 convictions for knife-related crimes in Northern Ireland. There is an epidemic in Northern Ireland, with almost 200 convictions in the last year alone. What discussions has the Home Secretary had with the relevant authorities, including the Police Service of Northern Ireland, to help us address this issue?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member will know that the PSNI takes this issue extremely seriously. The issues of knife crime are devastating to families, and he is right to be deeply concerned about the increases we have seen. Frankly, it is still far too easy for young people to get hold of knives. That is why we asked Commander Stephen Clayman to conduct a detailed review of the online sale and delivery of knives, and we expect his report back shortly.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
A nurse was stabbed in an emergency department in Oldham over the weekend. Will the Home Secretary join me in condemning any attack on our health and social care workers, and especially the one at the weekend?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member makes an extremely important point. Our public servants, particularly our nursing and medical staff, work to save lives, support people and help patients. They do so trusting that the people who come to see them are asking for their help. He is right to talk about the devastating attack at the Oldham hospital, and we are all thinking about the nurse and all those working in the hospital, as well as about the police investigation that I know is under way.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
The Government are committed to tackling antisocial behaviour and the harm and misery that we all know it causes in communities. This is part of our safer streets mission that will introduce respect orders and put 13,000 additional police officers, PCSOs and special constables into neighbourhood policing roles so that each community has a visible presence and an accountable police team.
Rosie Duffield
Last year, on average, at least three instances of antisocial behaviour per day were reported to Kent police in the city centre of Canterbury alone. We have great beat officers who I know keep our city as safe as they can, but given that the economy of our historic UNESCO city relies so heavily on tourism, how will the Government work with Kent police to further tackle this issue so that residents, businesses and visitors feel safer?
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Lady makes an important point about how antisocial behaviour has to be tackled, particularly in areas where we have lots of tourists. The neighbourhood policing guarantee is important because it will deliver an additional 13,000 police officers, PCSOs and specials in our town and city centres and in rural areas by the end of this Parliament. In the provisional policing settlement, announced just before Christmas, there is £100 million to start the recruitment of the 13,000 police officers.
Neil Coyle
How will the Minister ensure that the safer streets mission is delivered in communities like mine in Southwark, where too often officers are extracted to police protests and the Met is divided between its neighbourhood and national policing roles?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the conflicting and competing interests in the Metropolitan police. We have committed to putting police back on the beat through the neighbourhood policing guarantee. A neighbourhood policing team will be in every area. It will be out policing, with intelligence-led, visible patrols, and will ensure officers are protected from being deployed elsewhere. That is part of the guarantee.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
The Government are committed to reducing hotel use through reform of the asylum system, including through streamlining asylum processing and establishing the Border Security Command to tackle people smuggling gangs at source. Since the general election, there has been a net increase of six hotels in use, but nine are scheduled for closure by the end of March.
Sir Ashley Fox
The Government’s new policy of smashing the gangs has enabled them to close seven asylum hotels, but unfortunately they have had to open another 14. Will the Minister tell us when the number of asylum seekers in hotel accommodation will be lower than when she took office?
Dame Angela Eagle
Because of the size of the backlog we inherited from the Conservative party and an asylum system in chaos, with tens of thousands of people in limbo and very little processing happening, the problem cannot be solved overnight. However, we are working very hard to close hotels. I just gave the hon. Gentleman the figures: nine more hotels are scheduled to close by the end of March, and there has been a net increase of six, so by the end March there will be fewer.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The previous Government wasted a scandalous amount of public money on asylum accommodation. For example, in Northeye, they paid double what the previous owners had paid, without checking that the building did not have asbestos and contaminated ground, and it could not be used. Will the Minister commit to being more effective in providing value for public money, to ensure that taxpayers’ money is not wasted as we fix the asylum backlog?
Dame Angela Eagle
I certainly will. We should also remember the £60 million the Conservative party wasted on RAF Scampton and the £15 million on a derelict, asbestos-ridden former prison in Bexhill. We will not take any lessons from Conservative Members about value for money in Government expenditure.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
In the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, we understand that we must do our bit to help house asylum seekers, but the Ramada hotel on Penns Lane has always been the wrong place because it is too far away from inner-city Birmingham-based services. Under the last Government, the facility was slated for closure, so will the Minister look urgently at winding it down and closing it as soon as possible?
Dame Angela Eagle
It is our intention to close all asylum hotels as soon as possible, once we deal with the backlog that we inherited from the Conservative party.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Asylum accommodation hotels were once emergency measures but have now lasted several years because of the mess the Tories made of our asylum system. Scrapping the Rwanda scheme and recommencing the processing of claims has led to a substantially lower backlog than we would have had if we had continued with the Tory policies, but there is still much more to do. Will the Minister update the House on progress towards ending asylum hotel accommodation and cutting waiting times for asylum application decisions?
Dame Angela Eagle
We inherited a system where very few decisions were being made. We have ramped up decision making to over 11,000 decisions a month and we are dealing with the backlog, but backlogs cannot be abolished overnight, and there are also appeals backlogs. We inherited a huge mess, but we are methodically getting through it.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Housing asylum seekers in hotels—of which there were 6,000 more cases in just the first three months of this Government—is spectacularly expensive. The Home Secretary’s policy is to make asylum decisions quickly, so that any costs of the migrants she accepts can be hidden in the welfare system. The Home Office admits in its impact assessments that it has no idea how much her policy will cost in benefits claims and council housing bills. Will the Minister commit today to recording and publishing all those costs for migrants whose asylum claims she accepts?
Dame Angela Eagle
I will take no lessons from the Conservative party, which spent £700 million to send four volunteers to Rwanda and left huge backlogs of more than 90,000 stopped asylum claims—people in hotels, unable to leave because the Conservatives were trying to get their fantasy Rwanda programme off the ground.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
My constituent Majida and her three children are asylum seekers from Syria, living in one of the two asylum hotels in my Hazel Grove constituency. They have been living in limbo for nine months as they wait for a decision on their asylum claim. Like all Syrian asylum seekers, their applications have been temporarily paused following the fall of Assad. Many in my community are keen to support those seeking asylum, but also very keen to see an end to the use of hotels. The cost of housing families in that way is too high, both to the mental wellbeing of those living there and to the taxpayer. What circumstances is the Minister waiting for to resume decision making on asylum applications from Syrians, and when does she expect that to happen?
Dame Angela Eagle
The fall of the Assad regime was a welcome development, given that he was a tyrant, but 5,500 Syrian asylum seekers are currently in our system, many of whom fled the Assad regime. Until Syria’s future becomes a little more settled, it is difficult to decide those claims, which is why both this country and most of Europe have had a temporary pause while the situation in Syria settles and develops. I cannot tell the hon. Lady exactly when decision making will resume. All I can say is that we are keeping the matter under close observation. As soon as there is any development in this area, we will ensure that the House knows about it.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
This Labour Government are determined to put right the appalling injustice suffered by members of the Windrush community. We will ensure that those affected receive the compensation they deserve, and that cultural change is embedded permanently in the Home Office. At the end of November 2024, over £100 million has been paid to individuals across almost 3,000 claims under the Windrush compensation scheme. We have also re-established the Windrush unit to drive forward the action needed to ensure that what happened to the Windrush generation never happens again.
Harpreet Uppal
Members of the Windrush generation who struggle to submit compensation claims do not have access to legal aid, leaving them unable to navigate the complex process. I have recently been contacted by a constituent who is struggling to navigate the claims process, and has no other support available to him. What steps is the Minister taking to tackle those barriers, and will she commit to providing additional support to ensure that every eligible individual can access the scheme, regardless of their capacity or circumstances?
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are committed to making changes so that the scheme is accessible and so victims of the Windrush scandal are far better supported in applying for compensation. It is why, in July, we brought in a single named caseworker approach to streamline the process, improve consistency and remove duplication, and it is why we announced £1.5 million of grant funding for organisations to provide extra support for applicants. If she would like to meet to discuss her constituent’s case further, I would be happy to do so.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The Windrush scandal involved people coming to this country in good faith who were then falsely labelled as illegal immigrants. One thing that the Minister could do to avoid such circumstances happening again is make it easier for people to come here through a reduction in the English language requirement. Is that something that she would consider?
Seema Malhotra
Our priority is to understand and learn from the events in the past and focus on the future by ensuring that the Department is inclusive and considers the impact of all its work on people from every background.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
The Government are committed to bringing down net migration after it hit record highs under the last Government. We will do that by taking a different approach, linking skills and migration policy so that immigration is not used as an alternative to tackling workforce problems in the UK. The Home Office publishes migrant journey analysis, which shows the proportion of migrants granted indefinite leave to remain over time, helping to inform on who might seek to remain in the UK in the long term.
Jack Rankin
The mass import of low-skilled workers could cost the taxpayer more than £61 billion—a financial ticking time bomb. Will the Minister commit here and now to extending the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain or bringing in new qualifying criteria?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Gentleman would do well to hold his own side to account for their record on net migration. The Government recognise and value the contribution that legal migration makes to our country. There is always a place for overseas recruitment for firms looking to grow, but it must not be the first port of call, and we must ensure that our migration system is controlled, managed and fair.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Since the Government came to office, 23,000 illegal migrants have crossed the English channel—an increase of 29% compared with the same time last year. Do the Government now accept the National Crime Agency’s advice that a deterrent like the Rwanda scheme, which they cancelled before it even started, is needed? Last week, the Government were trumpeting their removals figures. Will they honestly accept that only a tiny fraction of removals relate to people who arrived by small boat? In fact, in their first three months, the removals amounted to only 5% of people who entered the UK by small boat. Will the Minister accept that allowing 95% of small boat arrivals to stay is no deterrent at all?
Seema Malhotra
The shadow Home Secretary appears to have forgotten what happened when he was in Government. In fact, he will know that for the first six months of last year the numbers of those arriving on small boats was the highest for any six months on record. He will know that the previous Government spent over £700 million on a failed Rwanda scheme that saw four volunteers go to Rwanda. I will not take any lessons from the shadow Home Secretary. The Conservatives should take responsibility for their record and apologise for it.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
Immigration asylum rules need to be respected and enforced, and for too long that has not happened. Since the general election, we have ramped up removals for those who have no right to be in the United Kingdom, with 16,400 individuals successfully returned in the first six months of this Government—the highest level of returns over a six-month period since 2018. Wider work to strengthen border security is under way, including the new sanctions regime announced by the Foreign Secretary to target smuggling gangs and new co-operation agreements, including with France, Germany, Italy, Iraq and beyond. Because vile criminal smuggler gangs operate across borders, law enforcement needs to co-operate across borders, too, to bring them down.
Gill Furniss
Knife crime continues to have a devastating impact on all too many lives in Sheffield. I recently chaired a roundtable in my constituency, which brought together local leaders, police, schools and voluntary organisations that are all on the frontline. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital to work together with key stakeholders so that we can build a collaborative approach to ending knife crime once and for all?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why we have set up the coalition to tackle knife crime. It is also why we have a knife-enabled robbery taskforce working with chief constables. At local level, we have discussed setting out prevention partnerships—part of the Young Futures programme—so that all organisations can come together and be part of a mission to halve knife crime over the next 10 years.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the victims of the grooming and rape gangs. Will the Home Secretary agree with the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham and the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden)—a Labour MP—that we need a proper national public inquiry?
The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse report touched only on grooming gangs and covered only six of the towns affected. Local inquiries such as the Manchester one that the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister referred to do not have the legal powers to compel the production of evidence, which is why the Manchester chairs resigned. One Oldham victim, Jane, who was groomed and gang-raped at the age of 12, has called for a full national inquiry—
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Philp, this is topicals. You could have got this in earlier with a lengthier question. The first part of your question was absolutely accurate, but you cannot just roll on at topicals or nobody else will get in.
Yvette Cooper
These are horrendous crimes involving rape, sadistic violence and cruelty, exploitation, intimidation and coercion, so we need action, truth and accountability for those terrible crimes. That is why we support further investigations, inquiries and action into child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs, including new action to get police reporting evidence on the scale of grooming gangs, including on ethnicity, which has still not been done. The most important thing is to get more police investigations to get these criminals behind bars.
Chris Philp
Does the Home Secretary agree that it is untenable for the Government’s own anti-corruption Minister to be under investigation for benefiting from the proceeds of corruption? Should she stand down while the investigation continues?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Member will know that the Minister has referred herself to the ministerial standards adviser, and that is the appropriate way for this to be addressed. More broadly, we take seriously the full range of crimes that our country faces and will continue to work closely with the police always to take action against crime.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
It is a top priority to protect our country and our elected representatives from interference, intimidation and harassment. The defending democracy taskforce brings together a cross-Government response to these threats. We will use all the tools at our disposal to protect our democratic security and resilience.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
I will shortly be visiting Scotland to discuss these issues. The hon. Member will know that we will not be introducing a Scottish visa scheme or devolving control of immigration policy. He will also know that the Migration Advisory Committee has found that labour market needs are similar across the UK. It continues to engage at length with many UK stakeholders, including from Scotland.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Seema Malhotra
The UK’s support for Ukraine remains steadfast. The scheme will provide an additional 18 months’ temporary permission to Ukrainians here under one of the existing Ukraine schemes. When a person’s Ukraine scheme leave expires during their course and they are granted further leave to remain—for example, on a student visa—they will continue to be able to complete their studies. I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
Of course, the hon. Gentleman’s force area is getting more money in the settlement that was announced just before Christmas. Clearly, we keep all formulas under consideration and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are going to go through a police reform package and programme. Finance will be part of that.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
Yes. Foreign nationals who commit offences and are sentenced to 12 months in prison have no right to be here, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we will work tirelessly to ensure that they can be removed. The 23% increase in six months is a good start, but we will not take our foot off the gas.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Yvette Cooper
We want to see an increase in neighbourhood policing right across the country. That is why we set out £100 million as part of the police settlement for next year to kick-start and increase recruitment of neighbourhood police officers and PCSOs, alongside stronger powers to tackle neighbourhood crime.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Since October 2023, my constituent has been separated from her husband and the father of her children, who is a Palestinian citizen of the state of Israel. I have deep concerns about the Home Office’s handling of this case, and it has not replied to my last two representations. Will the Minister agree to look into this case?
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case, and I am very happy to meet him to discuss the issues he has raised.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Penselwood in Glastonbury and Somerton is regularly blighted by unlicensed music events, leaving residents feeling frightened and vulnerable, as organisers pay scant regard to them or to the police. How will the Minister support the police to give the public confidence that they will crack down on these illegal raves?
Dame Diana Johnson
If the hon. Lady writes to me with details, I will certainly look into that issue.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Recently, the owner of social media site X has used his sizeable platform to undermine the democratic result of last July’s general election; has stirred up hatred towards my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), putting her safety at risk; and has sought mechanisms to depose the Prime Minister. Can the Minister say what actions the Defending Democracy Taskforce is taking to prevent this kind of foreign interference in British politics?
Dan Jarvis
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. The Government consider this work to be urgent. We have seen some utterly unacceptable activity, both during and beyond the general election. I hope that work to address this issue will be a shared endeavour right across the House, but the Government are working at pace to address it.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
What actions will the Home Secretary be taking following the news that eight UK companies and organisations have been deemed terror groups by the United Arab Emirates?
Dan Jarvis
The UAE is an important international partner for the UK, but of course other countries have their own rules on designation and it would not be appropriate for the Government to comment on their processes. I can say to the hon. Member that extremism has no place in our society and that we work very closely with law enforcement, local communities and our international partners to tackle groups and any individuals who seek to sow division and hatred.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
My deepest condolences go to the family and friends of 17-year-old Thomas Taylor, who was fatally stabbed in Bedford last week. Bedfordshire has some of the highest knife crime rates in the country. While I welcome the increased funding for the force and the progress made on tackling knife crime in the region, will the Secretary of State ensure that the special grants awarded to Bedfordshire police in recognition of the high level of serious and violent crimes in the region are maintained? Will she outline what further steps are being taken to deter young people from carrying lethal weapons?
Yvette Cooper
I think the thoughts of all of us will be with the family and friends of Thomas Taylor, who was a constituent of my hon. Friend. He is right to say that we need comprehensive work to prevent knife crime and to prevent young people from carrying knives in the first place, but also to make sure that there is swift action where crimes take place.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The National Crime Agency estimates that £100 billion of illicit funds flow through the UK yearly. Despite the existence of the David Cameron-created unexplained wealth orders, only 11 orders in total have ever been issued, relating to four or five cases. What is my right hon. Friend doing to stop these orders from becoming pointless, as they were under the Tories, because we cannot afford to use them?
Dan Jarvis
Among many other things, the Government have appointed Baroness Hodge as the Government’s anti-corruption champion. We will be working very closely with her and other ministerial colleagues to address the issue that my hon. Friend has raised.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Can the Home Secretary confirm that none of her Ministers or officials engages with or is in touch with the Muslim Council of Britain, and that there is no correspondence between No. 10, the Home Office and other Departments about restoring ties with the organisation?
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Several of my constituents in South Oxhey have unfortunately been the victims of burglary or attempted burglary. Will the Home Secretary outline the measures her Department is taking to allow the police to invest in technologies such as live facial recognition, which can make crimes such as burglary easier to solve?
Dame Diana Johnson
We are currently looking into whether there is a need for more regulation of live facial recognition, but I recognise that it is a very important tool to which the police should have access. I am having a series of stakeholder meetings with various groups to discuss how we take this forward, but I do recognise how important the technology is and how it can be a really positive way of identifying people and solving crimes.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Can I place on the record my thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who I know will ensure that this Government do more to tackle violence against women and girls than any other Government? In doing so, will the Government amend the strategy to consider prostitution and other forms of commercial sexual exploitation as violence against women and girls?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
I thank my hon. Friend for her kind comments about me. The violence against women and girls strategy that the Government will launch later this year will absolutely root adult sexual exploitation, which so often actually stems from childhood sexual exploitation, into the Government’s violence against women and girls strategy—for the first time ever.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Is the Home Secretary aware of the growing link, as highlighted by a recent Durham University report, between rural crime and serious organised crime? If not, could she ask her officials to bring it to her attention? Given the transnational element to this serious organised crime, could the National Crime Agency start to take a closer look at rural crime?
Yvette Cooper
I am aware of this, and I think there is a very serious issue about how serious and organised crime has increasingly been targeting rural areas and things such as the GPS equipment used by farmers. The point about those involved in serious and organised crime is that they will always target areas where they think they can get away with it. That is why the issue is partly about the work of the National Crime Agency, but also about the work of police forces across the country and the work we need to do to take forward a rural crime strategy with the National Police Chiefs’ Council.
Gas Storage Levels
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if he will make a statement on gas storage levels.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
Energy security is a key priority for this Government, and at no time was there any concern about Britain’s energy system being able to meet demand. Our systems worked entirely as intended. We had capacity to deal with market constraints, and that has been backed up by the two authoritative voices on this issue in the country—National Gas, which runs the gas network, and the National Energy System Operator.
We have sufficient gas supply and electricity capacity to meet demand this winter, due to our diverse and resilient system. While storage is an important flexibility tool in the gas system, our varied sources of gas supply mean that the UK is less reliant on storage than some other European countries that have a more limited supply options. Our diverse options include the UK continental shelf, our long-term energy partner Norway, international markets via the second largest liquefied natural gas onshoring capacity in Europe, and two interconnectors.
Gas storage is used throughout the year, but typically operates in winter to help meet peaks in demand. Through colder spells, storage levels are expected to fluctuate across the winter period. That is what happened last week following the severe cold weather, and it is a sign that the gas and storage markets are working exactly as they should. That is precisely why we have those systems in place. In their winter outlooks, National Gas and the National Energy System Operator assessed that there is sufficient supply to meet winter demand, including the role of storage. On Friday, National Gas, the owner and operator of Britain’s gas networks, confirmed that
“the overall picture across Great Britain’s eight gas storage sites remains healthy.”
We will continue to work closely with National Gas, NESO and storage operators to maintain continued security of supply. I reiterate: Britain’s energy system is working to continue to meet the demand of consumers across the country.
Andrew Bowie
All our constituents will be aware of the freezing temperatures experienced across the United Kingdom last week, dipping to minus 18° in the north of Scotland. However, many will not be aware of just how close this country came to an energy shortage, blackouts, or demand control—closer than at any point in the past 15 years. On Friday Centrica, the owner of British Gas, issued a stark warning that freezing weather and a spike in demand had reduced our gas storage to “concerningly low” levels—26% lower than this time last year. At a time when temperatures dropped below freezing for an extended period of time, our stores were set to last for less than a week.
Earlier in the week the National Energy System Operator issued a call for electricity providers to step in to provide extra electricity to meet demand and limit the risk of blackouts, paying 10 times the average daily amount to keep the lights on, all of which will end up on the energy bills of our constituents. With an incredibly tight margin between demand and available power generation, we were once again forced to rely on reliable gas power plants to keep the lights on in this country, showing that gas is and will be a vital component of our energy security for decades to come.
With their rush to meet the Secretary of State’s ideological target to decarbonise the entire electricity grid by 2030, this Government are playing fast and loose with our ability to keep the lights on. They are rushing headlong into a renewable energy dominated system—a Chinese renewable energy dominated system—but Ministers cannot escape the fact that when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, wind turbines and solar panels will not keep the lights on in Britain. We should be in no doubt that this Government’s ideological plans for our energy supply will leave the UK dependent on foreign imports, send bills soaring, and leave us teetering on the brink of blackouts.
Interestingly, when Labour was last in government in 2010, the Secretary of State whipped his then Ministers to vote against Conservative proposals to increase gas storage capacity in the United Kingdom, with a Labour MP on the Energy Bill Committee saying that
“the climate of this country, other than in the past month, is usually such that we do not quite need the same storage facilities as other countries in mainland Europe?”––[Official Report, Energy Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2010; c. 282.]
Does the Minister think the Secretary of State regrets not backing that proposal in 2010? Does he accept that the push towards renewables will lead to higher levels of intermittency, and does he accept that we will need to urgently review our gas storage capacity in the immediate future?
Michael Shanks
The shadow Minister’s point would be well made were it not for the fact that it is completely untrue. If we look at the facts, the capacity market notice that he mentions was cancelled—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister has made a direct hint that what the Member said was untrue. Is he sure of that, or does he want to rephrase it?
Michael Shanks
I apologise, Mr Speaker; I think the shadow Minister was confused in the facts that he gave to Parliament today. I am happy to set that right.
Let us look at the facts. The National Energy System Operator—the people who run the system—stated clearly:
“At no point were electricity supplies less than anticipated demand and our engineers were able to rebalance the system without the need to consider any emergency measures.”
If we listen to the experts—to National Gas and to NESO—they both confirmed over the weekend that there was resilience in the system. I reiterate the point that the system operated exactly as it was intended to do.
If the shadow Minister has complaints about how the system operates in the country and the gas storage situation, he may want to look at some of his colleagues who were in power over the past 14 years. He knows the truth about his party’s record. He is a very smart guy, and he knows they left us exposed. He knows they did not do enough to build the system that we need and he knows what caused the worst cost of living crisis in living memory. While his party is busy crowdsourcing policy advice on Twitter from net zero sceptics, it would be far better if they looked at their own record in government and, instead of criticising us, recognised that we are getting on with building a resilient energy system for the future.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The shadow Minister missed from his story the role of Liz Truss. When she was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 2017, she made the decision to close our gas storage facility. Does the Minister agree that if we want energy security and lower prices, that all depends on reducing our reliance on the volatile nature of the international fossil fuel market? Does that not mean that his clean power action plan for 2030 is exactly the right policy to address the events of the past few days?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The decisions that the previous Government took on storage are for them to answer, and anyone who looks at their record will rightly raise questions about that. On the broader point, he is right. The only plan for how we can get off the volatile fossil fuel markets, to which the previous Government left us far too exposed, is the clean power action plan that we have announced. If the Tories oppose that, they need to come up with their alternative to deliver the resilience in the system that we are fighting for every single day.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) is right to raise this important question about energy security. Gas supplies are running low because of the unexpected cold snap over the past two weeks. While those who can afford it have continued to use gas, the energy crisis has left energy prices skyrocketing and energy bills spiralling, with many having to make the decision between putting food on the table or staying warm. That is the case for too many families in my constituency of South Cambridgeshire.
The shadow Minister accused the Government of playing fast and loose, but it is due to the decisions of the last Conservative Government that we find ourselves in this mess, with their reckless dither and delay over insulation and decarbonising our homes and the irresponsible decision around our gas storage capacity. This is about overreliance on gas. For too long—
Mr Speaker
Order. You are over time, so I am sure you are coming to the end.
Pippa Heylings
I am. What steps are the Government taking to reduce overreliance on gas by bringing in an emergency home upgrade scheme that will enable people to insulate and to keep their homes warm with heat pumps this winter, rather than waiting until spring?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Lady is right; this is an incredibly important issue that gets to the heart of the fact we inherited from the previous Government not just an economic mess but a series of policy decisions not made, and an energy system that needed us to take serious decisions quickly to build resilience for the future.
On the broader point about consumers, she will know that my hon. Friend the Minister for consumers is doing a lot of work on exactly what the warmer homes scheme will look like, to ensure that people have as warm a home as possible. She is right that at times such as this, the people in the poorest households struggle the most. We are doing what we can to ensure that homes are insulated and, in the long term, to bring down bills. The only way to do that is to deliver clean power by 2030—faster than the previous Government would ever have managed.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
The shadow Minister comes to the House with no shame. As has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), the shadow Minister’s party closed Rough in 2017, leaving us exposed. I commend the Minister on taking urgent steps through our clean power mission to secure our energy system, and I urge him to ignore the political distractions of the Conservative party.
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right that this Government are moving as fast as possible to build a more resilient system to get the country off the rollercoaster of volatile fossil fuel markets. The Conservatives seem to oppose that, but they have been on something of a journey in all these questions: they used to champion net zero and recognise that climate change was a clear and present danger to the world, but now they are drifting further away from that, looking for more extremist views on Twitter and elsewhere to crowdsource their policy. We are getting on with building the energy system to bring down bills, deliver energy security and, yes, to deliver climate leadership.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
The National Electricity System Operator issued a warning of a 1,700 MW shortfall at the evening peak. It revised that down to barely more than 1,200, and it was running at one point with only 580 MW of margin. How are the Government so complacent about this? It is astonishing. As someone who has followed the energy debate for the past 30 years or so, I warn the Minister that this is almost unprecedented. For him to say that everything is absolutely fine is incredibly irresponsible, when his own Government’s policies are contributing to the tightness of the generating margin. If the lights go out, will he resign?
Michael Shanks
That is the kind of extremist scaremongering that we have come to expect from the shadow Secretary of State on Twitter, but we are now hearing it in the House. It is thoroughly irresponsible to use such language. In my answer, I read the very clear view of the National Energy System Operator, which runs the system and is the expert. I repeat it for the benefit of the House:
“At no point were electricity supplies less than anticipated demand and our engineers were able to rebalance the system without the need to consider emergency measures.”
The shadow Minister and Back-Bench MPs can repeat the phrasing around blackouts all they like, but at no point was that a concern. The reality is that while the Conservatives are happy to throw around such phrases without any evidence, we are building the resilient system of the future, and we will get on with doing that.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
In government, the Conservatives saw the closure of Rough and reduced gas storage. In opposition, they oppose our proposals for clean power, and would see this country more reliant on volatile gas markets and higher energy prices. Is it not the truth that the Conservatives want us more reliant on gas, with higher bills and more likelihood of blackouts, because they oppose our plans for clean power and tackling runaway and accelerating climate change?
Michael Shanks
The decision on whether to run gas storage sites is a commercial one for Centrica. The storage site at Rough was closed between 2017 and 2022—hon. Members may remember that that was when the “beast from the east” was attacking the country. The previous Government will have to answer for the decisions that they made on that. We are making it clear that the only way to build the energy system that we need in the long term is the clean power action plan. The Conservatives used to support much of that but, increasingly, they have decided to walk away from it. They will either keep us attached to the volatile fossil fuel markets, with all the price spikes that our constituents continue to pay the price of, or they will have to come up with an alternative plan. We are getting on with doing the work.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Can I encourage the Minister to come out of combat mode for a second and consider a constructive proposal? If we are not to become re-dependent on gas when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, and we do not want to be dependent on foreign countries indefinitely, can he see a future role for modular nuclear reactors?
Michael Shanks
If I am in any kind of attack mode, it is because the Opposition do not seem to be dealing with reality, and I think it is important to correct that. The right hon. Gentleman is right that the future energy mix, as we outlined in the clean power action plan, will involve a range of technologies. We outlined the range we would expect for each of those, and nuclear—in particular small modular reactors—will play an incredibly important part in that. We are moving forward with the programme we inherited from the previous Government, which was yet another incomplete process. We will make it happen as quickly as possible, and SMRs will play a key role in our energy mix.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
Following on from a previous question, clearly, the previous Government did delay investing in and starting up more nuclear power opportunities and options. What progress has been made since this Government came into power on plans to take forward nuclear power as part of our supply?
Michael Shanks
Conservative Members ask, “When?” —they had 14 years in power, and in 14 years did not build a single new nuclear project. The former Minister for nuclear, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), loves to shout about all the consultations that he launched, but he did not build a single new nuclear power station.
My hon. Friend is right to make the point that we should move forward with nuclear—we want to see nuclear projects move forward as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend the Minister for nuclear is moving forward with two of the biggest projects, as well as the small modular reactor competition. We are quite rightly going through a process to ensure that it is as robust as possible, but we will have more to say in due course.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Last Friday, I met Wales & West Utilities, which runs the gas grid in my constituency and beyond, where I heard that hydrogen is still a very viable option for home heating. Although there have been a number of pilots, the Government have recently gone quite quiet on hydrogen in home heating. Will the Minister update us on the steps he is taking to progress hydrogen for home heating?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Lady raises the potential of hydrogen in our energy mix. Of course, one of the real strengths of the gas network is that it can be changed into other things in the future; that is a real strength of what we have, and we are looking at what those options might be. There is a mix of options available with hydrogen, including home heating, but it could still play a really key role in industrial projects, for example, in the shorter term. We are looking at those projects. We need to ensure that it is financially viable and that we have worked out all the technological details on how we would make it happen. We will have more to say on that in due course.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
My understanding is that these notices are issued at times of high demand, and that they are evidence of the system working in order to prevent power cuts or the system breaking down. I would have thought the Conservatives would have learned their lesson from the spike in international gas prices that caused the crisis in people’s fuel bills and led to a cost of living crisis, but they have learned nothing from that. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that this really underlines our policy of ensuring that we have a secure provision of renewable energy, which leaves us less open to spikes in prices on the international market?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is worth saying that electricity margin notices are not unexpected, particularly at this time of year. They mean that there is enough generation available to meet demand, but that NESO would like to see a larger safety cushion; that is the important point for people to understand what margin notices are about. The notice was cancelled, of course, because there was sufficient supply to ensure that cushion.
My hon. Friend’s broader point is important. We have outlined in great detail how we will deliver clean power by 2030. The Conservatives now claim to oppose that; in fact, they oppose much of net zero full stop. They will have to answer how they would deliver a secure and resilient energy system of the future that brings down bills and delivers on climate leadership.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
I am unconvinced, to use parliamentary language, by the Minister’s reassurance that the lights did not almost go out last week. I am also unconvinced by his saying that the system is robust and resilient. This is the Minister who told electors in Scotland that energy bills would come down by £300 under this Government. They have gone up, and will go up twice more. Given the perilous gas storage situation—it is at 1%, compared to the 25% the EU enjoys—what steps will he take to de-stress the system by accelerating investment in long-duration energy storage?
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his characteristic question. On the first point, let me just say that it was not I who said anything about what the margins were. I quoted the National Energy System Operator, which actually delivers in this country—and will quote it again for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman:
“At no point were electricity supplies less than anticipated demand and our engineers were able to rebalance the system”.
He can take or leave my words—I am not particularly bothered—but those are the words of the people who actually operate the energy system.
On the hon. Gentleman’s final point, I absolutely agree with him on the importance of long-duration energy storage. That is why, for the first time in 40 years, this Government announced a new cap-and-floor regime to deliver new long-duration energy storage schemes. That is a huge step forward from the position under many previous Governments, and it will allow the building of the pumped hydro schemes and new innovative technologies that will deliver that energy storage. We are moving as fast as possible. I hope that he and his hon. Friends will support those decisions.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for updating and reassuring the House and residents on the robustness of the system, and for his work taking forward a wider diversification of energy supply. Will he update the House on support for the take-up of heat pumps, to ensure that, in the long run, we are far less dependent on gas from overseas? Will he also say something about the importance of insulation and what the Government are doing to support further measures to encourage insulation?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right that as well as building an energy system that will deliver generation capacity for the future, we need to work as fast as possible to reduce demand. Part of that is about moving away from gas to heat pumps. That is important not just for our energy system and climate, but for individual households in reducing their bills. We already see a huge shift in the uptake of heat pumps across the country. There is, of course, much more to do on that if we are to reach our target, but the Government are committed to that, and it is important for households right across the country. I echo his points on insulation. Those in fuel poverty are more likely to live in houses that are cold. The more we can do to create warmer homes—that is what the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), is doing—the better for everyone.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Last week was the coldest week of the winter. Also last week, 41.9% of our energy mix was gas and just about 25% was wind. We have heard about issues with gas storage, and the Government are penalising the oil and gas sector by extending the windfall tax, not allowing new licences, and removing investment allowances. It feels like this Government are not taking our energy security seriously. Can the Minister reassure the House that that is not the case, and that he will engage with our oil and gas companies to ensure that we are secure in our energy today, despite what they are trying to do for the future?
Michael Shanks
I can give that assurance. Indeed, every month I have been in this job, I have been in Aberdeen, meeting oil and gas companies to discuss the issues. We are not going to agree on everything, but I have been very clear that there will be a long future for oil and gas in the North sea. Yes, we absolutely have said that we do not want to issue any new licences for new fields, but we will not revoke any existing licences. That means that there will continue to be work in the North sea for a long time to come.
I repeat that it is categorically untrue that our electricity or gas supplies have been at risk over the past week. We have robust systems in place, and they worked exactly as they should. Consumers lost absolutely no supply over the last few days, nor will they in the weeks and months ahead.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests about my membership of the energy unions, GMB and Unite. In 2017, the then energy Minister, the noble Lord Harrington, said:
“the closure of Rough will not cause a problem with security.”—[Official Report, 27 June 2017; Vol. 626, c. 446.]
Will the Minister confirm that the five wasted years that followed before Rough was reopened at reduced capacity continue to impose restraints on the network? Will the Government take an open-minded approach to Centrica’s proposals to gradually convert that storage capacity to hydrogen?
Michael Shanks
These are commercial decisions for Centrica, although if it brings those decisions to us, we will of course look at them. Let me reiterate that the UK has a robust set of storage facilities to ensure security of supply. Rough is one of them, but at moments such as this, in the winter, it is not the most important, because it is the slowest to move gas into the system. The remainder are in an entirely robust state and will continue to deliver, but as I have said, what it chooses to do with its site is a commercial matter for Centrica.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
We have heard in the House today about an over-reliance on gas, but surely, in reality, it is an over-reliance on imported gas. The forces of this Government seem to be driving us into the hands of foreign suppliers, and as much as 80% of our gas may be imported by 2030. Should we not support domestic sources of oil and gas, and back the 200,000 industry jobs found in constituencies across the land, rather than pushing those people off a cliff?
Michael Shanks
I take issue with two of those points. First, in the past decade, 100,000 jobs have already been lost from the oil and gas industry, and that happened under a Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported. The industry is changing. We are putting in place a robust set of plans to help the workforce into the jobs of the future, rather than burying our heads in the sand and pretending that the basin in the North sea is not super-mature. Secondly, even if we were to extract more gas from our continental shelf, given that it is traded on an international market, and the pricing is set not by us but by the international market, we would continue to pay more for it, whether or not it came from the North sea, so that would not deal with the pricing issue reflected in the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Did the Minister assume that after the Government had robbed pensioners of the winter fuel allowance, gas consumption would go down, or are this Government so obsessed with their net zero policy that they do not really care whether we have enough gas to meet our energy needs? Does the Minister not realise that being reliant on foreign suppliers will push up fuel prices in the UK? How does he justify the fact that under his net zero policy, the Government are ignoring the fact that we have 150 years-worth of gas naturally stored in the United Kingdom, and will not use it?
Michael Shanks
Let me repeat what I said a moment ago: even if we were to take much more gas from our continental shelf, it would still be traded on the international market. The reason why the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents and mine still face a cost of living crisis is our exposure to petrostates and dictators around the world. He would clearly like to expose us to them even more, and I think that the Conservatives would support him in that, but we want to get ourselves off the rollercoaster of volatile fossil fuels and deliver a clean power system that is cheaper in the long run and delivers energy security. That is what is best for consumers, and for all our constituents.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
The Minister has several times mentioned energy security, and has said that the drive to net zero will make us more energy-secure, but now that Europe has learned the lesson of taking fossil fuels from Russia, we will take our renewable resources from China, which manufactures and processes the vast of majority of the materials needed. What contingency plans has the Minister made in case China decides to get into a trade war with the UK on renewables, or to cut off supply? The threats that could come from China are exactly the same as those that came from Russia about fossil fuels.
Michael Shanks
Let me say two things to the right hon. Gentleman. First, our approach to China is that we will co-operate when it is in our interest to do so, and will challenge when necessary. That is the point that the Chancellor is making. Secondly, the way to ensure that what he describes does not happen, and that we build as much as possible in this country, is to build an industrial base in this country and to bring clean power jobs to the UK. The last Government failed to do that. We are driving forward an industrial strategy that will ensure that the jobs that arise from the clean power plan that we designed are in this country. The Opposition can either support that or oppose it.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
This whole discussion underlines the importance of electricity storage, including at the battery energy storage system in my constituency, the Bredbury substation. How can we encourage more communities to welcome BESSs to their area, perhaps by considering community benefits, such as district heat networks?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Lady makes a really important point about energy storage in its various forms. Battery storage technology is moving forward extraordinarily quickly, and the short duration that we can get from batteries is improving quite considerably, so batteries will have a key role to play. Importantly, there is the potential for communities to drive some of that. We have been really clear in our local power plan that we want communities to be in the driving seat as much as possible, so that they can secure community benefits. We also want them to own some of the infrastructure. In a few weeks’ time, I will visit a scheme in Scotland where the community would be able to own not just a battery storage project, but a wind turbine that fills the battery. They would get a double benefit from the energy that they are generating and able to store. We would like to see more such schemes right across the country.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I have a certain amount of sympathy for the hon. Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg), whom the Minister slightly fobbed off with his answer. Now that he has had a chance to calm down and check his notes, I will ask the question again on the hon. Member’s behalf: what have the Government done to advance the case for nuclear energy since they took power?
Michael Shanks
That is a very good question. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me a second chance to reiterate that we inherited a whole series of plans that were not delivered. We have moved forward as quickly as possible to deliver significant projects, but we have also moved forward the competition on small modular reactors. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister says, “All you had to do was sign it off.” Maybe he forgets the state in which he left some of his policies when he departed office.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
As well as improving energy storage, we should be improving energy efficiency in our homes. The average energy performance certificate rating for properties in Caerfyrddin is D; it comes fourth-lowest in Wales in that respect. The Government plan to increase the EPC rating for rented properties to C by 2030. If we are to meet that aim through insulation, what lessons can be learned from previous schemes, such as the ECO4 scheme, which has been beset with problems, including contractors carrying out poor work on the properties of older and vulnerable people?
Michael Shanks
That is a really important point. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy Consumers is leading a review of some of this work, and will have more to say about it soon. We need a scheme that rolls out far more insulation to retrofit homes. We have also driven forward a higher standard for new houses, but the delivery of the schemes has been questionable in places. I recognise some of her points, and that is part of what we have been reviewing. I recently met my Welsh counterpart to talk about planning regulations that are being brought forward in Wales, which will also make a difference to these kinds of projects.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
In 2022, following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we saw a huge Government subsidy for household energy bills and an extra £15 billion per year in additional support for households. I appreciate that gas is traded globally and that the gas price moves globally, but if storage had been greater in 2022, could any of that £15 billion have been saved for taxpayers?
Michael Shanks
That is a really interesting question that I asked myself when I came into this role. Logically, we might assume so, but we do not empty the gas storage and then wait to refill it; we refill it constantly. That topping up will be done at whatever the price in the market at the time. The main reason why we would have used the gas in storage is that there is such demand in the system that the price is likely to be higher anyway. The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point, but I do not think that gas storage would have been the issue. I reiterate the point I made at the beginning: part of the reason why we have less gas storage than other European countries is that we have a different mix of routes to get gas in, and far more reliable supply chains for it, so we do not need to store quite as much as our European neighbours.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers and for what he has said so far. Approximately 330,000 homes and businesses in Northern Ireland are connected to gas, and there is also a scheme to enable social housing to use gas. That means that some of our elderly and most vulnerable people have no access to heating other than gas. How can the Government ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are guaranteed their gas supply over the next weeks, and how can the Government keep those in priority need at the top of the supply chain?
Michael Shanks
Characteristically, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and he has raised similar points with me before. It is important that the most vulnerable on the priority registers are prioritised for any additional support, and that is what we continue to do. Energy is a transferred matter in Northern Ireland, so I do not have a direct role to play in the gas system there, but I continue to engage with both Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive that have an interest in this topic, and we have talked about these issues most recently.
Sudan: US Determination of Genocide
(2 days, 6 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
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for International Development for a statement following the United States’ determination of genocide in Sudan.
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this important urgent question to the House, and to you, Mr Speaker, for granting it.
The evidence of abhorrent atrocities against civilians in Darfur is mounting. I am appalled by reports from the UN fact-finding mission, including those referring to acts of murder, mutilation, sexual violence and torture committed by warring parties. Such despicable acts are completely unacceptable. As we have discussed previously in this Chamber, the situation in Sudan is the worst humanitarian disaster anywhere in the world. The UK has pledged millions in lifesaving aid to Sudan and the wider region, and we are clear that this aid must be able to reach those in need unimpeded.
On the precise question raised by the right hon. Gentleman, the long-standing position of successive British Governments is that it is for the courts to decide whether genocide has occurred. While the UK therefore takes a different approach to genocide determination from that of the US, we condemn what is happening in the strongest terms. Irrespective of any genocide determination, it is clear that atrocities have been committed in this conflict and that those responsible must be held to account.
We strongly support the International Criminal Court’s active investigation into the situation in Darfur, including allegations of crimes committed since April 2023. This support has included the secondment of expert investigators to support the ICC’s work in a number of countries, including Sudan. Since the outbreak of the conflict in 2023, the UK has frozen the assets of nine commercial entities linked to the rapid support forces—the RSF—and the Sudanese armed forces, the SAF. On 8 November last year, the UN Security Council also sanctioned two RSF commanders involved in perpetrating ethnically motivated atrocities. There is a long-standing UK arms embargo in place for Sudan, as well as a UN arms embargo on Darfur. The UK worked closely with the US to renew the UN regime on 11 September 2024. The UK has also led the establishment of the independent fact-finding mission at the Human Rights Council, and funds the Centre for Information Resilience to collect evidence of abuse and support accountability efforts.
In conclusion, we are determined to do all we can, as the UK, to work with others to press the warring parties to abide by international law and to protect civilians, collecting information, promoting prevention and ensuring accountability.
Mr Mitchell
My purpose today is not to criticise the Government but to urge them to do more on what is without doubt the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. I wish not to detain the House on the high politics of the region, but to focus on the unspeakable suffering of the Sudanese civilians, who for almost two years have borne the brunt of the most appalling violence perpetrated by the two warring factions. Today, 25 million people need urgent humanitarian assistance, with over 8 million internally displaced and a further 3 million seeking refuge in Chad, Egypt, Eritrea and Ethiopia.
Above all, we face the unconscionable situation where a horrific famine looms over millions of people, which will lead unbearably to hundreds of thousands of women, children and men starving to death before our eyes. And if that is not enough, the violence perpetrated by the RSF—particularly, but not only, in Darfur—is explicitly identity-based, involving the targeting of black African tribes such as the Masalit and Zaghawa. Right now in El Fasher, Darfur, over 500,000 civilians face siege and the triple threat of identity-based mass violence, armed conflict and famine.
Last week, the US Secretary of State, Tony Blinken, called these horrors out for what they are: genocide. His determination is surely the clarion call for the UK, as the penholder on Sudan at the United Nations, to confront genocide and crimes against humanity in Sudan. Will the Minister set out the Government’s approach to atrocity crimes in Sudan? Will she consider funding Adama Dieng’s office as the African Union special adviser on the prevention of genocide?
Many of us have long warned that Sudan is the forgotten crisis. I saw this for myself on the border between Chad and Darfur last year. It has come to pass that the world’s neglect has allowed appalling crimes to thrive. Now, more than ever, it is time for British international leadership to shine the spotlight, to prick the world’s conscience and to bend every sinew of our capabilities to bring this indescribable horror to an end.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his commitment to this issue, which I know is shared by many Members from every party in this House. We are determined to do something about these appalling events, and I am grateful for the passion and determination with which he rightly speaks.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the dreadful violence unfolding in Sudan and the humanitarian situation. Since he and I last spoke in this place, the integrated food security phase classification was determined, on Christmas eve. It makes for truly terrible reading to see that five areas of Sudan are now classified as being in famine.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the need for political leadership, which this new Government are determined to deliver at every level, from the Prime Minister down. The Foreign Secretary has prioritised this issue, as have I and the Minister for Africa. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman saw that we, along with Sierra Leone, were determined to press the critical issue of protecting civilians at the Security Council. We were appalled that Russia decided to exercise its veto, as it absolutely should not have done, because this is an issue where human suffering is seen in such appalling relief.
The right hon. Gentleman asks about the UK’s work on atrocity prevention. I have talked about our work on the fact-finding mission. I was pleased to see the additional support from African countries when the mission was renewed. The UK has worked on this with the African Union, and we continue to do so. I raised this when I met the African Union in Addis Ababa.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman talks about the need for this crisis not to be forgotten. We are determined to ensure that we use every mechanism available to us—bilateral, multilateral, within this Chamber and beyond—to raise the profile of this issue, and to ensure that the UK does what it can. Of course, we have doubled our aid to Sudan, reflecting this appalling crisis.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
At this hour, the situation is horrendous, with 6.9 million people at risk of gender-based violence and 75% of children out of school. The US also announced new sanctions when it made the announcement. Will the Government review their sanctions policy, in relation both to the perpetrating networks on the ground and to the enablers abroad?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter of conflict-related sexual violence in Sudan, and for the work that she and others have undertaken on it. We had a debate on this subject in Westminster Hall last week, which raised the horrendous reports coming from Sudan about the impact on women and girls. She talks about the number of children who are out of school, and her figure probably includes informal schooling. It appears that around 90% of children in Sudan are out of formal schooling, which is terrible for them both right now and into the future. They really should be in school, and we will always ensure that we do what we can to ensure accountability. Our sanctions policy is always under review but we do not talk about the details in the Chamber, because to do so would reduce their effectiveness.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for securing this important urgent question. It is right that we take seriously the fact that the US Administration have made a genocide determination in respect of Sudan and imposed what they call “accountability measures”. As the Minister has recognised, we have a distinct mechanism for determining genocide and it is right that the Government stand by that.
Notwithstanding that, we recognise that the US’s decision is designed to confront the abhorrent brutality that the world is witnessing against the innocent people of Sudan, with appalling atrocities, as we have heard already, committed against civilians and completely unjustifiable restrictions on humanitarian aid. With millions needing urgent food assistance, Sudan is hurtling towards a man-made catastrophe of unimaginable scale. The Government need to do everything in their power to press the warring parties into a ceasefire and to hold those responsible for the atrocities to account, because red lines have been crossed in the conflict and we cannot stand by.
As the Minister knows, the Conservative Government applied a regime of sanctions on those supporting the activities of the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese armed forces. In the light of America’s decision, do the Government intend now to go further on sanctions and to mirror the United States? What is her strategy for trying to deter non-domestic involvement in the conflict? Do the Government intend to provide additional expertise and resources to help ensure that the perpetrators of the crimes, including those in Darfur, are brought to justice? How will we leverage our position on the UN Security Council?
On the humanitarian side, what pressure are the Government exerting to smash through what are now arbitrary obstacles blocking aid delivery? What assurances can the Minister give the House that UK aid is ending up in the right places? Finally, what assessment do the Government make of the US’s new determination?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for the important points she raises, and I am pleased that there is cross-party agreement on so many of these matters. I agree with her characterisation of the relationship between UK and US activity on these issues, and the fact that the UK has a distinct mechanism on determination. She talked about the fact that this is a man-made crisis, and that is absolutely right. There is nothing inevitable about the extreme suffering we see in Sudan. We call on all warring parties to cease fire and to put the needs of civilians at the forefront of their minds, rather than continuing with this appalling conflict.
The right hon. Lady asked about the actions of other nations. I and other Ministers have made it clear from the Dispatch Box that there is no reason for any other country to be engaged in Sudan, other than to provide humanitarian support; they should not be involved for any other reason.
Anneliese Dodds
I am pleased to see the right hon. Lady nodding.
The right hon. Lady asked about the political pushes and the mechanism we have been seeking to use. We will keep up the pressure at the UN Security Council, and the Foreign Secretary has been seeking to use that mechanism as much as possible. When we last discussed these matters, it was before the UK special representative to Sudan, Richard Crowder, was able to visit Port Sudan in December last year. I was pleased that happened as it was the first time we had had a UK delegation in Sudan since the conflict began. It is really important that we can be there to put pressure on the parties to the conflict.
As I have mentioned, we keep our sanctions under review but will not comment on future designations, for reasons that the right hon. Lady fully understands. We have been seeking to use our expertise. We are determined to do all we can to support the International Criminal Court, across a whole range of different theatres of conflict and different situations where it is active. Part of that work includes its activities in relation to Sudan.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
As we have heard, the situation for women and girls is particularly severe in Sudan, with reports of gender-based violence surging, including kidnapping, forced marriage, child marriage and intimate partner violence. In fact, the UN has reported a 288% increase in the number of survivors of gender-based violence seeking its case management services. Will the Minister outline what steps we are taking to ensure that those perpetrating gender-based violence are being held to account?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter. I know that she is deeply concerned about it and has experience of it from before she entered this place, as do a number of Members. She referred to some of the reports. The UN panel of experts released significant information, as we have already discussed in the House. Attacks have even taken place within special, theoretically protected areas such as camps for internally displaced people. The fact that women and girls have risked being raped within those camps, when travelling, at checkpoints and even in their own homes is truly appalling.
We must ensure that there is accountability. As I mentioned, we have been working to renew the fact-finding mission, as well as working with civil society mechanisms to collate related information from social media to ensure that it feeds into the overall picture. As in any situation where the facts need to be established, that will be critical for the accountability mechanisms, including but not limited to the ICC.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
In three months, we will reach the second anniversary of the terrible conflict in Sudan. Can the Minister update us on the Government’s work to deliver a political process to secure a ceasefire before then, so that a civilian Administration can begin the work of reconstruction?
In the light of the judgment of the US Administration, can the Minister give the House a date by which the Government will have determined whether genocide is being committed? Last October, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) declared on behalf of the then Government that ethnic cleansing was taking place in Sudan. What have been the consequences of that designation, and what more can the UK do to gather evidence of those crimes? As the Minister mentioned, Russia’s veto of the Security Council resolution is yet one more example of its shameful role in world affairs, but the needs of children, women and ethnic groups for protection is greater, not less, as a result. Can she outline what actions the UK is taking to secure safe zones for schools and hospitals?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his important questions. He is right to refer to the fact that we are approaching the second anniversary of the conflict, which has had a truly awful impact on civilians. He asked about the political mechanisms that we will use to seek a ceasefire. I referred to the first visit to Sudan by a UK delegation since the conflict began. As I also mentioned, we are seeking to use our role within the UN Security Council and our leadership of the Sudan core group within the UN Human Rights Council. On top of that, we are seeking to use every instance of bilateral and multilateral engagement to put these issues at the forefront, because we see the immensity of the suffering within Sudan.
The hon. Gentleman asked about a date for determination. I do not want to bore the House by restating the Government’s approach, which is the same as that of previous Governments, but we believe that robustness and trust in the determination of these issues are important. That means ensuring that there are effective international instruments, driven by experts. In the International Criminal Court, it is through determinations of expert lawyers, based on evidence that is internationally trusted, that decisions on such matters will be reached, including this one. He asked about evidence. I refer him to my previous remarks about the work that we have been undertaking, especially with the fact-finding mission. We will seek to do all that we can to build on that in the months to come.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Minister’s response, and ask that the Government continue to keep the House regularly updated. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) said, the House should not forget this issue. In December, I met Islamic Relief, which is based in my constituency, and it gave me an update on some of the work it has been doing. It told me that at least 50 aid workers had been killed and 45 wounded since the war in Sudan started. Several aid organisations have had to suspend their work due to attacks on their staff members, and over 120 humanitarian offices have been looted. Sadly, aid workers are the first line of defence for many of the innocent civilians we are desperately trying to help in this escalating conflict. The Minister outlined the additional funding from the UK Government, but what more can she say about specific actions that the UK is taking to prevent the targeting of innocent humanitarian aid workers in Sudan?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those incredibly important issues. She is right that it is important that the Government keep Members of this House informed about developments. I can report that my officials briefed the all-party parliamentary group for Sudan and South Sudan. I am happy to ensure that that route for information is maintained, but I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for raising this urgent question and to any Members who wish to discuss the matter with me.
My hon. Friend talked about Islamic Relief, and I want to praise its work and that of other non-governmental organisations that are active in trying to ensure that support is received by those in such desperate need within Sudan. She talked about the impact on aid workers. We have recently passed through one of the most deadly periods globally for aid workers. As she mentioned, about 50 aid workers are assessed to have been killed in Sudan and about 300 in Gaza. We also see aid workers being held hostage in Yemen. The UK Government are determined to ensure that those issues are raised and that we enable those who spend much of their lives in situations of danger to help others to do so in safety and security, and with the protection of international humanitarian law.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I welcome this urgent question because it is an opportunity to shine a light on these appalling events. Unfortunately, following the right hon. Lady’s last statement, we did not get much attention—even national attention—on them, and we must all try to ensure that we do. Does she still think that the Jeddah process can bring the warring parties together? What specific action have the UK Government taken in relation to international partners, such as the United Arab Emirates, to encourage them to play a positive role in the conflict?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising those issues. I am keen to work across the House to elevate the salience of this dreadful situation. He mentioned the Jeddah process. The new UK Government are clear, as I believe were the previous Government, that both warring parties have to engage with those mechanisms. Of course, commitments were made by the warring parties during the Jeddah process that have not been held to. They must be held to, and they must both engage with the mechanisms being created to seek a ceasefire. Instead, we have seen a frustrating situation where there may have been engagement by the RSF on some and by the SAF on others. They both must engage for the sake of civilians within Sudan and the many refugees beyond it.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what we are doing in relation to other countries. I will repeat what I said before: the new Government are clear—again, as I believe were the previous Government—that there must not be engagement from other countries in this conflict, aside from delivering the humanitarian aid in Sudan that is desperately needed. That is very clear—the Sudanese people have suffered enough.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
UNICEF’s latest figures estimate that 3.2 million children in Sudan face acute malnutrition this year, putting them at severe risk of death. The limited humanitarian access, which is limited by all warring parties, is to blame for this crisis. Will the Government tell us what discussions they have had with actors in Sudan and with regional actors to ensure full humanitarian access for those most at risk in Sudan, including, importantly, children?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I know he is deeply concerned about developments over recent months. Of course, a significant one has been the changes we have seen over time at the Adre crossing, which is critical for ensuring that aid can pass into some of the areas of Sudan that are under the most intense pressure, particularly when it comes to food supplies. It is important that the Adre crossing is kept open permanently. Of course, we welcome the agreement to extend the opening of that crossing beyond the initial three-month extension to 15 November, but it should be open for the future—that is important.
We also need the RSF to commit to urgently facilitating access across lines of conflict. We need openness to aid, both into Sudan and then within Sudan, across lines between the warring parties, to get support to those who are so in need, including children, as my hon. Friend rightly says.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
When the Government last announced their aid package, one area was in famine and four were on the brink. Those five areas are now in famine, another five are expected to be by the spring, and a further 17 are at risk. As the hunger crisis spirals, less than 10% of those in affected areas are getting humanitarian assistance. What new diplomatic steps are the Government taking to get food into those affected areas, and will they are commit to further funding for humanitarian assistance in view of that ever-spiralling famine?
Anneliese Dodds
I will be brief so that we can get to more questions, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can inform the hon. Lady that, following that truly disturbing determination by the IPC, the UK requested an urgent open briefing at the UN Security Council on 6 January, in which we called for a lifting of all bureaucratic impediments, improved humanitarian access and a political solution to the conflict, so that the food and nutrition catastrophe does not deepen further.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The Minister says that the US process for identifying genocide is different from ours. Where does she think we are in that process, and what role does she see for the Law Officers in making a determination? If it is a question of evidence, would she not be wise to follow the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) to fund the office of the African Union special envoy on the prevention of genocide?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that subject, about which we talked a little previously. To underline the UK’s position, we believe it important that there are international mechanisms for determinations on these critical issues because there must be international trust for those determinations to carry weight. That is the UK’s approach. When it comes to accountability, evidence gathering and acting on the evidence, we have sought to ensure that the UK supports those mechanisms, including the International Criminal Court. I have talked before about the UK’s contribution to that Court.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Since we last discussed this horror on 29 October, I am not aware of any major news coverage of it. How is it that it goes so under-reported? Is it simply too dangerous for journalists to be there? The Minister stresses the wish for no other country to intervene, but is it not the case that genocides tend to go on until someone stops the people committing them?
Anneliese Dodds
The right hon. Gentleman asks about media coverage. I was pleased that the BBC produced a major package on Tom Fletcher’s visit. I am very pleased that there was that UN engagement, which is incredibly important. We need more focus on the situation. Indeed, that is how I would respond—very briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker—to the right hon. Gentleman’s third point. One of the most important things in the prevention of atrocities is the ability for journalists, fact-finders, investigators and experts to visit, and the UK has been supporting that in our activity. Finally, he asks about how we can ensure that there is a greater profile on these issues from the UK side. As I mentioned earlier, I was very pleased that the UK’s Richard Crowder was able to visit Sudan. It is important that we have a presence in that country.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Following on from the previous question, there was a harrowing series on Sudan last week in which The Times reported that enforced starvation had been part of the arsenal of war. I know that the Sudanese community in Newport are deeply concerned for their friends and family, with no end to the conflict in sight. The doubling in November of the UK’s humanitarian assistance was vital, but my constituents want the Minister to reassure them on what the Government are doing to combat the deliberate restriction of aid.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the commitment of the Sudanese diaspora in Newport to supporting people in Sudan. I have seen that from people from the diaspora in communities right across the country, and indeed more broadly, with so many people who have seen the details of what is taking place in Sudan being desperately concerned about it. I reassure her that we are determined to do all that we can to ensure that lifesaving aid in food, healthcare and other means is delivered to people in need so that the people who are suffering so much in Sudan are protected.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
We all remember the appalling comments of the Foreign Secretary in October when he said that genocide is a legal term, which
“must be determined by international courts”,
which is appropriate only
“when millions of people lost their lives”.—[Official Report, 28 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 556.]
The special adviser to the UN Secretary-General on the prevention of genocide has said that the situation today in Sudan
“bears all the marks of risk of genocide”.
The US Secretary of State has determined that the RSF and its aligned militias have committed genocide. In the UK, Protection Approaches’ director said that
“the people of Sudan face unimaginable precarity under a triple threat of war, genocide and famine.”
Why is it that time after time in this House we are so reticent about using the word “genocide” when it is all around us and the evidence is there for us to see? Does the Minister stand by the Foreign Secretary’s assessment that it is only for international courts to make the assessment that millions must die before the term genocide can be used? Does she believe that the US Secretary of State’s use of the term “genocide” undermines its seriousness?
Anneliese Dodds
The Government believe it is critical that we have an approach to determining genocide that is consistent with our obligations under the genocide convention and the Rome statute. They are incredibly important. As I have said before, to have trust internationally in the system, it is critical that we ensure there is a clear, impartial and independent methodology for the determination of genocide. That is important because of the seriousness of the matter of which we speak.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
In 2004, General Colin Powell, who was then the US Secretary of State, referred to events in Darfur as genocide, but action was not taken. A genocide took place in Rwanda—it was not prevented—and there were similar events in Iraq where the Kurds suffered a genocide. Irrespective of definitions of genocide, does my right hon. Friend agree that more external pressure is needed from the international community to deter those who would commit war crimes and ensure that humanitarian aid gets in, irrespective of local opposition?
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Almost daily, we see reports about what is going on in Gaza or Ukraine, yet, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) mentioned, we see hardly anything about the situation in Sudan. Clearly this is genocide, and the most important thing now will probably be the attitude that the incoming Administration in the United States take towards it. What discussion has the Minister, or any Foreign Office Minister, had with the incoming Trump Administration on the action they will take to support our penholder initiatives in Sudan?
Anneliese Dodds
It is critical that the UK works with the US, and as the hon. Member would expect we have been working with our US counterparts on this issue, but it is also important that we work with others, particularly within the region. That is why we have been having particularly committed and repeated discussions with the African Union, for example, and why we are working with Sierra Leone on the fact-finding mission renewal.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for his continued work on this matter. Reports from Sudan are deeply harrowing. With the UN highlighting the staggering scale of sexual violence being perpetrated, particularly by the RSF, there is credible evidence that some women and girls are taking their lives or contemplating suicide as a pre-emptive measure. That that is happening in 2024 is absolutely appalling, and it is horrendous that it is happening without any international attention. Will the Minister state what work we are doing with international partners to ensure that we are delivering as much humanitarian funding as possible?
Anneliese Dodds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: some of the reports we have heard in this regard are extremely disturbing. The UK is supporting the work of UN bodies on this issue, particularly the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. When it comes to aid, as my hon. Friend mentioned, we are ensuring that we seek to support those who have been the victims of these horrific crimes, including helping partners to provide clinical treatment, dignity kits and psychosocial services for survivors.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Is the Minister committed to the introduction of a no-fly zone across Sudan, including drones, as is currently the case in Darfur?
Anneliese Dodds
A number of different mechanisms have been advocated in relation to Sudan, seeking to ensure that the appalling conflict there ends. Of course, there is already an arms embargo in relation to Darfur, and there is the UN arms embargo as well. However, so far, we have not seen those mechanisms deliver the results that are so desperately needed. The UK is determined to work with our partners and internationally so that we can have the ceasefire that is so desperately needed. That is the focus of our activity, as well as atrocity prevention and aid, as we have discussed.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I know that the Sudanese community in my constituency welcome the UK’s leadership at the UN Security Council in pushing for a ceasefire, but it is deeply concerning that seven RSF-owned companies in the United Arab Emirates have been named and sanctioned by the US for supplying the finance and military equipment to sustain what is happening. Can the Minister update us on what conversations the Government will have with the UAE, our ally, to account for its role in enabling this unimaginable violence?
Anneliese Dodds
We have had conversations with a range of different countries, both those right next to Sudan —which, of course, are seeing huge refugee movements within their borders—and those that have been involved in broader discussions around these matters. Our position remains that there should not be engagement of any other nation within Sudan, unless it is to deliver the humanitarian aid that is needed.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
As the horrendous nature of this conflict becomes apparent, I concur with many Members in this Chamber that it is a forgotten conflict. I thank the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for bringing this urgent question to the House, especially when we read reports indicating a dramatic increase in gender-based violence, including over 2,000 cases of sexual violence reported in Darfur alone since the beginning of the conflict. As the penholder on Sudan at the United Nations Security Council, what steps is the UK taking to work with the International Criminal Court and the international community to ensure accountability for the perpetrators of that crime, and of genocide per se?
Anneliese Dodds
First, in relation to accountability, we have indeed been working with the ICC, as we would do on any issue. Of course, the ICC is rightly strategically and operationally independent; as the UK, we are determined to make sure we are contributing to its overall expertise while it acts independently. The hon. Gentleman also talked about the UK’s role as penholder. That has been very important for us, particularly in seeking to get agreement at the UN Security Council about the protection of civilians. As I mentioned before, Russia’s exercise of the veto on that subject was disgraceful.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Sexual violence is growing as a weapon of war and oppression, as was discussed last Thursday in Westminster Hall. Can the Minister reassure the House that despite the previous Government’s cuts to the aid budget, she will do as much as she can to protect the women and girls in Sudan, seeking additional funds from the Treasury if necessary?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for again raising, as so many Members have, the situation of women and girls in Sudan. We will seek to use every mechanism available to ensure that the UK is contributing to the protection of the women and young girls at such risk in Sudan. During this statement, we have heard many reports about the appalling treatment they have received, and they must be protected in the future.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Conflicts such as this and genocides such as this tend to create refugees. Have the Government made an assessment of what the continuation of this conflict will do to the number of Sudanese refugees seeking asylum in the United Kingdom, and if so, will the Minister share it with us, please?
Anneliese Dodds
The reality of the situation so far is that, although there have been very significant population movements, they have been into the countries neighbouring Sudan, particularly Chad, but also South Sudan, and many people have travelled to Egypt and further afield. Their situation has been very difficult in many cases. I have talked directly to those pushed out of Sudan because of the conflict into South Sudan when I was there last year. The UK will seek to do all we can to protect those individuals.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Twenty years ago, the Save Darfur coalition was one of the biggest international social movements of its time, but today the campaigning voices of charities and NGOs on the conflict in Sudan are not being amplified in quite the same way, certainly not by Governments. Why does the Minister suppose this is, and what more can the British Government do to amplify the appeals for support from humanitarian organisations?
Anneliese Dodds
We have been seeking to amplify the voices of charities in this area. I have met them myself, and I have been particularly keen to ensure that I have heard directly from those operating in Sudan and those running the emergency response rooms. Those incredibly brave individuals, who are neutral in relation to the different warring parties in this conflict, are determined to support those who are suffering so much. The UK Government will try to ensure that their profile is increased in the weeks and months to come.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for her answers. She is an honourable and passionate lady, and her grasp of the grave realities facing Sudan is very evident from her answers. I thank her for that.
The RSF and its sponsors, emboldened by international inaction, act with impunity, laughing at the lack of decisive intervention. Women and girls are being subjected to systematic sexual violence, villages are being razed and entire communities are being uprooted on the basis of their ethnic identity. The suffering is staggering, and the silence from global powers is deafening. Can the Minister confirm that strong measures and international leadership are needed, otherwise Sudan will collapse further into chaos, spreading instability and suffering, and pushing the conflict far beyond the Sudanese borders?
Anneliese Dodds
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I have to say that I am so pleased to see that we have very strong cross-party concern on this issue and a determination to really make a difference for those suffering so much in Sudan and beyond its borders as refugees. He is right to point out that, should there continue to be this level of instability in Sudan itself, that will have a further knock-on impact. We are already seeing people in Chad under considerable pressure when it comes to food supplies as very large numbers of people are coming through from Sudan, and we have seen the same in South Sudan, so this conflict really is having a terrible impact regionally as well as in Sudan.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive responses.
Artificial Intelligence Opportunities Action Plan
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
With permission, I would like to make a statement about the Government’s AI opportunities action plan.
This Government were elected on a programme of change. Today, we are publishing the latest step in delivering our plan for change with the AI opportunities action plan. Our plan for change is clear: we will grow the economy, backing British business, with good jobs putting more money in working people’s pockets; and we will rebuild our crumbling public services, too, providing our people with world-class healthcare and education. That ambition shapes our approach to artificial intelligence—the technology set to define our shared future economic and social progress.
AI is no longer the stuff of sci-fi movies and “Dr Who”; the AI revolution is right here and right now. In NHS hospitals, AI is helping doctors to detect and treat disease faster and more effectively, reducing patient waits and saving more lives. In local schools, AI is equipping teachers with the tools to spend more time helping every pupil to achieve their full potential. In high streets across the country, small businesses have started using AI to grow their companies and compete on the global stage.
The applications are boundless and the opportunities profound, but only those countries with the courage to seize them will fully benefit. We do not get to decide whether AI will become part of our world—it already is; the choice is between waiting for AI to reshape our lives, or shaping the future of that technology so that the British economy and working people reap its maximum benefit. We choose fully to embrace the opportunity that AI presents to build a better future for all our citizens. Anything less would be a dereliction of duty.
Since the first industrial revolution, science and technological progress has been the single greatest force of change. Once again, a reforming Labour Government are called to harness the white heat of scientific revolution in the interests of working people. From ending hospital backlogs to securing home-grown energy and giving children the best start in life, AI is essential to our programme of change.
Championing change is in Britons’ DNA—we pioneered the age of steam. I believe that Britain can be a leader now, in the AI age. With world-class talent, excellent universities and an unrivalled record of scientific discovery, we can do so. Home to success stories such as Google DeepMind, ARM and Wayve, we have the third largest AI market in the world.
Just as we have been on AI safety, I believe that Britain has a responsibility to provide global leadership by fairly and effectively seizing the opportunities that AI presents to improve lives. That is why in July last year I asked Matt Clifford to prepare the AI opportunities action plan. Across 50 recommendations, that plan shows how we can shape the application of AI in a modern social market economy, anchored in principles of shared prosperity, improved public services and increased personal opportunity. Through partnership with leading companies and researchers, we will strengthen the foundations of our AI ecosystem, use AI to deliver real change for our citizens, and secure our future by ensuring that we are home to the firms right at the frontier of this technology.
Change has already started. Our transformative planning reforms will make it easier to build data centres—the industrial engines of the AI age. Skills England will prepare British people to be active participants in tomorrow’s business successes. The digital centre of government will use technology to transform the relationship between the modern state and citizens. However, faced with a technology that shows no signs of slowing, we must move faster and further. We are taking forward recommendations to expand Britain’s sovereign AI compute capacity by at least 20 times by 2030, ensuring that British researchers can access the tools they need to develop cutting-edge AI.
We will create AI growth zones to speed up the construction of critical compute infrastructure right across the United Kingdom. With enhanced access to power and streamlined planning approvals, those zones will bring faster growth and better jobs to communities who have missed out in the past. The first pilot AI growth zone will be at Culham in Oxfordshire, a world-renowned hub for clean energy and fusion research. They will pioneer innovative partnerships with business to deliver secure dedicated computing capacity that supports our national priorities. We will also seek a private sector partner to develop one of the UK’s largest AI data centres, beginning with 100 MW of capacity, with plans to scale up to 500 MW.
One of the biggest barriers to success in the AI age is the immense amount of energy that the technology uses. The Energy Secretary and I are convening and co-chairing a new AI energy council to provide expert insight into how to meet this demand, including opportunities to accelerate investment in innovative solutions, such as small modular reactors.
Infrastructure alone, though, is not enough. To deliver security, prosperity and opportunity for every citizen into the long term, we must be makers of this technology, and not just takers. Britain needs our own national champions—our own Googles and Microsofts. We are launching a new dedicated team with a mandate to strengthen our sovereign AI capacities by supporting high-potential frontier AI companies in the UK. This team will work across and beyond Government, partnering with the fast-growing firms to ensure that they can access the compute capacity, the data and the global talent they need to succeed in Britain.
We have already seen how a small number of companies at the frontier of AI are set to wield outsized global influence. We have a narrow window of opportunity to secure a stake in the future of AI. By acting now, we can secure a better future for the British people in the decades to come, but this is just the start. We will safely unlock the value of public sector data assets to support secure, responsible and ethical AI innovation. We will overhaul the skills system to safeguard our status as a top destination for global talent, with a workforce ready for the AI age. We will use a scan, pilot and scale approach to quickly identify and trial ways of using AI to transform our economy and improve our public services.
The stakes just could not be higher. This is a top priority for the Prime Minister and across Government. We will harness the power of AI to fulfil our promise to the British people of better jobs, better public services and better lives. We have attracted more than £25 billion-worth of investment into AI since we took office. This week alone, global giants have committed a further £14 billion-worth of investment. Phase 2 of the spending review will see every Department using technology to drive forward our national missions to deliver better value for taxpayers. AI will also be fundamental to the industrial strategy to attract investment, to grow the economy and to create high-quality, well-paid jobs across the country.
The AI revolution is now. This Government are determined to fully harness this opportunity for British businesses and working people right across the United Kingdom. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Let me begin by thanking Matt Clifford for his work. Having known Matt for many years, I am grateful for his long-standing contribution to the tech sector, including with the last Conservative Government.
It was that last Conservative Government who identified the opportunities of AI early, and we acted decisively. We kept Britain out of the EU’s anti-growth regulatory regime, enabling our tech sector to flourish. In contrast, the Secretary of State is on record praising the EU’s approach to AI, which even President Macron rejected. Will the Secretary rule out regulatory alignment with the EU on AI issues? We also launched the incubator for AI, which led on groundbreaking work to improve productivity, and the gov.uk chatbot, both of which were led by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). Can the Secretary of State guarantee the future of both projects under this Government?
We also provided £500 million for AI compute, because our AI sector requires cutting-edge computing power, as well as more energy to power data centres. Labour’s energy policy is taking our country to the brink of blackouts. Instead of just launching another quango—the AI energy council—can the Secretary of State assure the House that the AI sector will have reliable access to all the energy it needs? It was a Conservative Government who organised the world’s first AI safety summit and delivered the world’s third largest AI market, fostering an environment in which Sir Demis Hassabis won the Nobel prize last year. Even the Prime Minister admitted today that when it comes to AI, Britain starts with a position of strength.
The bad news is that Labour is already squandering the world-leading AI position that we built up for Britain. Last July, one of Labour’s first actions on entering government was to cut £1.3 billion of funding for Britain’s first exascale supercomputer and the AI research resource—both of which Matt Clifford’s report says deserve support. Why did the Secretary of State not stand up to the Chancellor when she cut the funding last July? Anyone reading the plan will see that it has been fully drenched in Labour gobbledegook, peppered with references to “missions”, “mission delivery boards”, “clusters”, “sector champions” and even “local trusted intermediaries”. Its plan confirms what everyone suspected all along: Labour prefers technocratic jargon over the actual tech sector.
The plan was ready last September and due to be published last November. Why did Labour delay publication again and again, and finally choose a day when it needed to divert attention away from the beleaguered Chancellor? What is not in the plan is even more telling than what is. First, there is nothing to correct the huge damage that Labour has already inflicted on the AI sector through the Chancellor’s national insurance jobs tax, which punishes every tech worker by £900 per person per year. Will the Secretary of State apologise today for making our tech workers take a wage cut and for reducing their living standards?
Labour’s response is full of aspirational dates for targets to be met, but there are no specific plans setting out how it will achieve the targets or pay for them—so much for the Chancellor’s iron grip on the public finances. Given that there is no new funding, will the Secretary of State give a precise date for publishing his spending plans, and confirm what funding will be cut from existing projects to pay for this plan’s 50 new commitments? Why have the Government created two more AI quangos today? The Prime Minister has announced or created a quango almost every week since coming to office. Today, it is clearly the tech sector’s turn. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House and the country that his two new AI quangos will not just tie up our tech sector in more red tape?
Last week, the Chancellor fled the country. As she headed east, our economy went south. Labour promised growth but it has delivered failure. It has published an underwhelming plan three months late. It has punished our tech workers with the national insurance jobs tax. It has saddled our tech sector with red tape and more quangos, and it aligns itself with the EU when everybody else is saying no. Labour’s delayed AI plan is analogue Government in the digital age: slow, uninspiring and not good enough for Britain. Our country deserves the best, but Labour has let Britain down again.
Peter Kyle
I am kind of grateful for the hon. Member’s comments, but I feel a bit sorry for him. He praised Matt Clifford and his independent report, because Matt Clifford is an astonishing person—as a House we should all give credit to somebody who has been so successful in the tech sector out there in the real economy, while giving up so much time for public service. I am grateful for him. But the hon. Member then went on to talk about his report as if it is Labour’s report, “full of gobbledegook”. It was not Labour’s report but Matt Clifford’s report. If the hon. Member respected Matt Clifford, he would not be attacking the very report that he authored. I did not author it; I just looked at the recommendations, saw the logic and the scale of the ambition in it and said yes. We share that sense of ambition and we will deliver it, too.
If the hon. Member cared so much about compute and the exascale computer, his Government would have done something fundamental to deliver it. They would have allocated the money. If they are standing up in public and saying that they will deliver something, it is pretty basic stuff to allocate the resources to deliver it. That project never existed, because the money never existed. It was a fraud committed on the scientific community of our country—smoke and mirrors from the outset. All I did was be honest with the public about the scale of the deceit inflicted on them. I corrected a wrong from the previous Administration.
Today, we have a plan. The task set for Matt Clifford was not to look at what Government—particularly the previous Government—are capable of and then to try to design a programme limited by the scale of their chaotic abilities. Instead, the Prime Minister and I asked Matt Clifford to look at our country’s potential if we get everything right on the digital infrastructure and opportunities of the future, and that is what his plan has done. There are things this Government need to do differently in order to realise the potential out there in our country, and that is what we have set about doing today by accepting all 50 recommendations.
When they were in office, the Conservatives did down our country; now, in opposition, they do nothing but talk it down. That is a shame.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I welcome the Government embracing AI and the Secretary of State’s leadership in accepting every single one of Matt Clifford’s recommendations —I hope he will be as receptive in accepting the recommendations of my Committee. Does the Secretary of State agree that those who say this plan is irrelevant to the challenges of economic growth in public sector financing that we are facing fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the opportunities that AI represents, its presence everywhere in our lives already, the frenetic pace of its implementation and its ability to drive growth? Most importantly, however, they misunderstand the nature of business confidence. Having a Government who understand how to drive these opportunities into every home, business and public sector service in the land is a reason for business confidence.
Peter Kyle
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments and for the service of her Committee. It was a privilege to go before her Committee so soon after its formation, and I look forward to engaging in the future. She is completely right. We hear a lot about business confidence and the words that come out of certain parts of the business community, but today, they have voted with their investment. We have announced an additional £14 billion and the creation of up to 13,000 jobs as a result of today’s investment—that is business showing confidence in this Government. Of course, for many of the schemes announced today, the policies will deliver into the short, medium and long term. Together with our regulatory innovation office and our planning reforms, that investment will mean that shovels go into the ground quickly, and the jobs and wealth that will be created by it will start paying dividends very soon.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement.
We are all too aware of the economic malaise inherited from the previous Conservative Government. Innovation in technology can help to reverse years of decline, and the UK must be a world leader in quality innovation. From helping to save lives to boosting our economy, good tech is good for business, and that is why safety and AI innovation must go hand in hand. We must build trust and bring people along, not risk breeding suspicion or fear. As the Ada Lovelace Institute said this morning,
“there will be no bigger roadblock to AI’s transformative potential than a failure in public confidence.”
The national data library would represent a major shift in public sector data handling. How will the Government ensure the necessary safeguards are in place? How will they maintain public confidence?
While the focus on AI training is welcome, we must go beyond high-level skills. Not only are tech companies themselves calling out for technical skills, but AI is here now, shaping workplaces, services and lives. What is being done to ensure all sectors of society can access lifelong learning and training? Where is the strategy to address digital exclusion so that no one is left behind? Furthermore, the text and data mining regime is a concern. Creatives will be dismayed by the Government’s acceptance of an opt-out system, which I urge the Government to reassess.
The Prime Minister says that our AI safety infrastructure is world leading, but companies are calling for better funding access with better support from the British Business Bank, simpler ways of working with international talent and better infrastructure, from labs to internet access. How will the Government choose where those growth zones will be and ensure the benefits are shared across the UK? How will they ensure that small, innovative start-ups are not left behind?
Innovation must go hand in hand with safety and trust, with the right guardrails in place to promote safety by design. Only by doing so can we lead in quality innovation and ensure the benefits are felt across the UK.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her constructive comments. She mentions trust. Trust is incredibly important in this whole agenda. We have seen too many times in the past where a fearful public have failed to fully grasp the potential for innovation coming out of the scientific community in this country. We are not going to make that mistake. We understand from the outset that to take the public with us we must inspire confidence. We must have safety assured from the outset and that is a commitment I make today. If people are not safe and protected, and do not feel safe, they will not explore confidently all the potential that AI and the digital world presents to them, their families, their communities, their businesses and us as a country. We must ensure that they do so.
On intellectual property, a consultation is under way. The hon. Lady, along with the rest of the public and all interested parties, are very welcome to take part—indeed, I implore them to do so.
Growth zones present the most remarkable opportunity for parts of our country. We want to ensure not just that every part of the country benefits, but that those parts of the country that experienced deindustrialisation and suffered at the hands of the Conservative Government over 14 years of stagnation, chaos and the poor strategic planning of our economy, benefit the most. In the coming weeks we will announce the process by which we will select the future AI growth zones. I implore areas, regions and parts of our country that are interested to start looking at the Government’s direction of travel to see whether they can play a part, and whether they can get involved and start delivering AI growth zones in their area. There are parts of the country that will really benefit. We want to ensure that we have a set of local authorities and areas that are eager to take advantage of it.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Cities like Stoke-on-Trent, left behind by the previous Conservative Government, could significantly benefit from targeted AI investment. AI growth zones are one such opportunity. We have a great site in Stoke-on-Trent and energy innovations. Will the Secretary of State outline plans for using AI to drive investment towards the CreaTech hub that is Stoke-on-Trent?
Peter Kyle
The people of Stoke-on-Trent are extremely lucky to have such a strong advocate, not just for the infrastructure of the future but for the skills and the talent that exists across Stoke-on-Trent. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are eagerly awaiting any interest that Stoke-on-Trent shows in the growth zone area and in all the other announcements that came out in the plan today. We will not do “to” communities; we will partner “with” communities, areas and the nations of the United Kingdom to ensure that everyone benefits. Those who are hungry to embrace the agenda will have an active partner in my Department and this Government.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
The action plan calls for an AI sector champion in the creative industries, but what the Government really need is a creative industries champion. The Government’s copyright and AI consultation, which is so crucial for the creative industries, does not close until 25 February. One option on the table includes maintaining our current gold-standard copyright regime. Why does it seem that the Government have already made up their mind on that consultation? This plan heralds the reform of the UK text and data mining regime to be as least as competitive as the EU’s. This plan makes a nonsense of that consultation, does it not?
Peter Kyle
The hon. Lady, unfortunately, does not understand the idea of a consultation. We are open minded and we are listening eagerly to the sector. What I will not do is be forced to make a choice. We have the second-largest creative industries market in the world and the third-largest AI market in the world. This is a gift for a country like ours: two great sectors that are rooted in the future of where global economic prosperity lies. She and the Conservative party want us to make a choice between one or the other. We will not make that choice. On her call for a Government champion for the creative arts, we have one: the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant). I sit alongside him and am very grateful to do so.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
Small businesses and start-ups are vital to the local economy in my constituency and throughout the UK. Can the Secretary of State explain how his AI action plan will help those small businesses to seize the opportunities of AI, and deliver the growth that we desperately need across the country?
Peter Kyle
The people and businesses of High Peak have a great champion in my hon. Friend, and as such they will be able to reap the rewards. We need all parts of the economy to embrace digital technology fully in a digital future, and to do so with confidence. The Office for Budget Responsibility said some time ago that if businesses across Britain did do so equally it would add 0.5% to productivity, which would mean £27 billion of fiscal headroom for the Exchequer. We have set about doing so because that is how we can break out of the inheritance from the Conservative Government of high tax and low growth. We want to invest in that future, and small businesses will be at the forefront. The great thing about AI and digital technology is that it puts into the hands of small businesses the kind of power that to date has only been within the reach of large businesses. This is a huge opportunity, and I hope that people running small and medium-sized enterprises across the country will grab it with both hands.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
This morning the Prime Minister spoke about the Government’s wish to develop a clear and trusted copyright regime, which is, I believe, what many in the creative industries thought we already had. When the Secretary of State comes to consider Matt Clifford’s recommendation for reform of the text and data mining regime, will the consultation include consideration of potentially strengthening intellectual property protection rather than weakening it?
Peter Kyle
The right hon. Gentleman is a persistent advocate of the issue that he has raised, but let me gently say to him that if the current legal regime were so satisfactory, there would not be so many outstanding court cases concerning that precise issue; it is clearly struggling to keep up with the time in which we are living. We want to ensure that, yes, we do strengthen the rights of the people who use the creative industries and all the great potential that that has for individual copyrighted material, and we want to strengthen that into the future, but also to get it right for the future. That is why we are thinking about the needs, demands and opportunities of the future, and making sure that the settlement for those creating digital, AI and creative industry products and services benefits them equally as we go forward, and that they have the assertion of the law.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I am equally excited by the opportunities that being a leader in AI can bring to the people of the UK. As my right hon. Friend will know, Milton Keynes has been a leader from its outset. We have Bletchley Park, the birthplace of machine learning and AI, but Milton Keynes businesses are leading as well, especially in arts, services and transport. The heart of our security services efforts is based there, as is our skills base between the South Central institute of technology, Cranfield university and the Open university. Will my right hon. Friend meet me, and other AI champions from Milton Keynes, to come up with actions to make this plan a reality for the people there?
Peter Kyle
I have visited Silicon Valley three times in the past year, and one of the things I have noticed is that the constituent parts that make it so magical when it comes to innovation and the upscaling of it exist here in the UK, but we are not bringing it together and using it in the right way. My hon. Friend has just identified many of those constituent elements in Milton Keynes, and they have a great champion in her, because they need to be co-ordinated better to fully exploit the opportunities of the future. I hope that, along with this Government and my Department, I can be the partner that she needs, and I look forward to meeting her and her stakeholders.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I very much agree with the sentiments of the Secretary of State about the opportunities that AI presents, including those that it presents to my constituents, but with any opportunity often comes risk. Can he update the House on any conversations he has had with colleagues from the Home Office about ensuring that police are properly trained, equipped and resourced to deal with crime that is brought about through, for instance, deepfakes, misinformation or disinformation?
Peter Kyle
The hon. Lady has raised a very good point. I can assure her that we are indeed in touch with the Home Office, as we are with every frontline public service department, to ensure that AI is used and the potential is embraced. However, as I said earlier, safety and protection must be the first step, so that the public can be reassured that we are using this technology wisely and in their interests.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Future AI will be essential to the future of our public services, particularly in improving productivity. Can he say exactly what the Government will do to assist our public services to take advantage of the opportunities that AI offers?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The thing about AI is that it is not a singular technology; it is a general purpose technology. Just in health alone, AI is already being used in hospitals’ radiography departments, such as in Huddersfield, to make sure that scanning is more precise. We can detect early patterns quicker, so we get to disease quicker, and productivity is increasing—in Huddersfield’s case, from 700 to 1,000 scans a week. Simultaneously, AI is ensuring that doctors’ time is used more wisely in the test pilots that we are running. We are using digital technology to create a more human experience, because doctors can spend more time with patients. That is what happens when we use AI and digital technology wisely. It is why we, unlike the previous Government, will not sit on the sidelines and let the market do business as it sees fit. We will use the power of Government, and the agency that comes with it, to ensure that this technology is used for the benefit of all.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I do not know whether the Secretary of State has had a moment to read The Times this morning, but it reports that the Chancellor is using a new AI tool to answer her emails. It is 70% accurate and is
“performing as good or better than existing processes”,
which does not say a great deal for the ability of the Chancellor to answer her own emails. Be that as it may, could the Secretary of State please reassure us that any AI tool being used across Government will ensure that any statement brought to the Dispatch Box by the Chancellor is 100% accurate?
Peter Kyle
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are piloting, developing and hoping to deploy AI across Government to drive efficiencies and effectiveness, and to serve the people of this country better than ever before—and certainly better, more efficiently and more effectively than they experienced during the previous 14 years.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Can my right hon. Friend set out what role he envisages the digital centre of Government will play in driving AI adoption across public services and Departments to benefit my residents in Exeter?
Peter Kyle
The people of Exeter will experience many benefits through this Government’s digital technology programme. We have created the digital centre of Government because previously digital services were dispersed across Government. The Government often bought off-the-shelf products and services from big providers, because the capacity did not exist in Government to understand, develop, deploy and program services in-house. We now have a powerful digital centre of Government, which is working alongside tech companies and often developing in-house. I am really excited that in the days and weeks—not months and years—that lie ahead, we will tell the public more about what the digital service is delivering for citizens across this country.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I welcome the Government’s ambition in this space, but one area of significant challenge to many tech companies that I have observed and invested in over 20 years has been the ecosystem of investment in the UK. May I urge the Secretary of State to work closely with the Parliamentary Secretary, His Majesty’s Treasury, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), who is undertaking valuable work on pension reforms, so that we can intensify the understanding in the City of the opportunities that exist in this new sector, particularly at series C and before, where there is a gap? It has a meaningful impact on the growth potential of so many businesses across this country.
Peter Kyle
The right hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly pertinent point, and he mentions one of the great challenges. There are many challenges in this agenda, which is why we are striving so hard to get as much progress as we can. Removing one of the key barriers to not just upscaling innovation, but keeping it in this country, involves making sure that the investment landscape is comprehensive and swift enough—not just at spin out and scale up, but when we get to the point where we need the further rounds of investment that he mentions. Sometimes that is in the hundreds of millions of pounds, and sometimes it takes time to become profitable. Taking that kind of investment risk is essential.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary are both working intensively on pension reform. We did so in opposition, and we are carrying on with the Mansion House process. We want to make sure that the investment landscape in this country is world class. Right now, we have some work to do, but we are getting there.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I am pleased that today’s action plan refers to the expertise and development in AI that already exists in Edinburgh. It is understandable that the Government had to cancel a number of unfunded projects from the last Administration. However, will my right hon. Friend work with stakeholders to ensure that the ambition to develop an exascale computer in Edinburgh is at the heart of the Government’s long-term plan and will be brought forward in the next six months?
Peter Kyle
At last, there is a great advocate for a sustainable, fully funded, fully costed compute landscape for our country. That is something we have begun announcing in today’s plan, and into the spring I will announce further strategy on compute. I want to make sure that we have the right resilient, sustainable investment that our country needs when it comes to public compute. We have committed today to increasing our public compute by a factor of 20 in the next five years. That shows the scale of our ambition. My hon. Friend can rest assured that when we make announcements on the compute needs of our country, particularly when individual institutions are involved, they will be fully costed, they will be fully funded and they will be delivered.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
People in our world-class creative sector will not be in the least bit reassured by the Minister this afternoon. Our artists face the real prospect of their wonderful works being ingested by AI companies without recompense or even permission. We know that the consultation is ongoing, but what people want to hear is the Minister’s intention when it comes to copyright. Can he reassure people who are listening today that our wonderful copyright regime will remain in place at the end of this process?
Peter Kyle
We are already on record as saying that we want more licensing of copyrighted material, not less. The hon. Gentleman’s characterisation is a mischaracterisation of the intentions of this Government. The consultation is there, and we want to hear from people. We will deliver a way forward that harnesses all the opportunities of the creative industries into the future, not based on the past. We will allow AI companies to come here and invest into the future. We do not need to pit both sectors against each other. We as a country should celebrate that we have an economy so diverse that we can have the best of both sectors. We can have world-class sectors in both AI technology and the creative arts. That is something that we celebrate, but we seem to be the only party in this House that does.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement this afternoon. I know that he takes this subject really seriously. He was in my constituency just before Christmas, although it is a shame that he did not go into the PET scanner. I welcome the improvements in terms of education. For the many parents who, like me, have to battle with Google Classroom when they forget the password, I hope AI can resolve that issue.
One of the issues with AI is the mistrust in some communities, particularly black and minority ethnic communities, who worry about what their data will be used for. How will the Secretary of State work with certain communities, including in my constituency and other diverse constituencies, to build up public trust and confidence that their data will be used in an ethical and safe manner?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend makes the most important point. I am determined—I have said this publicly numerous times—that equity will be built into the technology and the policies of this Government from the outset. When she reads the reports, when she hears the words of this Government and when she listens to the Prime Minister, I hope she is reassured that this Government want to ensure that everyone from every background not only feels the ability to connect with and work within the tech sector here to create the technology of the future, but benefits equally from the products that come out the other side, including being able to use products intuitively and benefit from the wealth that is created from them. When it comes to using public data, I realise that there are communities in parts of this country that need to be taken on a longer journey and to be more reassured, and I fully commit to doing so as we go forward.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I welcome this action plan, which mentions data centres. As the Secretary of State may be aware, the Deputy Prime Minister is currently reviewing the need for a data centre in Kings Langley in my constituency.
Both the report and the Secretary of State talk about ensuring that the infrastructure is in the right place. I am working alongside my constituents in Kings Langley, because the proposed site is prime green belt. If there is a need to build on and develop the site, housing would make better sense, because energy—a huge requirement for data centres—is not available nearby. How can the Secretary of State ensure that we are not encouraging the building of white elephants in the wrong places?
Peter Kyle
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the energy and other constituent needs of data centres are, at last, being taken into account in strategic planning in our country. We have created the AI Energy Council, which is jointly chaired by the Energy Secretary and me, and the planning reforms will mean that we can expedite investment in data centres.
The hon. Gentleman should be aware that data centres are not a singular investment, but that other innovations, industries and businesses often cluster around them. He mentioned heat, and community heat networks often stem and flow from such investments, if there is the right local leadership, if there is planning in place and if there is the vision to make sure that our country benefits the most.
We have that vision, and I implore the hon. Gentleman to start getting involved with the local issues to shape what unfolds for the digital infrastructure of the future, so that it benefits absolutely everyone. This is a potential source of sustainable, good-quality wealth creation and job creation into the future. I suggest that his party gets on board and grabs it with both hands, rather than talking down the agenda we are putting forward today.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I am delighted that Vantage Data Centres is working to build one of Europe’s largest data centre campuses in Wales, and plans to invest over £12 billion in data centres across the UK, creating 11,500 jobs. This is, of course, great news for our Government’s economic growth mission. Can the Secretary of State therefore provide some insight into what this will mean for areas like my Monmouthshire constituency?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful that my hon. Friend can already see the benefits from this investment, because she is positive and is engaging and thinking deeply about the potential benefits. Incidentally, this investment is happening right now—not in the future, but right now. She will be best placed to help steer it for the benefit of all. The people of Monmouthshire are very grateful to have her, just as we are very grateful to have her in the House, as a champion for these issues.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I revert to the article in The Times mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), headlined: “Rachel Reeves using AI to reply to Treasury emails”.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Even if the right hon. Gentleman is quoting from a newspaper, I would prefer it if he did not use the Chancellor’s name.
Sir Julian Lewis
I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not want to misquote the headline.
Nevertheless—as we now all know who she is—I discover that, instead of corresponding with her civil servants, as I thought, I am engaging with something called a “correspondence triage automation tool”, which is used for
“the automatic matching of correspondence with appropriate standard responses”.
That might give us cause to chuckle, but can we at least have an assurance that when we write to Ministers, even if they are not replying, they will at least be informed of the fact that concerns have been raised by Members of this House?
Peter Kyle
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that Ministers are fully engaged in corresponding with Members across the House. Having been a Back Bencher for so long in opposition, I can assure you that I strive to be a lot better than what I experienced during so many of those years.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Can I just remind the Secretary of State that we do not use “you” in the Chamber? Please can questions and answers be brief? I would like to get everybody in before 6 o’clock.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State and his team for their vision and leadership on this critical issue. These exciting plans could help us to drive growth, create jobs and improve public services. Places like Peterborough could be at the heart of the silicon fens if we get this right. Critical to that will be the issue of skills in cities like mine—cities that were left behind for too long by the previous Government. Can the Secretary of State update and inform us on what progress his Department is making on assessing the UK skills gap when it comes to AI, and how we can ensure that growth benefits all parts of the country as we embark on this plan?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He said, “if we choose to”. This Government do choose to, and that means engaging with the Education Secretary on the skills agenda, and being determined to ensure that every community across the United Kingdom has equal access to the technology’s potential.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The Secretary of State is a constituency neighbour, so he will know that the convergence of the AI expertise at the University of Sussex, sustainable power from Rampion wind farm and computer power expertise from Universal Quantum, based in Haywards Heath, creates an ideal ecosystem for supporting the UK Government’s ambitious AI strategy. Does he agree that our corner of Sussex is a strong contender to be a hub for sustainable AI development? Will he meet me to discuss those opportunities?
Peter Kyle
It will not surprise the hon. Lady or the House to hear that I agree with championing Sussex. I went to the University of Sussex myself; I am an alumnus. Its AI research centre was established in the 1960s. That shows just how long scientific endeavour in digital technology has been in full flow in this country. Of course, I look forward to meeting the hon. Lady, perhaps down in sunny Sussex.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
AI offers immense potential for driving economic growth, but it also presents challenges for post-industrial areas, such as my constituency of Burton and Uttoxeter, including the risk of job displacement, skills shortages and infrastructure gaps, as well as concerns around public trust and the impact on communities. How are the Government addressing those challenges to ensure that AI delivers highly skilled sustainable jobs and long-term benefits to regions like mine in the midlands?
Peter Kyle
I assure my hon. Friend that the communities that he refers to are at the front and centre of the way that we envisage using the power of Government to steer this technology for the good of all. It is essential that communities like his benefit. In the past, wave after wave of revolution negatively impacted such communities, but that will not happen on our watch.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I make no apology for returning to the vital question of copyright. Notwithstanding the consultation, the plan recommends that we follow Europe in having an opt-out model. Does the Secretary of State not agree with me and the News Media Association that that would be a watering down of our exemplary copyright laws?
Peter Kyle
We put forward proposals as an entire package, which we are consulting on. The hon. Gentleman references one part of the package. If he looks at it as a whole, he will see that we are striving to take care of all the competing challenges, because of the benefits and opportunities for modern Britain.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that AI is not going away? It is therefore best for the UK to lead development and best practice, so that AI systems are safer for my constituents in Wolverhampton North East.
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This technology is not going away. The choice this Government have made is not to sit on the sidelines, as the Conservative Government did for the last 14 years. We will safely positively explore all the potential that AI has for our country, our economy and communities like hers. I am grateful for her attitude towards the statement, because that is the way to ensure that communities like hers benefit greatly from the next wave of industrial progress.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Secretary of State makes clear his ambition to make the United Kingdom the frontier home of choice for AI firms, and he hopes to see a significant increase in data centres. I trust that his ambition will be fulfilled. The Republic of Ireland, our neighbour, has been very successful in securing multiple data centres, primarily because of its very competitive corporation tax rate. Is a competitive corporation tax rate the missing component that would bring all this work together?
Peter Kyle
I got to Northern Ireland as soon as I could after my appointment to this job. I have to correct the hon. and learned Gentleman on one point. We have attracted £24 billion of investment in AI in this country since taking office, and an additional £14 billion this week alone. I think that tells the House that the missing ingredient was not what he said it was, but a Labour Government.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I welcome today’s statement, and wholeheartedly support close work with the private sector, and the investments in AI and data centres. Will the Secretary of State say a little more about his work to encourage more small businesses to benefit from AI, and will he consider Reading as a potential hub?
Peter Kyle
I really look forward to Reading getting involved, and to it offering to partner with us. We want to get investment into great places like Reading, which has a lot of great small businesses. Small businesses in communities up and down the country could benefit the most. They might sometimes feel like they are tucked away, but they can enter the global stage because of the technology that is before us. The Government’s job is to ensure that the infrastructure is there, and that all the technology is as accessible to small businesses as it is to big companies.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
We should be under no illusion: the U-turn on a supercomputer is exactly that. We committed £1.3 billion to it; Labour cancelled it. Can the Secretary of State tell the House how much money has been set aside to achieve his supercomputer ambitions?
Peter Kyle
I admire the way the Conservatives just push through with this. They did not commit a single penny to a single one of the projects that the hon. Gentleman mentions. They want all the benefits of our Budget, but will not say how they would pay for them. He is actually asking me to cut £800 million, or £1.3 billion, of revenue—perhaps cut thousands of research grants to universities and PhD students—to pay for a project that the Conservative Government announced but did not commit a single penny to.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State mentioned the benefits to industrial communities such as Stockton North. Does he agree that the commitment to artificial intelligence will lead to more investment in data-intensive heavy industries, such as chemicals and life sciences? I warmly invite him to visit the Billingham chemicals cluster in my constituency if he wishes to see industrial AI in action.
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend could not be more right. Not only will AI improve the investment landscape for physical infrastructure but it will mean profound technological advances in all sorts of industries, including those that are chemistry dependent. I am so glad that those industries have an MP who recognises that, is on their side, and is sticking up for them today in the British Parliament.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
It is clear that AI brings great opportunities, as well as some dangers. Nowhere is that more clear than in the military realm, where, to put it simply, an algorithm can help us make a decision about who to kill, and the quicker we do that, the more of an advantage it gives our side. On the other side of the ledger, if we kill the wrong person, our entire legal and ethical framework for how we conduct war disappears. Will the Secretary of State give the House a broad outline of his discussions with the Ministry of Defence on this important international issue?
Peter Kyle
The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point. I assure him that we have a world-class defence industry in this country, world-class defensive capabilities in the Ministry of Defence, and a Government who are determined to ensure that not just digital technology and AI but all evolving technology is used ethically and appropriately in the defence of our nation. I also assure him that the Prime Minister has written to each Government Department asking for their plans on digital progress and safely harnessing the power of digital technology, and that my Department and the Ministry of Defence are in touch.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
At the risk of disagreeing with some of my colleagues, it is surely Mid Cheshire that is leading the way on AI innovation in the north-west; we have a number of companies working on game-changing applications. Safety Shield Global in Winsford won a King’s award for enterprise for its AI model, which has been 10 years in the making and is keeping construction workers safe on sites all over the world. The action plan talks about the potential of post-industrial constituencies such as mine to act as AI growth zones—key drivers for regional growth. How can areas work with the Government to get AI growth zones up and running, and how soon does he expect them to be operational?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing that example from his constituency. In the coming weeks, we will release details of how local communities can get involved and apply to become AI growth zones; I really look forward to seeing his.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Over the summer, the UK Labour Government cancelled £1.3 billion-worth of investment in tech and AI projects, including £800 million for the next-generation exascale supercomputer at the University of Edinburgh. The UK Government described the project as making “little strategic sense”, yet today they have pledged to turbocharge AI, including through plans to build a brand-new—wait for it—supercomputer. There is to be new investment; given that the University of Edinburgh has been at the centre of research and development of AI for more than 60 years, will the new supercomputer be located in Edinburgh?
Peter Kyle
I will make the basic point again, because I think the hon. Gentleman needs to hear it again: I could not cut something that did not exist. I have extended the life of the existing supercomputer for another year, so that people have the reassurance that the capabilities needed are there, via the University of Edinburgh. In that time, I have been working on a strategy that will have resilience because it will be fully costed, fully planned and fully funded, so that from spring, when the strategy will be released, those who need to know the strategic opportunities in our country will have the certainty that they need, now and for the long term.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
A barrier to the growth of data centres for AI is their need for power. Rolls-Royce in Derby is at the forefront of small modular reactors and micro-reactors. SMRs are small enough to be on or next to data centre sites, and micro-reactors are the size of a shipping container. Co-location would mean less vulnerability to grid failure and cyber-attacks. Will the Secretary of State work with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to explore whether this could be the clean energy solution needed to support sovereign AI capabilities?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s very pertinent question. Investment is going into new sources of energy from investors around the world. I am really pleased that we have Rolls-Royce, which I visited just before the election, up in Coventry. I saw some of Rolls-Royce’s capabilities and heard some of its ambitions. I assure her that the AI Energy Council, which I chair jointly with the Energy Secretary, will take into consideration these sorts of issues, and ensure that the Government engage with those innovations. We want to ensure that we are at the forefront of not just data infrastructure but all the related industries from which our country can benefit.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Given that AI capability will seemingly be used positively, can the Secretary of State explain how the plan will advance areas such as healthcare? Does he see it as a way of reducing backlogs in the NHS, including in waiting lists and booking systems, and can he confirm that all regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will play their part and benefit from AI?
Peter Kyle
I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contributions, and have enjoyed working with him in opposition and now in government. AI has enormous potential for the health service; it could improve productivity, bring about innovation, and advance treatments and medicine. I assure him that we are striving for that. The Health Secretary and I are making many visits together to try to understand how we can work together to ensure that technology is developed and implemented throughout the NHS. I have been in touch with the Northern Ireland Assembly on the way forward, and on how the Administration in Westminster can partner with the Northern Ireland Government and ensure that Northern Ireland benefits. I know that there are challenges with the waiting lists there.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
I join the Secretary of State in praising Matt Clifford, who has produced a top-class report. When building data centres for training AI models, two things are needed: lots of energy, and ideally, cold weather. Fortunately, Scotland has both of those in abundance, so will the Secretary of State ensure that one of the AI growth zones is in Scotland?
Peter Kyle
I am not going to engage on the weather, coming from Brighton, which is the sunniest mainland city in the UK, but I thank my hon. Friend for letting me get that on the record. I assure him that we want all parts of the United Kingdom to benefit. I was in touch with the Scottish Government Finance Minister just last week. I am determined that all parts of the United Kingdom benefit, and that fully includes Scotland. Scotland is lucky to have him here championing its cause and celebrating its potential.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Progress in this area will be incredibly energy dependent. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to speed up the roll-out of small and advanced modular reactors to meet that demand? Given its history, skillset and location, Hartlepool presents a perfect opportunity for this type of investment.
Peter Kyle
I assure my hon. Friend that we are striving to ensure that innovation of all kinds is expedited. That is why I established the regulatory innovation office in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. We are already piloting four areas of policy so that we can get innovation off the drawing board and into the economy, benefiting the health and wealth of the nation as quickly as possible. I assure him that we are wasting no time to get that done.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. As he said, the AI revolution is taking place now, and it will make significant improvements in the promotion of public services and businesses. However, would he reassure my constituents in Wolverhampton West on what specific steps he will take to ensure that AI is safe in every possible way?
Peter Kyle
The work of the AI Safety Institute is ongoing, and it does world-class work. Of course, AI is fuelled by data, and we know that the public need reassurance that data will be used safely. With a data Bill going through, and with a Government that want to ensure people have the rights they need to have control over their data, I want to assure my hon. Friend on the use of data, technology and AI, as well as on the use of algorithms, which are increasingly being used in the private sector, but also in Government. Unlike the previous Government, I want to ensure that algorithms are published by Departments so that everybody can understand what it is that we are doing in their interests to benefit the country, because without understanding it, people will not feel safe with it being used. I will not tolerate that because we need to ensure that we as a country use this technology for the public good.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s leadership on AI—it is good to have someone taking this seriously. As somebody who was teaching a year ago, I am always interested in the application of AI in the classroom, especially when it comes to reducing teacher workload so they can spend more face-to-face time with their students. I am also interested in the application of AI in creating personalised learning resources for students based on their ability. Will the Secretary of State speak about that in more detail and potentially tell us about the timelines for rolling this out in our schools?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful that my hon. Friend has brought his experience from the classroom into the Chamber and into debates such as this one. As somebody who has experienced neurological challenges and barriers to learning as a child and through life, one of the most exciting parts of the digital and AI revolution that is unfolding is that, if we harness this correctly, a single classroom can exist both for students who have barriers to learning and for others who have specific talents that need stretching and challenging. Of course, there is no replacement for great teaching and the people and teachers in the classroom working with students, but with the assistance of digital technology and with what AI can do to provide a granular, detailed and tailored experience for students, that is something we are working on. My Department is working with the Department for Education so we can get this technology into classrooms and, as he says, for the benefit of all students right around the United Kingdom.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
On Friday, I visited a major National Grid upgrade project in my constituency, which will connect to a huge new data centre in north-west London. The Secretary of State has talked about the additional energy infrastructure needed, but how will he work to speed up the planning system, including taking on those who seek to block this critical new infrastructure, so that we can harness the benefits?
Peter Kyle
We certainly saved a great question for last. We are absolutely determined about the plan we have put forward today, and let me express my gratitude one final time to Matt Clifford for doing the report. To fully embrace this technology, we need to get a lot right. We need to get regulation and planning right. We are already undertaking a huge reform of our planning system—the biggest for well over a generation. That will include the ability for Government locally and centrally to ensure that investment into industries and infrastructure of the future is expedited and that it faces no barriers, so it can be put to the common good for our country and its citizens without delay.
Live Events Ticketing: Resale and Pricing Practices
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about ticketing in the live events sector.
In the words of the musical “Hamilton”, there is nothing quite like being
“in the room where it happens”.
I would hazard a guess that every single one of us here can remember the first time we went to a live event. My first rugby international was Wales versus Scotland at Murrayfield aged 12—the food was terrible. My first live gig was U2’s “The Joshua Tree” at Wembley arena. These moments of shared passion are part of what makes us the people we are. As Gloria Gaynor said,
“There’s nothing to compare to live music, there just isn’t anything.”
No wonder live events are so highly prized.
But for far too long, ticket touts have leached off fans’ passion. In the past, it was spivs in long raincoats at the gates. Nowadays it is a trade made all the more pernicious by the internet, which enables modern-day touts, hiding behind multiple false identities, to hoover up tickets and sell them at vastly inflated prices. It is indefensible. It trades off other people’s hopes and does not return a single penny to the artists, the performers, the venue, the industry or the sport. We said we would tackle this, and that is precisely what we are doing.
On Friday, the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport published a consultation on the resale of live event tickets and a separate call for evidence on pricing practices in the live events sector. It is not a consultation on whether to act; it is a consultation on precisely how we should act. The UK has a world-leading live events sector. Our artists, festivals and venues bring joy to audiences across the country. Last year, the sector employed over 200,000 people, contributing to local economies up and down the country, from stage technicians and sound engineers to venue staff and promoters. Every event—whether a major stadium event or an intimate gig at a grassroots venue—injects life into local communities and economies, supporting small businesses and generating significant revenue for our towns and cities. It is musicians, performers and athletes who make the events what they are and who create the value that sits behind them, not the ticket touts.
Live events are a catalyst for creativity, too, where artists have a platform to hone their craft and relate directly to audiences, as well as to earn a living. Live performances create unforgettable shared experiences that transcend cultural and social boundaries, uniting communities up and down the country and shaping our national identity. However, too many fans are missing out on opportunities to experience those live events. Put simply, the ticketing market is not working for fans.
The Government recognise that a well-functioning ticket resale market can play an important role—for instance, allowing those who cannot attend an event to give someone else the opportunity to go in their place. But far too often tickets are listed on the resale market at extortionate prices, many multiples of the face value. Just one example: standing tickets for Charli XCX’s current UK tour were originally priced at £54, but they have been listed on ticket resale sites for as much as £400. That is enough, as she herself would put it, to
“Shock you like defibrillators”.
So-called scalping is the work of organised touts, who systematically buy up tickets in bulk on the primary market then resell them to fans at hugely inflated prices. The Government are committed to putting fans back at the heart of live events and clamping down on unfair exploitative practices. In doing so, we want fairness for fans and an economically successful live events sector. We made a manifesto commitment to act on this issue, and that is precisely what we will do.
That is why we have launched a consultation as the first major step towards delivering on this ambition. We want to act in an effective and responsible way, ensuring that any new protections work for fans and the live events sector. The consultation outlines a range of potential options to address ongoing problems. We are revisiting the recommendations from the Competition and Market Authority’s 2021 report on secondary ticketing that were not taken forward by the previous Government. They include a licensing regime for resale platforms, new limits on the number of tickets that individual resellers can list, and new requirements for platforms to ensure the accuracy of information about tickets listed for sale on their websites.
We are also keen to tackle scalping—that is to say for-profit resales of tickets above face value. That is why we are considering a statutory price cap on ticket resales, as seen in many other countries. Its purpose would be to break the business model of organised touts by prohibiting resale at vastly inflated prices. In the consultation, we ask how a price cap should be designed and implemented, so as to deliver a genuine sea change in the ticketing landscape to the benefit of fans and the live events sector, and whether it should be face value only, or plus 10%, 20% or 30%.
There is one other aspect—we might call it “the Oasis moment”—on which we are seeking evidence. The live events sector has adopted new approaches to selling tickets in recent years, including the use of new pricing strategies, and technologies such as dynamic pricing. I want to be absolutely clear: not all dynamic pricing is harmful. Fans often take advantage of early-bird tickets and last-minute price reductions—that is absolutely fine and we have no intention of stopping it. The key thing is that fans are treated fairly and openly, with timely, transparent and accurate information presented ahead of sales.
To better understand these changes and the challenges faced by fans, we are publishing a call for evidence on pricing practices in the live events sector. The consultation and call for evidence will be open for 12 weeks. We strongly encourage all interested stakeholders—fans, artists and performers, ticketing platforms and the wider live events sector—to respond. Once the consultation is complete, we will decide on next steps, but the House should be no doubt that we intend to act.
We have a world-class live events sector in the UK, but we do not have a secondary ticket market to match. In the words of T. Rex:
“It’s a rip-off
Such a rip-off”.
To the fans, the performers and the touts, let me be crystal clear: we will clamp down on unfair practices in the secondary market. The question is not whether but how we improve protections for fans. I commend this statement to the House.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for advance sight of his statement. As he said, dynamic pricing is a strategy used across many industries outside the creative sectors, including by hotels, taxis and airlines. It can offer significant benefits for consumers when prices are low—for example through early-bird tickets or late ticketing.
The Government are right to emphasise the importance of transparency. Oasis fans know—I am one of them—that we did not have the necessary information up front, and I understand that the Competition and Markets Authority is rightly investigating that episode. However, it is my view that new regulations should be considered only when they are necessary and proportionate and do not duplicate existing rules. Current legislation already states that although dynamic pricing is legal, it must be implemented transparently. I can assure the Minister that we will carefully consider any proposals that could strengthen, improve or simplify the market for fans, but I warn him that we will oppose regulation introduced for the sake of introducing new regulation.
The secondary ticket resale market plays an important role for artists, fans and venues. It can provide a safer way to transfer unwanted tickets, ensuring that seats in venues are not left empty. The Minister claims that his reforms will better protect fans, improve access to live events and support the creative sectors. He claims that the proposals will give power back to fans and prevent them from being fleeced by ticket touts. We know that that is not true, however. We know that Labour’s plans will harm fans and venues, and make live events even harder to attend. [Interruption.] The Minister wants to know so I will tell him.
Let us first discuss price caps on resale tickets. The Government’s consultation proposes capping ticket resale prices to somewhere between the original price and a 30% uplift. That may seem on the surface like a reasonable measure, but we know that it will lead to an upsurge in black market activity and to more money flowing into the pockets of ticket touts. In fact, price controls would lead to a surge in unregulated and illegal transactions, leaving fans with little to no consumer protections. The Minister might not believe me, a free-marketeer, but in response to Government’s consultation, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, warned that
“Draconian regulation, targeting only the secondary market, will only mean more tickets changing hands in informal settings without the same protections that exist in proper marketplaces.”
I regret to say that the Government’s proposed measures to increase the regulation of resale websites and apps, and to raise fines for rule violations, will not prevent fans from turning to underground markets. We have already seen that in Victoria, Australia, where a 10% profit cap failed to prevent significant mark-ups on ticket prices, and even led a spike in the number of ticket scams. We know that scams are already a serious issue in the secondary ticketing market. For example, and as the Minister will be aware, Lloyds Bank estimates that Taylor Swift fans lost £1 million in ticket scams ahead of her tour. If his policy had been in place, how much more would fans have lost to scammers?
We know that a ticket resale cap will lead to empty seats and the prevent spontaneous ticket purchases. We saw that at the Paris Olympics, where restrictions on the resale of tickets left empty seats at many venues. Empty seats are bad not just for artists, but for the economy. Events at stadiums and venues provide a boost for local businesses, including restaurants, bars and other hospitality venues. Let us be clear: the hospitality industry is already under a lot of strain, not least because of the Budget of broken promises. Labour’s national insurance jobs tax, and its slashing of reliefs, have led the Music Venue Trust to warn that many businesses are at
“immediate risk of closure, representing the potential loss of more than 12,000 jobs, over £250 million in economic activity and the loss of over 75,000 live music events.”
Let us be clear: the reason we are here today is that the spin doctors in No. 10 are trying to move the news cycle away from a beleaguered Prime Minister, a Chancellor already drowning in the debt markets, and an anti-corruption Minister being accused of corruption. All the while, the Government and the Department are throwing creative industries and hospitality businesses under the bus.
Chris Bryant
Lordy, lordy, lordy! The hon. Gentleman says that he is an Oasis fan, but to be honest given how he talks about the last Tory Government, I think he must be a Nirvana fan—because everything was absolutely perfect when he was a Minister, wasn’t it?
Let me first put something right. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that our call for evidence on dynamic pricing is about all sorts of different industries, but it is only about the live events sector. We are not talking about the tourism industry, hotels, taxis or anything like that; we are talking solely about the live events sector. We recognise that that was not part of our manifesto commitments, so we want to hear people’s evidence and whether we need to take further measures.
One thing that I can say confidently is that it seems horribly unfair for someone logged into the system to see the ticket price going up—£120, £125, £130, £135—because that creates a sense of panic that they must buy one. It is perfectly legitimate to consider whether that is a good way of selling tickets and whether it is fair to consumers. That is a legitimate question to ask. I cannot comment on the Oasis situation; the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Competition and Markets Authority is investigating that.
Let me correct the hon. Gentleman’s other point. He kept saying, “We know that” this, that or the other will happen. Well, we do not know, for a start, but more importantly, let me explain to him what we are really trying to tackle. It is the thing where, say, Becky, who lives in flat 23, No. 75 High Street, is desperate to get two tickets to see her mum’s favourite band on her mum’s birthday later that year. She is absolutely desperate, so she tries and tries again to log on at 9 o’clock. She cannot manage to get into the system, but can see the tickets selling. At 20 past 9, all the tickets are gone but then—lo and behold—at 21 minutes past 9, they are available on the secondary ticketing market for vastly inflated prices. That is what we are trying to tackle. It is a very simple problem.
The hon. Gentleman referred to just one country, but loads of places around the world—France, Italy, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Norway, Japan, Belgium, most of Canada, most of Australia, Israel, and several states in the United States—have simple measures in place. We want to ensure that we tackle that very simple problem. In the end, the value is created by the artists themselves and by the passion of the fans. It should not go into pockets that are not, in the main, based in this country and certainly have not contributed anything to the creation of that value in the first place.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
Having campaigned on this issue for over 15 years, I have reached three main conclusions. First, the cap on resale should be set as low as possible—for example, face value plus 5% or 10%—to take the incentive out of scalping, or else we should simply follow the Irish model and prohibit resale for profit altogether.
Secondly, many touts and resale sites are based overseas, so legislation must be supranational. Finally, any crackdown on the black market must be fully enforced, unlike in the current situation where prosecutions are few and far between: there have been a handful—six at most. Does the Minister agree?
Chris Bryant
I agree that my hon. Friend has campaigned on the subject for 15 years, because I have heard nearly every speech she has made on it, and she has been absolutely magnificent over the years. I pay tribute to her. Many artists in this country will be grateful for her work because so often they are caught in a completely invidious situation as they see tickets going for preposterous prices. I looked earlier at StubHub, which is selling Dua Lipa tickets for Wembley on 20 June with a face value of £81.45 for £2,417. For Jimmy Carr at Milton Keynes in two days’ time, Viagogo has tickets with a face value of £60 for £202. That is the problem that we must deal with.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about supranational issues; this problem does not just apply in the UK. It is difficult for us to prevent these people from selling tickets for Olivia Rodrigo concerts in Mexico, but we can ensure that measures do apply for Olivia Rodrigo concerts in the UK. She is also absolutely right about enforcement. That is why we are looking at whether there should be a licensing regime and, if so, precisely how that should work. She has made this point in many speeches—I will reiterate it for her: we have hardly seen any prosecutions whatever under the complex set of rules that there are at the moment, and that is one of the things that we have to fix.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I add my thanks to the Minister for advance sight of the statement. It is good to have the Government’s next steps to try to support fans, performers and others working in the live events industry laid out in the announcement. We know the huge value of live events in this country, which make a great contribution to our economic as well as our cultural wellbeing, and it is right that the Government are taking action. Too many fans across the country have fallen prey to sharp practices and touts ripping them off, and the Liberal Democrats are supportive of taking action.
The Liberal Democrats have long called for the implementation of the Competition and Markets Authority’s recommendations to crack down on ticket resale. Those recommendations should be leading the Government forward on this issue. Measures such as capping ticket resales are important. Can the Minister provide greater clarity on the Government’s intentions in that regard? Will he suggest what cap on ticket resales the Government would favour at the moment and what new powers of enforcement they will give to trading standards and the CMA? Beyond those measures, will the Government consider being more ambitious by, for example, giving consumers more control by requiring ticket companies to provide accurate information on price increases or answering Liberal Democrat calls to review the use of transaction fees?
I want to be clear that we welcome the Government’s looking at the queuing systems used by ticket sellers in both the primary and resale markets and considering measures that could address the current situation, which, as the Minister described, too often feels unfair and arbitrary to those fans on the end of it. Hearing the voices of fans in this discussion is undoubtedly important, so we really welcome the consultation, but fans also want to know that the Government will get on and act to solve these problems. To conclude, may I ask the Minister to inform the House about when fans will start to see some changes being implemented?
Chris Bryant
I welcome the hon. Member to his post and welcome the Lib Dems’ support for what we are proposing. There are just a couple of things. He referred to accurate information, which it could certainly be argued is already legislated for but not well enforced. Indeed, when I looked at some of these sites earlier today, it was interesting to see that sometimes the face value was findable, but not at the same time as the price to be paid. We would think it should be mandatory for somebody to be able to see both at the same time, to see whether they are going to be ripped off. I personally do not subscribe to the line that if somebody is prepared to pay £2,417 for a Dua Lipa ticket, so be it. It seems to me that that is effectively the line from Eurythmics:
“Some of them want to be abused”;
I do not think that we should adopt that policy at all.
On the point that the hon. Member made about transaction fees, I think that I am right in saying that section 230 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 would already apply to what he is arguing for. If I have got that wrong, I will send him a note.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I note that at one point—it may have been at a particular event—you said that your favourite song was “Girls Just Want to Have Fun” by Cyndi Lauper. She performed at the Royal Albert Hall last year, and I am not sure whether you were there.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The statement is hugely welcomed by me, after the disappointment of my private Member’s Bill on this subject falling off, and by my constituent Alison Martin, the mum of Coldplay’s Chris, who fed into my Bill. Will my hon. Friend the Minister assure me that he will resist the argument about over-regulation of our lives and market forces that we hear “Time After Time” from Conservative Members? We just heard it again. When I was trying to get sign-ups for my Bill, many Conservative Members did not want to know. This is a consumer protection measure—a cap for all our constituents—to stop those bots from hoovering up tickets and hiking up prices. Will the Minister also reiterate that we are not against all dynamic pricing? The price of tickets can go down as well as up, and we do not mind that.
Chris Bryant
I commend my hon. Friend on her private Member’s Bill. I told her that we were going to be acting fairly soon so her Bill might not be necessary. She did not believe me, and she ploughed on, but we are intent on acting.
My hon. Friend is quite right about dynamic pricing. I have been involved in a small arts festival in Treorchy in my constituency where we offer early-bird tickets. That is a form of dynamic pricing that I think works for everybody, and we certainly do not want to prohibit that.
My hon. Friend is quite right: much as I like my opposite number, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), I find it quite easy to resist him. When I think of the previous Government, I keep thinking of this line from Pink:
“What about all the plans that ended in disaster?”
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s putting music fans at the forefront of these consultations, although the Minister will know that I would like him to go further and have a full fan-led review of music. Meanwhile, looking at the details of these consultations, it is telling that while Ticketmaster welcomed the resale consultations, it is silent on the dynamic pricing issue. The Minister will recall that Oasis told their fans that dynamic pricing was a
“tool to combat ticket touting”.
Does he agree that if the Government act decisively to stop large-scale touting from inflating ticket prices, there will be less need for promoters such as Live Nation to have to use dynamic pricing?
Chris Bryant
The hon. Member makes a good point, and it is a delight to be able to agree with her on something in this area at the moment. We might yet have a little bit of a disagreement over copyright and artificial intelligence, but I think that is only because she has misunderstood what we are trying to do. I hope to be able to sit down with her and talk it all through.
We want to ensure that we get the legislation right, and that is why we are doing a consultation rather than just storming ahead with a piece of legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) said, there is no point in carrying out any of these measures unless we have a proper system of enforcement.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for the doughty way in which she has fought this corner for many years. I remember how even back when I was the shadow sports Minister and this was my area, she was campaigning hard on it. This is very much legislation in favour of the fans. We have to remember that, in many cases, the artists realise that their own fans are being priced out of being able to go to their concerts by the practices of these online ticket touts, so legislation is well overdue if we want to make tickets affordable so that true fans can see their favourite bands and artists. I urge my hon. Friend to move ahead swiftly to bring it in.
Chris Bryant
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, and I commend him too, because he has been working on this issue for quite a long time—when he was shadow sports Minister, it was one of the things that he was keen for us to progress. I am joined by the sports Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), and of course one of the ironies is that in some sports, we already implement something remarkably similar, if not tougher. It is perfectly legitimate for us to be moving in a direction that puts those sectors on an equal footing.
I take my hon. Friend’s point about speed. I recognise that I did not respond to the question from the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) about when we will get action. I very much hope that if we get a clear answer from the consultation, we will be able to come forward with plans as a matter of urgency. There must be a King’s Speech coming along some time soon.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Continuing the Cyndi Lauper theme, I am sure the Minister agrees that we have to see these touts in their true colours. The fact is that they will try to find ways around these eminently praiseworthy proposals. Let us imagine that the Minister gets his cap in place; what is to stop an undercover operation going ahead with a large number of individuals trying to make a small number of sales each on a website such as eBay? How would the Minister be able to enforce the cap in a situation like that?
Chris Bryant
It is not just about the cap—we are consulting on several elements, one of which is how many tickets an individual seller should be able to purchase. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East, could have argued that some of this is already dealt with in the legislation, but I would argue that the legislation is not clear enough, which is one of the things we need to tackle. If we look at all the different bits of legislation we have accumulated over the years, every time there has been a Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South has been able to table an amendment to, with support from some magnificent people in the House of Lords, it has been possible to get things through. That is why we may need to do quite a bit of rationalisation of the legislation in this field, but the right hon. Gentleman makes a good point: we will always have to keep ahead of the game.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted by the Minister’s statement today. This consultation will be welcomed by the entire co-operative movement, which has been campaigning to keep fans at the heart of music. Access to culture is such an important part of our country, and our movement stands as the party of the consumer. Does the Minister agree that actions such as taking this consultation forward are the best way to extend access to culture for real fans?
Chris Bryant
Yes, I do. Incidentally, there is another point on which we want to make real progress. We must have not only the massive gigs that everybody loves going to—where you can celebrate with thousands—but very intimate gigs. One of the most special moments is seeing a band perform first in a tiny venue of just 100 or 150 people, and then seeing them in a massive venue, performing at Glastonbury or whatever it might be. We need to look at the whole of the music system in the UK. That means a creative education for every single child—wouldn’t it be good if every child had the opportunity to go to live music at least once a year, as well as the opportunity to learn a musical instrument or learn how to sing? Those are all parts of the whole-of-music approach that we need in this country.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I warmly congratulate the Government on bringing forward these measures, which I wholeheartedly support. I was very surprised by the response from the Conservative Front Bench; I think they have got caught up in some garbled, ill-informed nonsense, but I really hope that in time, they come on board with these proposals, because they are important. For too long, music fans have been ripped off and abused by the touts and scalpers, who have been nothing other than parasites on our live music sector, so I wholeheartedly welcome these proposals.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), as well as the FanFair Alliance—which has been campaigning on this issue for such a long time—and campaigning newspapers such as the Daily Record that regularly feature large articles on it. While we have this in place, I would like to hear more about the proposals on dynamic pricing, which I think is the issue that perplexed music fans more than anything else over the summer. We now have some sort of routeway towards resolving ticket touting, but we need to hear more about exactly what the Minister will do about dynamic pricing, because that is something that needs fixed.
Chris Bryant
It is always a delight to be able to please the hon. Gentleman—as I think he would confess, that is not an event that happens very often on the Government Benches. I am not sure whether any tickets are available for his music gigs, or whether they are selling at multiple prices, but he has been a doughty campaigner for the creative industries over the years, and I welcome that.
We were very clear in the general election about what we were going to do in relation to the primary issue. We did not make any commitments around dynamic pricing, which is why we are offering a much more tentative approach to that issue. We also know that there are forms of dynamic pricing that work extremely well; when a person buys a last-minute theatre ticket, that is a form of dynamic pricing, because you want to get the theatre full at the end of the day. We want to tread a bit more carefully in that area, which is why we are launching a call for evidence, rather than presenting our proposals at this stage. If the hon. Gentleman has got good ideas about what we should do, my door is open—do come and talk to us.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I am made up at today’s statement, especially as someone with a music industry background and as a big fan. Dynamic pricing made headlines last summer when Oasis’s fans were hit by prices that were two, three, or even four times the face value of the tickets after they had queued for hours and hours. When they got to the payment stage, they had a matter of minutes to decide whether they wanted those tickets. John Robb, the music writer, said that dynamic pricing is
“exploiting people’s excitement in the worst possible way”
after Ticketmaster behaved no better than the touts they claim to protect fans from. I welcome the call for evidence about this practice, but can the Minister assure me that it will lead to real action so that fans are no longer ripped off by surge pricing?
Chris Bryant
Just about the first thing my hon. Friend said to me when she collared me in the Lobby after we had won the general election was, “You are going to do something about ticket touts, aren’t you?”, so I am glad I am able to please her this afternoon. One of the worst things that can happen—I am sure every member of Oasis would say this—is for everybody who has gone through the process of buying tickets to be saying, “Don’t look back in anger.” [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Sorry, I had to work really hard to fit that in, but it is a true point. We want the process of buying a ticket to be fair, open and transparent, and for the person buying the ticket to feel that they have got a sane and sensible deal, rather than that they have been ripped off. The problem with the present situation is that all too often, people feel that they have just been ripped off, which undermines the joy and passion of the event.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Every time the Government propose something that is in the interests of the consumer and the public, I am so excited, so I welcome the Minister’s statement. As well as dynamic ticket pricing, where the price of the ticket itself fluctuates —always in the wrong direction—there are high and disproportionate service fees, which can also become higher during peak times. Does the Minister agree that there is a clear need for transparent pricing for consumers, so that they can see a breakdown before they press “buy”?
Chris Bryant
I agree 100% with the hon. Gentleman about the fees issue. There is an argument that it is already dealt with by section 230 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, but that is why we are consulting on that specific issue. To the ticket touts who have complained about this, I say that in the words of the musical “Chicago”, they had it coming—they only had themselves to blame.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his very positive statement, and I believe everybody in the Chamber will be encouraged by what he has announced. He is surely familiar with the Oasis lyrics, which I promise not to sing:
“And so Sally can wait, she knows it’s too late as we’re walking on by.”
Unfortunately for many fans, waiting was not an option, and they were left with the painful reality that dynamic pricing made their wallets melt away. Given reports that fans were subjected to inflated prices through in-demand dynamic pricing, with tickets jumping from less than £150 to over £350 in moments, how will the Minister ensure that ticket sellers—and event organisers in particular—comply with the proposed consumer protection laws, especially those requiring transparency in pricing?
Chris Bryant
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s comments, and for his musical rendition. He did not put it into song, for which I should probably be grateful as well, but—I do not know—maybe he has a beautiful high tenor voice.
One of my anxieties about this whole situation is that there have not been very many prosecutions, which is perhaps because the law has been too complicated. However, it may also be because trading standards departments have really struggled in recent years, because they are subject to local authority budget cuts. That is why this, for me, is part of the whole of what the Government are trying to do, which is to put our public services back on a much more solid and secure footing and to bring in legislation that stands up for consumers. However, I am grateful to the hon. Member, and if he has any particular ideas on how we could specifically ensure that there is proper enforcement, not least in Northern Ireland, I would be really grateful to hear from him.
Developing AI Capacity and Expertise in UK Defence
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Defence Committee. Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee member, not the relevant Minister. Front Benchers may also take part in the questioning. I call Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to present this report on behalf of the Defence Committee.
It is important at the outset to say that our report is not focused on the ethical questions that using artificial intelligence in defence raises. That is because noble Lords in the other place completed a very in-depth Committee report on AI in weapon systems prior to our inquiry. In that report, they rightly addressed issues of safety, compliance with international law and the need for a human in the loop. It is also important to say that the key defence documents we refer to throughout our report were produced under the previous Government. However, we have not received any indication from the current Government that they will be making any significant or major departures from those documents.
Our focus was on trying to understand what the Ministry of Defence is doing in this area and how it can develop a successful defence AI sector in the UK. Since 2018, AI has been appearing increasingly in defence documents, as well as being spoken about by Ministers and senior military figures. The defence artificial intelligence and autonomy unit and the defence AI centre have since come into being, and the defence artificial intelligence strategy was published in 2022. Our strong research pedigree in computer science and the availability of computing power could put the UK at a strong advantage, and pillar 2 of our AUKUS partnership continues to present opportunities for working with our allies and for interoperability.
Despite that, we found that, overall, there is a “say-do gap” where the Department is identifying the right priorities, but has been unable to say what steps it will take to achieve them. Rhetoric does not match reality. This leaves us behind our allies and disadvantaged when it comes to our adversaries. Similarly, we consider the Department’s aim to be AI-ready problematic. Technology is evolving at such a rapid pace, and the MOD will never be sufficiently AI-ready. Instead, it should aim to be “AI-native”, with AI viewed no longer as a niche add-on, but as a core component running right through defence. This will take leadership, cultural and practical changes.
AI is a general-purpose technology, and although we do not have a clear idea of the size of our defence AI sector, we do know that it is young and underdeveloped, and that many of the companies that will supply defence in the future are likely to cut across the civilian and military sectors. For the MOD to give to these less traditional companies and investors any confidence and incentivise them to do business with the MOD, it needs to be clear about what it wants. It needs to show more flexibility, be less prescriptive in requirements, address delays in security clearances and fully embrace the recommendation from the Haythornthwaite review about how the brightest minds can zig-zag between the military and the commercial civilian sectors.
On new capabilities, the MOD is not comfortable with rapid change, risk or experimentation, but that is exactly how our tech companies and start-ups operate. The MOD’s existing approach of contracting with primes and spending 10 to 15 years building a ship, tank or aircraft to exquisite specifications just does not cut it in an increasingly data and software-driven environment. It is welcome that the global combat air programme is being designed with open-system architecture, meaning that software capabilities can be plugged into and taken out of the hardware, and the new spiral model of overall defence procurement in the integrated procurement model is welcome, too. However, our Committee found no evidence of fundamental changes across the organisation. If smaller, innovative companies are to engage with the MOD, the MOD must be a better customer.
Key to developing our defence AI ecosystem is the digital infrastructure, yet the Department’s plan for a digital backbone is behind schedule. Data collection, labelling and sharing, which are all key to training defence AI models, must be improved. Clarity of leadership and responsibility is also needed. The defence artificial intelligence centre is headed by a one-star officer, and we remain unclear on where the centre is based. There is fragmentation across the MOD, as the frontline commands of each service have individual responsibility for AI development, which causes confusion and duplication.
Ukraine has shown us that AI is changing the battlefield. AI has the potential to transform UK defence, from the back office to the frontline. In such a rapidly developing environment, we cannot predict what will come next, but we know for certain that our allies and adversaries are using and developing AI for military advantage. We remain hopeful that through the strategic defence review, and the Government’s focus today on AI, and by adopting our recommendations, the Department will start to turn its rhetoric into reality, so that it does more than it says.
I want to acknowledge what a team effort producing this report has been. I thank the previous Committee; many of its members became firm friends of mine, despite our political differences, and I dearly miss them. I also thank the new Committee, which has worked very hard to finalise this report. I thank everyone who has engaged with us, including the MOD and the previous Minister, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who is on the Opposition Front Bench. I also thank our excellent Committee staff, especially George James, who managed the inquiry, and Professor Kenneth Payne, our very knowledgeable expert adviser to the inquiry. I look forward to taking any questions from right hon. and hon. Members, and I sincerely hope that they like the answers that they get.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
This is an excellent report, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for recognising my role, and for her comments about the integrated procurement model and the work that we did in government. She is right that this area of technology is changing at extraordinary speed, and it is having a real impact on the live battle-front in Ukraine.
I make two points. First, the hon. Member said that the House of Lords Committee looked at the ethical issues. I would urge the Commons Committee not to ignore those, because my view is that we need to retain maximum freedom of operation and not be bound by, for example, new definitions of autonomy that may limit our military capabilities.
Secondly, the hon. Lady made a very good point about small and medium-sized enterprises in the civil area that are not involved in defence. We all agree that we want to get them more involved in defence, but may I ask her to look at how we share information, particularly if it is secret, with SMEs, as well as with primes? We were making progress on that when I was at the Department. Perhaps, with the Committee’s help, we can look at case studies of civil companies that have successfully got into the defence sector by having a strong link with the centre of the MOD.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I could not agree with the hon. Member more. A section in our report addresses in detail SMEs and their engagement with the Department, and we should carry forward the work that he did in government, especially on the integrated procurement model.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I place on record my gratitude to my hon. Friend for chairing the Sub-Committee, and I thank members of the previous Defence Committee, and Committee staff, for all their hard work on our report on artificial intelligence—a matter integral to our nation’s defence. While I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement today about embracing AI in government, does my hon. Friend agree that there seems to be a chasm between the Ministry of Defence’s rhetoric and the reality? In practice, AI is still treated as a novelty, rather than a fundamental part of the MOD toolkit.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Chair of our Committee for his question, and for his work in getting our report to publication. He is right to highlight the gap between what the MOD wants to do and how it plans to achieve it. That runs through our entire report and is something that the MOD needs to get a handle on. I am sure that he would agree that by implementing our recommendations, the Department can move to a position where AI is threaded through the organisation, as opposed to being a niche add-on, or a novelty.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Military history books are full of examples of the difficulty that defence scientists had in selling their revolutionary ideas to military chiefs and civil servants. Given the nebulous nature of artificial intelligence, was the Sub-Committee satisfied that there is a specialist cadre in the Ministry of Defence that is intellectually equipped to make appropriate assessment of schemes that are put forward for new weapons systems?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
One difficulty was that not all the information that the Sub-Committee wanted was readily available to us, and we still do not have a clear picture of exactly what is happening in the MOD when it comes to artificial intelligence. We recommend more clarity, and that the Department be clearer about the skillsets it needs and the gaps that exist. We should look to implement the recommendations of the Haythornthwaite review, so that those with the knowledge and expertise can zig-zag in and out of the Department.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I commend the work of the Defence Committee. The report is important, particularly given the news that has come from Ukraine in the past few years, and the way that conflict has developed. One thing that comes out clearly is the need to be on the cutting edge of all this. The UN declared 2025 to be the international year of quantum science and technology. Do the developments that my hon. Friend is talking about lend additional credence to the importance of that statement, and of bringing those cutting-edge developments to our defence capabilities?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Today’s announcement from the Government has shown that they are taking AI and its potential very seriously. As our report shows, there are steps that they can take when it comes to defence to ensure that the Department is more AI native and has AI running through it.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Throughout the decades—at least since 1945—the development of defence technology has been bound by international law. I understand that the Defence Committee has taken the view that it will not be informed by law or ethics, but I wonder whether work will be done in future to bring together the House of Lords report from 2023 and the work that the Sub-Committee has done so expertly.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
The hon. Member is right to raise that point, as we very much took note of the noble Lords’ report, which is referenced in our inquiry’s final report. We urge progress on AI in defence, but on the understanding that the progress is always in line with a strong ethical and accountable framework, and that there is a human in the loop.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for the report, and it was helpful to understand the point about the Lords report. Does she know when the Government will outline the timetable for that report on the ethical and moral issues to be considered, and for those issues to be incorporated in Government policy? How effectively will the MOD work with international companies—this is obviously an incredibly complex area—to ensure that the security risk is massively reduced?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
The hon. Member asks me for answers that are outside the scope of our report. She also asks questions of the Government; I am speaking on behalf of our Committee, and it is way above my pay grade to answer for our Government. However, she raises an important point about the Lords report. I believe that the previous Government responded to the report from the Lords, but as with everything in defence, what we do will be in line with what our allies and NATO do. We will continue to work with our allies on the global combat air programme and the AUKUS partnership. Everything we do, we do together, not in isolation.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on an excellent report, and on the leadership that she has shown throughout—in dealing with witnesses, considering the evidence that came forward, and compiling the report. As she said, she worked closely with, and was given great help, by our excellent staff on the Defence Committee. I served on that Committee in the last Parliament, and it was probably the best Committee that I have been on, thanks to the commitment and knowledge of defence issues of those involved, including my hon. Friend; we were able to put that to good use. She said that despite differences between parties, the Committee was united in taking issues forward and holding Ministers to account. I am sure the new Committee will do exactly the same. It is great that the new Chair is present to support my hon. Friend, and ensured that we got the report out in a timely manner.
My hon. Friend probably knows what issues I will raise. First, on AI, the defence field is moving so rapidly; it changes almost by the week. Does she agree that it is important that the MOD and those involved in defence harness that change quickly, keep on top of it, and ensure that we lead the field in AI, rather than following all the time? Also, I recall a discussion that we had about the importance of harnessing the talent and potential of SMEs and start-ups. We should ensure that the UK uses that potential for the benefit of our armed forces, to develop the best possible defence for our country. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend responded to those points.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and all his help on the Committee. It is a joy to be once again serving on the Defence Committee with him. He is correct to say that AI is moving rapidly, and the MOD needs to harness it quickly, because our adversaries are. We know from open source data that we cannot allow ourselves to be behind the curve on this. SMEs have a particular mindset, as my hon. Friend will know. They are happy to have that “fail first”, experimental mindset that the MOD is often not used to. Our report highlights that significant cultural change and leadership is needed in the MOD to get it to a position where SMEs can work better with it for the benefit of our entire defence AI ecosystem.
Bill Presented
Rural Crime (Strategy) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Ben Maguire presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to establish a task force to produce a strategy for tackling rural crime; to require the Secretary of State to implement the strategy; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 4 July 2025, and to be printed (Bill 158).
Backbench Business
Hospice and Palliative Care
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered hospice and palliative care.
First, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time to support this important debate, and I thank colleagues from across the House for supporting my application and joining me today to discuss a subject that, to use an old cliché—but in no more apposite a context—is truly a matter of life and death.
When this House debated the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill last November, the crisis in hospice funding and concerns over the provision of palliative care were a constant refrain in the subtext of many of the speeches from supporters and opponents of the Bill. As someone who entered the Chamber that morning undecided as to how I would vote, I became increasingly convinced throughout the five hours of powerful argument and testimony that no matter what the House decided, the time had come to address hospice funding for the provision of palliative care head on, for death is as much a part of life as living.
While as parliamentarians we readily focus on what makes a good life, we rarely consider what makes a good death. It is possible to have a good death, as I saw with my mother, who passed away in comfort at the beautiful Arthur Rank hospice in Cambridge, and with my father, who died in the exceptional palliative care facility at Bellevue hospital in New York. As a family, we remember those times as sad, but cathartic, with moments of laughter as well as tears, as when my father—somewhat confused towards the end of life, but with a glint still in his eye—asked, as I sat next to him stroking his forehead, whether I was a lady friend.
Sadly, however, too many in our society do not experience a good death, and we need to start asking why. The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) bravely took on that challenge with her private Member’s Bill, and I hope that this debate will afford us an opportunity to build on those foundations.
Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree that the renewed focus on the hospice and palliative care sector is extremely welcome and overdue? Does he agree that the extra £100 million of investment shows how seriously this Government are taking the issue, showing that people approaching the end of life are fully supported in whatever choices they make?
Mr Kohler
I agree with the hon. Lady, and I will be coming to those points.
Today is not about rehashing the arguments made that Friday, but to allow Members time to discuss and reflect on this separate, but inextricably linked subject. It is not the last word on hospice and palliative care, but an important step in forging a consensus that I hope will unite us, no matter where we ultimately stand on assisted dying.
I began by referencing the crisis in hospice funding. Before I proceed further, I echo what the hon. Member for Spen Valley said and thank the Health Secretary for the £100 million in capital and digital moneys he announced last month. It will make a profound difference to the sector’s current financial position. I have been asked by individual hospices and Hospice UK to convey their genuine gratitude. In a similar vein, the Government’s recently announced commitment to extend the children’s hospice grant by a further year is deeply appreciated and equally vital to maintaining levels of service in this heartrending, but profoundly important part of the hospice movement. However, these are only short-term fixes and fail to provide the long-term funding and certainty critical to securing the future of the hospice movement.
Currently, only one third of hospice funding is provided by the Government, with the rest coming from charitable sources. That leaves hospices vulnerable to increased cost pressures, as can be seen in a recent Hospice UK survey, which found that at least 20% of hospices had cut services in the past year or were planning to do so. Becca Trower, the clinical director of the wonderful St Raphael’s hospice, which provides excellent care to residents in my Wimbledon constituency, was unambiguous when she told me:
“We have a funding crisis and we need to protect our hospice.”
Last year, that meant that St Raphael’s was forced to strip £1 million from its £6.5 million budget by ending its hospice at home service that provided vital care, advice and support to patients and carers in their own homes. It was a virtual ward, in fact, but not one that fitted within the NHS definition of such, which would have attracted the separate integrated care board funding available for such initiatives. In just one month, the cuts to the service directly impacted 26 patients, many of whom spent their last days taking up valuable hospital beds, dying in the one place they did not want to die and putting further pressure on the NHS. When the Government are aiming to move medicine into the community, it makes no sense for hospices to be forced into a position that achieves the opposite.
That contradiction is mirrored in the current funding settlement, where the Government have given with one hand and taken with the other by increasing employers’ national insurance contributions. The refusal to exempt charities will exacerbate the challenges confronting hospices. The amazing Shooting Star children’s hospice, for example, provides wonderful support for families in my constituency. It estimates that the change will add another £200,000 to next year’s cost base.
Hospices need certainty. Doubts over funding undermine morale and sap energy, making the recruitment and retention of staff another huge issue for the sector. To address these problems, the Government need to introduce a consistent, reliable funding mechanism that reflects the rising costs of care. Hospices consequently need to be included within the NHS’s much-anticipated 10-year health plan. In parallel, staffing needs must be addressed in the next NHS long-term workforce plan.
It should not be forgotten that hospices provide a variety of services in addition to palliative care, including emotional, psychological and spiritual support, as well as physio and occupational therapy, practical support, complementary therapies, respite care and bereavement services. Much of that is beyond the clinical, and not something that the NHS can be expected, nor can afford, to provide. That is why no one I spoke to in the hospice movement thought that hospices should be subsumed within the NHS. They provide a complementary service that extends well beyond the clinical, and to which a charitable funding model is more effective and appropriate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on setting the scene so well. One of the concerns that I and others in the Chamber have is the impact on the workers in hospices. It is not just about the financial implications, which are all part of the overall issue, but burnout. Staff are working long hours. They are volunteers in many cases, and they do that because it is what they are committed to. Does he share my concern that burnout in hospice care will have an impact on the NHS in the long term?
Mr Kohler
I agree with the hon. Member. We need more palliative care specialists and we need more training, and there is a real danger of burnout.
It is not just hospices that provide palliative care. When talking to specialists within and beyond the hospice sector, I have been struck by their commitment to giving patients a good death and their frustration that so many do not receive one. A palliative care doctor recently told The Guardian:
“I sometimes see patients…who come into hospital in unspeakable agony and want their lives to end. It is not because their pain cannot be prevented, but because they are not getting the care they need.”
A local oncologist told me:
“Demand for services is simply outstripping supply. The majority of patients are not getting their end of life care wishes met. The specialist palliative care teams are very good but there are not enough of them and they do not have adequate resources.”
Huge regional inequalities exist in the provision and quality of services due to the vagaries of the current funding model. The Health and Care Act 2022 included for the first time a statutory duty for ICBs to provide palliative care. However, it did not include a minimum standard of core provision, leaving it to what each ICB considers appropriate.
Freedom of information requests submitted by Hospice UK in 2023 found that adult hospice funding consequently ranged from just 23p to £10.33 per head of population across different ICBs. For children’s hospices, the variations were even starker. Research from the amazing charity Together for Short Lives found that spending per child with a life-limiting condition varied from an average of £531 in Norfolk and Waveney to just £28 in South Yorkshire.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
On the point about the postcode lottery—an oft-used cliché by politicians—I have heard from Hospice UK that, on one occasion, a single gift from a legacy covered the running costs for a hospice in the UK for five years. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is one of the starkest and most extreme illustrations of how the current system is so unbalanced and, from one street to the next, leaves people with such disparities of access to such an important element of healthcare?
Mr Kohler
I agree, and I will come to some solutions that might address this issue. We must increase the core responsibilities of ICBs in this area.
Inevitably, much palliative care is provided not by specialists but by generalists, such as GPs, trainee doctors and community nurses for whom care of the dying is not their primary focus. Many lack the training, time and resources needed to provide what is possible, not through their fault but due to a system that does not regard palliative care as a core function. That is all too evident at the outset of their careers, with one medical student telling me:
“I only received 2 mandatory days training on palliative care in my entire degree. This is simply not enough and we need to increase training across the board to ensure patients are given equal access to high-quality care.”
Since the Shipman case there is unacceptable legal uncertainty, particularly among non-palliative care specialists, about the extent to which analgesics can be given in a sufficient quantity to alleviate pain, even where that might hasten death. The system requires a complete overhaul. We need more palliative care specialists and better training for non-specialists, including robust advice on the legality of giving sufficient pain relief to alleviate suffering, buttressed if necessary and appropriate by more explicit guidance in the Director of Public Prosecutions’ code for Crown prosecutors and the Lord Chief Justice’s criminal practice directions.
ICBs should be required to provide a minimum level of palliative care as a core function. This would have a transformative effect on how palliative care is funded both within and beyond the hospice sector, rather than leaving it to the generosity of particular ICBs such as South West London and Surrey Heartlands, both of which do all they can to fund local hospices, but within the constraints of a funding model that limits their ability to do so.
In concluding, I want to return to where I began. The debate is a matter of life and death. Ensuring a good death is important not just for the individual at the end of their life, but for those they leave behind. Knowing that someone passed away peacefully can bring real comfort to those mourning their loss. I would like to end with the words of Fleur, whose son received end of life care at the wonderful Shooting Star hospice. She said:
“Hospices are not just places where life comes to a close…they are places where those left behind learn how to keep on living. When my son Toby died, our hospice didn’t just care for him—it cared for all of us, to give us a future not defined by trauma, but by love, resilience, and hope. Months later, when my daughter had to step back into a hospital—the place where we had first been told we would lose Toby—she froze, overwhelmed by fear and grief. When she returned to the hospice, the very place where Toby had taken his last breath, she ran inside, kicked off her shoes, and threw herself into the arms of a nurse.”
That is what it is possible to achieve. I hope the Government are listening.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
It is an absolute honour to follow the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), who made a wonderfully poignant speech. I thank him for securing this debate.
As the Member of Parliament for Huddersfield, I have had the privilege of witnessing at first hand the exceptional work of hospices such as Forget Me Not children’s hospice and Kirkwood. These organisations are lifelines for individuals and families facing life-limiting conditions. I welcome the recent announcement of the expansion of hospice funding, which is a crucial step in addressing the financial challenges that these vital organisations face.
Hospices such as Forget Me Not and Kirkwood do not just offer medical care but provide emotional, psychological and practical support to patients and their families. They ensure dignity and compassion at every step of their journey, addressing the full spectrum of needs for those they care for. Steve, a local dad whose son, 10-year-old Ethan, receives support from the Forget Me Not hospice, spoke of its life-changing work for Ethan and the whole family. Steve said:
“When he’s here he’s comfortable, it’s a lovely environment. It’s not clinical and he’s treated like a normal person.”
They are not just care providers but community builders, offering spaces of comfort and support during life’s most difficult times.
Huddersfield University is leading on joint work with local hospices about research and clinical practice in end-of life-care. It includes working with Kirkwood hospice to create a postgraduate certificate in end of life care, the first of its kind in the UK to link with a hospice. While I am sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), I must pay tribute to how she conducted the debate on her Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. There is no doubt that she has moved the debate on funding for hospice care, and I thank her very much.
The expansion of hospice funding is a significant and welcome development, but we must acknowledge that many hospices, including those in my constituency, still face immense financial pressures. Forget Me Not children’s hospice recently launched an urgent appeal to address a £1 million funding gap. The expansion of funding must be part of a larger, ongoing strategy to ensure that long-term commissioned funding for hospices is part of the 10-year NHS plan.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
St Leonard’s hospice in my constituency lovingly cared for my uncle with extraordinary compassion last year in his final weeks. I hear my hon. Friend’s calls for hospices in her constituency but does she agree that, because of their empathy and the important work that they do, we must all campaign for the funding that our hospices desperately need?
Harpreet Uppal
I absolutely do. I pass on my condolences to my hon. Friend and his family, and pay tribute to the local hospice and the work that it has done to support his family.
I want to raise NHS England’s £26 million funding for children’s hospices—formerly the children’s hospice grant. Traditionally, that funding was distributed centrally by NHS England but last year, as has been mentioned, it was disseminated by integrated care boards. That has caused delays to many children’s hospices’ access to their funding, including Forget Me Not. It is critical that the funding is ringfenced for children’s hospices, and I hope that the Minister will review whether it can again be centrally distributed, to avoid further delays.
The new funding for hospices is an important milestone. I welcome the Government’s approach and thank the Minister for his work. I know that the hospice sector very much welcomes the additional funding, but can it also mark the beginning of further Government support for these essential services? Hospices are an integral part of our healthcare system, and we must ensure they have the resources and support that they need to continue their vital work, including the specialist doctors and nurses that are needed in many hospices.
Through Government action, community support and the tireless effort of hospice staff and volunteers, we can ensure that hospices not only survive but thrive, continuing to provide the compassion and dignity that every individual deserves.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) on securing this debate. As a member of the Backbench Business Committee, I can tell him he made a very convincing argument for this debate.
Like others, I suspect, one of my aims this evening is to praise my local hospices, Lindsey Lodge in Scunthorpe and Saint Andrew’s in Grimsby, which both provide care to my constituents. I have particular affection for St Andrew’s, as my father passed away in its care, and my mother actually died on the day she was supposed to move in. That was more than 30 years ago; I have seen how they have developed in the years since, and they continue to provide absolutely superb care. Of course, demand is increasing: demographics have changed, and people are living longer. Hospices do actually ease the burden on the NHS.
St Andrew’s has 133 permanent staff, but more than 400 volunteers. As it happens, I visited St Andrew’s last Friday—the meeting was scheduled some weeks ago, but it was convenient timing for this debate. I do have a specific question for the Minister relating to St Andrew’s, which I will come to later. Voluntary donations in areas such as north-east Lincolnshire are crucial, as they are elsewhere. However, with relatively low incomes and very low property values, when people leave a legacy of a share in their property, perhaps, that does not realise the same sort of return as it would in many other parts of the country.
I could provide a whole list of what St Andrew’s hospice delivers; instead, I will give one or two significant statistics. It delivers more than 3,000 adult in-patient bed nights and 694 children’s hospice at home sessions; it has physiotherapy, creative therapy and social work contacts; it provides spiritual care for its patients and their families. The cost of operating all parts of the charity in 2024-25 is more than £18,000 a day; only four years ago, it was £14,000 a day—a significant rise, as Members will appreciate. Some 80% of that cost has to be earned or raised by the hospice, which, in times of economic challenge, is increasingly difficult. Its statutory income for ’24-’25 is expected to be only 21.5% of its total income. Currently, for every £1 of statutory income, St Andrew’s has to raise £4.60, posing a considerable financial challenge for the hospice, the volunteers and the fundraisers.
As we know, healthcare inflation runs ahead of general inflation, and hospices have to try to keep pace with statutory salary increases related to the national minimum wage. As with the social enterprises that provide social care in north-east Lincolnshire, hospice staff do not automatically get the increases that go to NHS workers, and the gap is inevitably widening. I raised this matter with the Secretary of State at health questions last week, and I think it will be a growing problem with further NHS wage increases later this year, as the gap between NHS workers and those providing care in hospices and social enterprises widens; it will be about 10% by the time the next increase comes. Needless to say, that is causing difficulties for those employees.
I have a specific question for the Minister, which I will write to him about in the next day or two—I do not expect him to have all the details of St Andrew’s in his pack. St Andrew’s gets only 21% of its income through statutory contributions, which I understand is about 12% below the national average; this has come about because of a whole series of historical adjustments. My plea to the Minister is that St Andrew’s is brought up to the national average as soon as possible.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for securing this important debate. As a nurse for 25 years and as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on hospice and end of life care, hospice and palliative care has always been at the heart of my work, both in this Chamber and in my community.
I start by acknowledging the fantastic decision by the Government to boost investment in hospices by £100 million—the largest funding uplift in a generation. That is a clear sign that the Government are listening to the hospice sector and responding with actions, not just words. However, this uplift must be the beginning and not the end. This new money will not last forever. We must now take concrete steps to ensure that the awful conditions in the hospice sector that we inherited are never repeated. It is worth noting that while the independent commission on palliative and end of life care recently created by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) is welcome, it will mainly be about delivery and not funding. We simply cannot wait for a palliative care taskforce to complete its report; that could take months, which this sector cannot spare.
In my role, I hear time and again about postcode lotteries and the chronic lack of funding that plagues this vital sector. Through no fault of its own, John Taylor hospice, which does fantastic work in my constituency, is facing a crisis in funding; it has had to announce redundancies and a reduction in in-patient beds due to the funding shortfall. That story is being repeated all over the country—I am sure many Members in this Chamber have a similar situation that they could share. Hospice care still relies heavily on charity, bake sales and donations to fund much of the work that supports families during their most vulnerable moments. That must change. This postcode lottery not only is unfair, but undermines the principles of universal healthcare. We cannot allow end of life care to depend on where someone lives and how much money they have.
Hospices across the UK provide care and support to 300,000 people every year. They are an absolutely essential part of our healthcare system, although they are in the charity sector. Every single day, hospices face rising costs of energy, food and medicine; every single day, they deliver exceptional care, even as pressures mount; and every single day, they battle deficits that threaten their ability to continue. Despite all those challenges, our hospices save the NHS millions each year by alleviating pressures on hospitals and providing community-based care. However, their ability to continue this vital work is at risk, and they need long-term sustainable support. We need to face the future head on and fix their funding model permanently.
While I absolutely understand that hospices are under pressure, the integrated care boards that fund them are similarly under a great deal of pressure due to year-on-year budget reductions from NHS England. Asking ICBs to find extra money without it being allocated centrally as revenue is impossible.
Death is a part of life, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon said, and as we all know. Nobody would say we should neglect healthcare, so why are we neglecting the hospice sector by not securing a sustainable funding formula? To truly address the gaps in our system, we need a sustainable funding model that ensures hospices can meet growing demands without being forced to cut services. The people of this country deserve a future where every family, no matter their circumstances, can access the highest quality of end of life care without worry, one where hospice care is not a postcode lottery but a promise.
Let us turn this moment into an opportunity. We must act urgently to implement and improve a sustainable funding package for hospices and palliative care. With constructive action, we can build a system that uplifts the most vulnerable among us, strengthens the NHS and shows the best of what we can achieve as a nation. Let us ensure that the legacy of this debate is not one of uncertainty, but one of determination and passion, and that when we see the 10-year plan, hospice and palliative care will be fully funded going forward.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for securing this debate and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. As he stated, the debate has taken on an added salience since the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) brought forward her Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on assisted dying. I hope we can all agree that regardless of what happens to the passage of the Bill, there is an urgent need to address hospice and palliative care. I want to touch briefly on two points: on children’s hospice funding and support; and, more broadly, on inequalities in access to palliative care, which relate to the concerns many of us have about that Bill.
On children’s hospices, I am very proud to have Shooting Star children’s hospice in my constituency in Hampton, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon referred. As he stated, as well as serving children and young people and their families in my constituency, it actually serves a very wide area of south-west London, west London and all of Surrey. It provides care and support to children with life-limiting conditions, respite care, family support and, importantly, a bereavement service. From talking to the mother of a teenager who died very unexpectedly from an asthma attack in my constituency, I know that her young teenage friends have been very well supported by Shooting Star as they have been grieving their friend who so unexpectedly and tragically lost her life. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Shooting Star for its incredible work.
Like other hospices, Shooting Star relies on the goodwill and generosity of so many in our community and beyond, skydiving, running, donating clothes and toys to its shops. As my hon. Friend pointed out, it now faces a £200,000 bill as a result of the employers’ national insurance rise. While I welcome the Health Secretary’s announcement prior to Christmas to renew the children’s hospice grant, I reiterate its question which was echoed by my hon. Friend: is this a long-term commitment and not just for the next financial year, and will it be ringfenced? It has told me time and again that it cannot plan for the future if it is living hand to mouth, year to year in terms of recruiting staff and putting services in place.
Hospice funding is so variable. As we have heard, Together for Short Lives reports that NHS funding in 2022-23 for children varied by as much as £483 per child. Hospice UK made a freedom of information request which found, shockingly, that 40% of ICBs have absolutely no idea how much they are spending on children’s palliative care. We need to hold our ICBs much more accountable for children’s and adult palliative care. Together for Short Lives also highlights a £295 million spending gap in NHS spending on children’s palliative care, when compared against National Institute for Health and Care Excellence standards.
That brings me to my second substantive point, on the variability of palliative care with particular regard to how it compares to national standards. Marie Curie estimates that one in four people who could benefit from specialist palliative end of life care do not receive it. People are more likely to get good palliative care, frankly, if they are richer, more educated, white and younger. The inequalities across our society in access to palliative care are growing and demand is growing, too. I had a number of conversations with the hon. Member for Spen Valley. These inequalities are one of many reasons why I really struggled and could not support her Bill on Second Reading. They really, really concern me. Back in 2011—getting on for 14 years ago—NICE recommended that there should be a designated palliative care advice line out of hours implemented in every area of the country, but only one in three areas offers that service. That shows us just how poor we are at putting in place what we have already been told needs to be provided so that people can die a good death. If that happened in any other area of care, particularly in cancer, there would, rightly, be outrage that we were not implementing NICE recommendations.
The 2024 Marie Curie “Better End of Life” report said that large numbers of people were struggling to access services. There was late recognition of their needs and poor communication. It found that the impact on carers of poor end of life care was profound. The physical and emotional toll that it took on carers left one carer saying:
“The overall experience is that no one really cares.”
When we are at our most vulnerable at end of life and our loved ones are also struggling, we deserve so much better. We need far greater investment in palliative care and hospice care. I urge the Minister to take genuine action to address both the geographic disparities and the deep inequalities that exist in accessing palliative care. We have a moral imperative, particularly if the assisted dying Bill makes progress. We cannot be in a position where assisted death is available universally on the NHS to those identified in the Bill, but access to good palliative care is not. That is what grated with me most and why I could not walk through the Aye Lobby that day. I urge the Minister and the Bill Committee to ensure that duties are written into law so that there is genuine choice at the end of life. Whether the Bill passes or not, we need to see much greater action on good palliative care.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for securing this important debate and for his passionate contribution.
It is shocking that, on average, only one third of hospice funding is provided by government, with the rest coming from charitable donations. Rising costs, inconsistent income and a shortage of state funding have left the hospice sector in a precarious position. Indeed, many have had to cut back on the services they can offer and are struggling to meet growing need. A recent meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on hospice and end of life care made for a sobering experience for all the MPs present, because every representative from the hospice sector outlined their fear around the future.
I am blessed to have both Claire House and Zoe’s Place children’s hospices in my constituency of Liverpool West Derby, but we witnessed first-hand last year the seriousness of the situation for hospices with the threatened closure of Zoe’s Place, which rocked us all to the core in my great city. It was unthinkable that something so precious should be lost, but, due to the lack of funds, it was going to happen. However, the community of Liverpool and beyond rose to the challenge by raising an incredible £5 million in 30 days to ensure that this amazing place could remain open. While I have the chance, I want to thank every single individual and organisation who worked relentlessly to make this happen: without them all, the city of Liverpool would have lost Zoe’s Place. There are so many that I could name, but let me thank the Steve Morgan Foundation, the 64 Trust and TJ Morris for underpinning this remarkable community effort. They should not have had to do this.
I am pleased, then, that in December the Government recognised the crisis faced by hospices and committed £126 million to the sector, with £100 million of one-off funding and a one-year extension of the children’s hospice grant, but this is still only a sticking plaster. Hospices need consistent, reliable funding that accurately reflects the cost of care and their value in society to be able to meet the growing demand for palliative and end of life care, to ensure that people have the best possible experience at the end of their lives, and to prevent future funding crises. Hospice sector leaders have estimated that the need for palliative care in the UK will increase by 25% over the next 25 years, and it is clear that long-term reform of the hospice funding model is necessary to ensure that this demand can be met. That is why I back the calls from Hospice UK for the Government to commit themselves to a long-term reform of hospice funding in their 10-year plan for the NHS.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister, who has been superb in supporting me over Zoe’s Place. Will the Government ensure that the confirmed £26 million NHS England funding for children’s hospices for 2025-26 is ringfenced, distributed centrally, and increased in line with inflation in subsequent years, and does the Minister recognise the strong preference among children’s hospices for that £26 million to be distributed as a centrally managed and ringfenced grant rather than being distributed via integrated care boards?
Without ongoing Government support and a fresh funding model, what nearly happened to Zoe’s Place in Liverpool will happen elsewhere. Hospices will undoubtedly close down. The problems are systemic, and it will take Government action to fix that. The city of Liverpool rose to the challenge to save Zoe’s Place; now this place has to rise to the challenge as well, and give all hospices the funding that they need to survive. This cannot wait, because all who rely on these incredible services do not have time on their side.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Let me first pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for securing this important debate, and for his heartfelt contribution. I imagine that there is no one in this House, or even across these islands, whose life has not been touched by hospice care, and I want to pay a personal tribute to my niece, Dr Róisín Etchells, who works in this field.
Recently the House had what was by all accounts a respectful, informed and emotional debate on the concept of assisted dying, thanks to the efforts of the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater). Perversely, this Government have introduced additional employer national insurance contribution charges on the independent hospice sector, which can only be described as an attack, an assault on the very concept of assisted dying as we currently deliver it—for that is what hospice care is and does, and what others who deliver palliative care in the independent sector within the community do.
In Scotland one of the leading providers of such care, both in residential settings and in the community—within people’s homes—is Marie Curie. It operates at least two residential services and community care in almost every local authority area in Scotland. Here I declare an interest as a proud supporter of Marie Curie, and as someone who has helped to raise significant funds for it. It does wonderful work, providing skilled care and brightening the lives of patients as they face the prospect of their last weeks, days and hours. Ask any family who have benefited from this support; I defy anyone to find a critic.
Of course I understand that the Government must balance their books and that public sector pay rises must be funded, but the failure to offer mitigations in key areas of these self-same public sector services is misguided, ill-informed, clumsy and counterproductive. “Where will we find the money for these services?”, Ministers will cry, but they know that there are alternatives. In their populist haste to win the trust of the electorate, they rashly promised not to increase income tax. They should look at Scotland, where those with the broadest shoulders pay a little more, where in every tax bracket more people are coming to pay their taxes in Scotland every year, where 60% of taxpayers pay less than their counterparts in the rest of this disunited kingdom, and where the Government responsible for this alleged mismanagement have enjoyed public support for close to 20 years and continue to do so.
We in the Scottish National party estimate that if the UK Government had matched the Scottish tax bands, they could have raised £16 billion. In the recently announced Scottish Budget, it was encouraging to see that the Scottish Government committed themselves to increasing hospice funding by £4 million, and to providing additional funding for hospice staff to match NHS pay awards. To me, that is the difference between the Scottish and UK Governments. While the UK Government hike national insurance on employers and vote against amendments to exempt hospices from that hike, the Scottish Government increase hospice funding, and put more money in the pockets of hospice healthcare workers.
Like other Scottish MPs, probably, I received a heartfelt plea from Children’s Hospices Across Scotland. If the Minister had read it, he would know how desperate the situation is. I implore the Government to think again, to engage with the Scottish Government to ascertain the cost of mitigations for hospice and palliative care service providers and others, and to provide the same mitigating support that has been given to the NHS and other public services in Scotland.
Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
Let me begin by paying tribute, as others have done, to some local hospices. Both St Luke’s and East Cheshire do a spectacular job, and are very well loved local institutions. I want to say a particular thank you to the staff, of course, but also to the volunteers, and the donors who are literally keeping the lights on. I greatly welcome the £100 million of capital that the Government are providing for hospices, and I ask the Minister to meet me, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith), for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), and for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), to discuss a potential local project.
On revenue funding, it would be remiss of me not to mention that St Luke’s and East Cheshire hospices receive 15% and 16% respectively of their funding from the NHS. May I ask the Minister to review that, and commit himself to a funding floor that is transparent, fair and consistent across the country? The quality of the experience that my constituents and their families have at the end of life should not depend on the generosity of individuals.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for speaking so eloquently in this important debate, and for securing it. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee.
Hospices are fantastic places, and all of us in this country are lucky to have them. People go to hospices not to die, but to live the last few days or weeks of their life. While I am pleased that the assisted dying Bill has led to a renewed interest in hospice and palliative care, I am sad that so much of the focus has been on death and the dying process, rather than on the broader support and care offered by hospices and palliative care providers—sometimes over many years—to people who have illnesses that may be life-limiting, and who require certain types of medical intervention to manage their symptoms. That is a very important part of the work that hospices and palliative care teams do, but as I say, much of the focus is often on the death process, rather than the treatment given to those with chronic conditions.
Speaking as a former consultant psychiatrist, it would be remiss of me not to mention the psychological support and mental health interventions by palliative care teams and hospices. They are experts in pain relief. Palliative care teams brought a lot of relief to me when, as a junior doctor, I tried to manage very difficult situations in patient care. They are experts in analgesic components. It is important to recognise the palliative care teams working in not only hospices but hospital settings and the community to alleviate people’s symptoms.
I pay tribute to the fantastic local hospices and care teams in the Runnymede and Weybridge constituency, at Woking & Sam Beare hospice, which I have visited and is a fantastic place, and at Princess Alice hospice, based in Esher. We also benefit from Shooting Stars, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). I hope to visit that one day. I thank all the teams who work in those hospices for delivering care and support, but also for keeping the hospices running, and for their vital fundraising.
Many people support hospices in lots of different ways, including through direct donations and organising fundraising events, and I am pleased to have been to fundraising events for Woking & Sam Beare hospice. In fact, a week or two ago, I went to the Chertsey panto, which has been running for 12 years. It supports the Woking & Sam Beare hospice. The performances, if one can call them that, have raised £60,000. The panto has to be seen to be believed; one will never forget the Chertsey panto after one has gone to it. The team who organise and run it are absolutely fantastic. It is a fantastic institution and raises a lot of good money for the hospice.
We also have charity shops. There is a great one in Weybridge that has been raising money for quite some time. I pay tribute to everybody for what they do, no matter how big or small, to support our hospices and our palliative care sector.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Will the hon. Member join me in promoting a fundraiser being held by St Wilfrid’s hospice in Eastbourne, called “I’m a CEO…Get Me Out of Here!”? It is trying to get lots of local chief executive officers and MPs to join the hospice staff in the Sussex jungle, to raise cash for the great work that the hospice does.
Dr Spencer
The hon. Member will have to explain further what is required from those who commit to fundraising in the Sussex jungle. He is right to pay tribute to those doing great work in support of our hospice sector. Its funding model is part public and part private, which gives hospices a great benefit. As they sit outside the NHS, they have greater flexibility in how they approach care provision. Woking & Sam Beare hospice is 31% funded by public sector money. It has 2,000 staff and, as I said, delivers fantastic care and support.
Much of this debate has been about the future of funding for our hospice sector. Although I am grateful to the Government for the money and support that they have put forward for hospices, sadly they have given with one hand and taken away with the other. The rise in employers’ national insurance contributions is very damaging, and hospices also need to manage increases to staffing budgets as a result of the Agenda for Change. Marie Curie has said that the national insurance component will cost it roughly £2.9 million per year.
Could the Minister say what impact assessment has been done on the national insurance contribution rises for hospices, and on the Agenda for Change? How many hospices in the UK are running a deficit, and how does he expect that to change over the next year and going forward, as a consequence of the decisions made in the Budget? If there is an opportunity to reverse those decisions, does he supporting doing so?
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for securing today’s debate.
I am incredibly proud of many things in Beckenham and Penge, but particularly St Christopher’s hospice. It was founded in 1967 by Dame Cicely Saunders, the founder of the global hospice movement. The movement came about because Dame Cicely, a nurse who was researching pain control, believed that more could be done to help people at the end of their life. That included dealing with physical symptoms and tackling the stigma around painkillers, but also the idea that people should be able to achieve emotional closure through individualised care and support.
The assisted dying debate has been mentioned today by Members from across the House. I had over 2,000 constituents contact me about that debate, and there was roughly a 50:50 split between those who supported and opposed the Bill, but every single one of them was united by compassion, and they relayed their experiences of seeing people at the end of their life.
I pay tribute this evening to a woman I was incredibly fortunate to work for in this place, Dame Tessa Jowell. Tessa was a very good friend, a mentor and an amazing boss. Six years ago next week, she made her final speech in Parliament. Tessa was diagnosed with a terminal brain tumour. I was with her from her diagnosis through to writing the press release on the night she died. She finished her speech in the other place by saying:
“In the end, what gives a life meaning is not only how it is lived, but how it draws to a close.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 January 2018; Vol. 788, c. 1170.]
I sincerely believe that.
St Christopher’s hospice gives meaning to life as it draws to a close. It does so by taking a holistic approach; it cares for a patient’s physical, spiritual and psychological wellbeing. I have seen at first hand the intimate bonds and relationships established between staff, volunteers, patients and families. The hospice is one of the largest providers of palliative care education in the world. For all those reasons, we in Beckenham and Penge all support St Christopher’s hospice, which is a huge part of our community. I was fundraising for the hospice long before I became an MP, and I continue to do so.
People help in lots of different ways, and I want to give a special mention to Penge Fest, which is south-east London’s answer to Oktoberfest. Local businesses such as Brewery, the Three Hounds and Designer Drapes, organisations including Friends of Cator Park and Penge business improvement district, and many more came together with local residents for a day of fun and fundraising that included an oompah band. The event brought Penge high street to a standstill last summer. We will continue to fundraise for St Christopher’s hospice, but we should not have to do so to pay for the basics. Supporting our hospices benefits everyone, from the NHS to patients, and that is why I welcome the Government’s announcement, just before Christmas, of an extra £100 million in hospice funding through the extension of children’s hospice grants. That will ease the strain on hospices and benefit patients, as well as the wider health and care systems.
However, hospices still face pressures, including increased demand for services, the rising cost of provision and discrepancies in funding across the country, which many Members have mentioned this evening. That is why, as the Minister recognises, hospices must be a key part of the Government’s plan to shift care into the community, including through the provision of at-home care services. That can ease the acute pressures on the NHS. I invite the Minister to visit St Christopher’s to see its fantastic work for himself, and to discuss the role of hospices in the Government’s commitment to ensuring that every person has access to high-quality end of life care.
I thank the hon. Member for Wimbledon again for securing today’s debate, and the Government for the vital work that they are undertaking on this important issue.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for securing this debate on this important subject. As many people said during the assisted dying discussions, it is clear that the one thing that everybody has in common is a desire to see better palliative care being made more available across the country. Nearly a third of palliative care in Scotland is delivered by charities, and it is the same across the UK. In Scotland, hospice charities provide end of life care to over 20,000 people a year, ensuring compassion and care at the end of life. This figure is expected to rise by 40% in the next 15 years.
My constituency does not have a hospice within its boundaries, but we have many people who work and volunteer in the hospice sector. There is concern that the lack of understanding of the core role and wide scope of palliative care, which has for too long been funded outside the NHS despite being a fundamental aspect of care, has led to a shortfall in services, including palliative care for children. For too long, hospices have struggled with insufficient funding from consecutive Scottish and UK Governments, with less than half the funding for hospice care coming from Government sources. While the £100 million extra is absolutely welcome, there is still a huge shortfall.
The national insurance increase is projected to cost Scottish hospices an extra £2.5 million a year, and it comes at a time when Marie Curie has highlighted that one in four people across the UK are unable to access the necessary support. This increased financial burden will undoubtedly lead to fewer beds, reduced services and a diminished quality of care for some of our most vulnerable citizens at the end of life. Inevitably, this will compound the effects of the staff shortages already being faced by the care industry, further straining hospice care providers.
Where palliative care is available, there are still shortages, especially in psychological support and spiritual care, plus the possibility of serious recruitment problems with any assisted dying provision and in the social care structures that support people in their own homes. Fourteen hospice care providers have already issued an open letter calling for cross-party consensus on sustainable hospice funding. Their plea highlights the urgent need for additional support to ensure that these vital institutions are not forced to ration care or to close their doors.
I therefore urge the Government again to consider exempting hospices from the recent national insurance hike. This would be a practical step to alleviate the financial strain on hospices and hospice charities. By doing so, we would not remove crucial funding from palliative care which, as we have heard, is often raised by charitable donations. We must support palliative care services and ensure that all who need hospice care can access it, allowing them dignity and compassion in their end of life care.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for securing it. I am grateful that the Government have recognised the immense importance of our hospices’ vital work with the recent announcement of a £100 million funding package.
My constituency is served by the extraordinary work of St Catherine’s hospice. For 40 years, St Catherine’s has supported and lovingly cared for individuals with a terminal illness and their families, not only on site in Scarborough but in people’s homes in an area of North Yorkshire covering more than 1,600 square miles. St Catherine’s provides an incredible service and, like most hospices around the country, is a charitable, independent organisation largely funded through donations, fundraising and the income from its high street charity shops. I would like to place on record my sincere thanks to the wonderful staff, the army of selfless volunteers who give freely of their time, and the generosity of the local people who all ensure that hospice care is available to everyone in the constituency.
St Catherine’s welcomed our recent funding announcement, but it is clear that one-off capital injections alone will not address the underlying structural funding deficit. At the heart of the issue is the lack of clarity, equity and accountability in how integrated care boards allocate funding. Currently, there is no standard formula for funding distribution, which is creating disparity across hospices. St Catherine’s receives approximately 30% of its funding from the NHS, which is insufficient to meet the growing needs of the community. Some hospices receive much more, and others slightly less. Greater transparency and a consistent framework are needed to ensure equitable funding across all providers, whether NHS or charity based.
This inequity places immense pressure on charitable fundraising and limits what hospices can achieve. St Catherine’s alone must raise over £6 million annually. Surely the hospice sector needs funding models that align with service outcomes. A model similar to the mental health investment standard, mandating a minimum level of investment in palliative and end of life care, could perhaps provide the consistency and accountability that are so urgently needed. Long-term strategy is equally critical. It is my hope that a 10-year NHS plan will include detailed guidance for ICBs on commissioning hospice care, supported by a national funding strategy that reduces reliance on voluntary contributions for essential services.
Dame Cicely Saunders, the founder of the modern hospice movement, said:
“You matter because you are you. You matter to the last moment of your life”.
Our hospices strive to make every moment matter for patients and their loved ones. We must recognise hospices as integral partners within the healthcare system. By doing so, we will ensure that hospices are adequately supported to deliver extraordinary care both now and in the future.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Hospices provide vital care for adults and children with life-limiting conditions, offering end of life care, pain management and bereavement support to families, but despite being this essential part of healthcare, the hospice sector has challenges due to inadequate Government funding and the taxes that they are putting on it, and to workforce shortages. That is all compounded by rising costs and economic uncertainty.
Before I became a Member of Parliament, I have to confess that I had, perhaps fortunately, very little contact with the hospice sector, despite having worked in health and social care for the majority of my career and being a local government councillor for 17 years. During the election campaign, I was invited to the Shooting Star children’s hospice, which has been mentioned by numerous Members across the House. I visited Christopher’s, which is its in-house care facility in Guildford. I think it is actually in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt)—I am sure that the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) will correct me if I am wrong. There I saw the true meaning of selfless day-to-day acts of kindness and care, with people looking after some of the most vulnerable children and their families. They are the absolute exemplar of people providing dying well.
I also have the Phyllis Tuckwell hospice in my constituency, which is currently going through a multimillion-pound rebuild funded by donations from people who have either used or care for our hospice in Farnham. When it is open—hopefully by the end of the year—it will provide 18 new palliative care beds alongside rehabilitation and services for the families as well, along with therapy sessions. Both are shining examples of what dying well should look like.
As other hon. Members have mentioned, the one good thing to come out of the assisted dying debate has been a much greater focus in this House, and indeed across the country, on what it means to die well. I echo some of the comments we have heard: let us get palliative care and hospice care right first, before we start thinking about whether or not we should be allowing people to kill themselves.
Despite the Government’s announcement just after Christmas, which I would be churlish not to welcome, the reality is that adult hospices and children’s hospices are almost totally reliant on charitable donations. The rest comes through the integrated care boards and, as the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) just mentioned, it is a complete postcode lottery.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for securing the debate, and he mentioned the significant variation in per person funding depending on where they are in the country and at which hospice they are being treated. The children’s hospice sector is the starkest example, with some places funding just under £30 a head, whereas others fund over £500 a head. This inequity in care clearly leaves some families worse off.
The Government really have not made it easy for the hospice sector. It is still not clear to me that the Health Secretary and the Department of Health had any clue that the national insurance contribution changes were coming down the line. If they were aware, had they allocated this funding beforehand? Was this in their plan, or have they been scrabbling to try to make up the difference since they heard this announcement? Despite asking questions, I have not heard an answer.
We also have not heard whether the Government will cover the costs of the national insurance contribution rise. My personal view is that they must, because the hospice sector, alongside so much of the care sector, is vital not just to the people who use it, but to the wider health economy. Underfunding and taking money from hospice care will have a significant cost impact on other parts of the health service.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The hon. Member seems to welcome the additional £100 million for the hospice sector and, indeed, the additional investment in the NHS that have come out of the Budget, but he seems not to welcome the way in which that revenue is being raised. How would his party raise the revenue needed for the NHS and the hospice sector?
Gregory Stafford
Well, the simple fact is that what the hon. Members and his Front-Bench team are doing is ensuring that the NHS is worse off, because raising the money will have a greater impact on the rest of the service. [Interruption.] The Minister for Care is shouting at me from the Front Bench, and I am sure that, in his response to the debate, he can outline whether he and his team knew about the national insurance contribution rises and whether they planned for them.
The other part of this is the workforce, who have been touched on briefly. There is a real shortage of qualified healthcare professionals. Vacancy rates for hospice nurses have risen to nearly 19%, and the corollary is that staff morale is low. Again, the Government need to make sure that the long-term workforce plan that they and the NHS are rolling out includes how we will ensure that hospice staff are part of the long-term funding. Hospice UK has warned, seriously, that without urgent action, some, indeed many, hospices may be forced to close their doors in the next 12 months.
I have some requests of the Government. First, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) said, we need them to commit to a long-term sustainable funding model for hospices. That is not to say that hospices should be brought into the central NHS—I personally believe that the innovation of the hospice sector is down to its independence from the NHS—but they need multi-year funding to understand where they stand.
Secondly, as has been mentioned, we need to scrap the postcode lottery that comes from the integrated care boards. Some kind of ringfenced funding, particularly for children’s hospice grants, would prevent a lot of the delays and inequities in the service. As I said, we need to make sure that hospice staff are integrated into the NHS long-term workforce plan and are paid in parity with similar NHS roles.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman join me in paying tribute to the Phyllis Tuckwell hospice, which does great work in his constituency and mine? I have been speaking to the hospice over the last few days, and it requires £25,000 a day to maintain its services. The hospice has told me that it desperately needs multi-year funding settlements to offer a guarantee of future financial security, as well as a clearly articulated workforce plan to ensure continuity of high-quality staff.
Gregory Stafford
I think I mentioned Phyllis Tuckwell at the beginning of my speech, so I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It does fantastic work in Farnham and across Surrey and Hampshire. I am sure like all hospices around the country, it relies on donations but requires secure funding from the Government.
I welcome the £100 million of capital investment. We need to remember that hospices and palliative care are not a “nice to have.” They are absolutely essential charitable services, and they must be fully integrated into the funding and planning frameworks of the Department of Health and the NHS. They provide compassionate, life-changing care to thousands of adults and children every year. However, this vital work is being undermined by short-sighted Government policies.
If the Government are serious about improving end of life care and reducing hospital pressures, they must deliver fair funding, address workforce challenges and ensure that no family are left without the care they need, regardless of where they live. This is not just about numbers—the Minister might listen to this. It is about dignity, it is about compassion and it is about humanity at the most vulnerable time in people’s lives.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Members will see that we have some pressure on time this evening, and I want to get everyone in. Before I call the next speaker, I suggest an informal four-minute time limit.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) on securing this important and timely debate. The provision of hospices and palliative care is an essential part of our nation’s health service, playing a unique and vital role in our communities and often providing services that the NHS simply cannot cater for.
We are very fortunate in north London to be served by two amazing hospices. North London hospice and Noah’s Ark children’s hospice provide extraordinary end of life care, comfort and dignity for individuals and their families in Enfield, Barnet and Haringey. I have had the pleasure of visiting both, and I have seen at first hand the exceptional services they provide.
North London hospice supports over 4,000 people each year. Its services range from in-patient care to community-based support that allows people to die at home, if that is their wish. It also provides counselling, support and wellbeing therapies. Its community engagement is excellent, and I had the pleasure of attending its compassionate neighbours event in December. Through the programme, community volunteers befriend and support individuals at the end of their life, providing friendship and help with chores on a regular basis. Similarly, Noah’s Ark children’s hospice, which I visited on Friday, provides a lifeline for children with life-limiting or life-threatening conditions. Its hospice at home service allows children to receive care in familiar surroundings, which is often invaluable for families. I doubt that the services and facilities it provides can be bettered.
These organisations are models of good practice, but they are indicative of the challenges faced by hospices in England. Both face financial challenges to keep going, and the extraordinary work done by their fundraising teams should be highly commended. North London hospice has £16 million of running costs every year and could not provide its current services without donations and fundraising. It was an honour to raise funds for that hospice when I ran the London marathon in April last year, as did many other people to raise money. My time was five hours, 51 minutes. Noah’s Ark children’s hospice has to find a staggering £6.5 million a year to keep going and has even talked me into doing some fundraising, although I politely declined the skydiving option, as fun runs are more my choice of activity for fundraising.
The additional £100 million of capital investment for hospices announced by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is very welcome, as is the £26 million for children and young people’s hospices. However, demand for palliative care is expected to rise by 25% over the next 25 years so the funding model for hospices needs to be resolved for the long term. Although the NHS provides some financial support, that typically accounts for only a fraction of their costs.
Moreover, the process of accessing public funding through integrated care boards is fraught with challenges. Hospices must navigate a labyrinth of bureaucracy to secure funding that has often already been allocated to them. Delays, inconsistencies and a lack of transparency in decision making can leave hospices in financial limbo. We have all seen the extraordinary fundraising efforts undertaken by hospices, but while those activities are inspiring, they also highlight a stark reality: hospices are being asked to do too much with too little.
The current funding model creates a sense of perpetual precarity, where even a slight downturn in donations could have devastating consequences for patients and families. The question we must ask ourselves is this: do we, as a society, truly value the care that hospices provide? If the answer is yes, we must reflect that value in our policies and funding structures. That means increasing NHS funding for hospices so they are not forced to depend so heavily on charity; streamlining the process of accessing funds through ICBs, with clear timelines and accountability; and recognising the unique challenges faced by children’s hospices by providing them with the additional support that they need.
In conclusion, hospices such as the North London hospice and Noah’s Ark children’s hospice exemplify the best of what we can achieve as a society. They are places of compassion, expertise and hope, but they cannot continue to operate under the current financial and bureaucratic pressures. We owe it to them—and to the people they serve—to provide the support that they need to thrive. Let us ensure that hospices have the resources they need to continue their vital work—not just today, but for generations to come.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I will now be imposing a hard stop at four minutes, and that may reduce even further. I call Sorcha Eastwood.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I thank the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for bringing this matter to the House. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for how she has conducted the debate on assisted dying, which we have all talked about so much and which most hon. Members have mentioned today. Regardless of people’s opinion on the matter, during the debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill everyone agreed that we need to discuss palliative care. We need to ensure such care is delivered equitably, not just locally; as a lot of hon. Members have said, delivery is not only about hospices but about palliation.
I do not have a hospice in my constituency of Lagan Valley, but some of my constituents have been moved to the Southern Area hospice and the Marie Curie hospice. As well as that, we have the wonderful Daisy Lodge—a facility used as a hospice but also as somewhere for people to go to get respite. This is about supporting people to live well. I think it was the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) who said during the debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill that before we die, we have to live well. That should really be at the forefront of what we are talking about today whenever we are capturing the spirit of asking how we can help people to live the lives they should be living, in a way that is not impacted by inequality through a loss of services.
One of the issues mentioned during that debate was cancer; I know a lot about that as my husband has cancer. I want to make it clear that most people want to be able to die at home. For some, that is very achievable and doable. However, haematological neoplasms often prohibit many people who suffer from blood cancer from being able to die at home. We heard from the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) about issues to do with the workforce. With cancer, there is sometimes a real onus on haematologists because so much of the treatment is do with “the bloods”: how they are performing in terms of chemotherapy, radiotherapy and otherwise. In 2019, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee raised the issue of workforce with the British Society for Haematology and the Royal College of Pathologists. I was concerned about that at the time, but I am not sure we are much further on with that now so I remain concerned to this day.
I am also concerned about the impact of the national insurance contribution increase. I was the only Northern Irish MP to propose an amendment to the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill to try to exclude Northern Ireland from the increase; unfortunately, that was unsuccessful. The increase creates an unfair further divide between people who provide community and voluntary services, and those who provide statutory state services.
It is incumbent on all of us to keep talking about dying well. We have a good Irish tradition of wakes; we really get into the spirit of helping people through loss, bereavement and grief. We can continue to do that only if we have strong, well-funded hospices.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I was in the hon. Lady’s constituency yesterday, so I know well the points she makes and I thank her for letting me visit. She talks about dying well. Will she join me in paying tribute to the Douglas Macmillan hospice, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), which does so much to provide care and compassion to many people in Newcastle-under-Lyme and across north Staffordshire, as it seeks to ensure that people do indeed die well?
Sorcha Eastwood
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution and of course I will join him in that.
In closing, I want us to keep talking about living and dying well because we cannot shy away from that debate. We owe it to our constituents, not just mine in Lagan Valley but those across the UK, to ensure that we get this right.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
In this Parliament, we have spoken at length about the importance of valuing dignity at the end of life. That principle must be applied to hospice and palliative care, which has faced uncertain funding and been too hard to access for too long. Like most of us, I have reason to be grateful for the work of palliative care professionals. Even though more than 15 years have passed, I still remember with a great sense of gratitude and relief the compassionate care that my grandmother, Janet Russell, received at the end of her life at the St Mary’s hospice, which is now the Birmingham hospice, in Selly Oak.
In advance of the debate, I have been in contact with five palliative care professionals in my constituency, who stressed the consequences of the long-term pressures we have heard so much about, including the shortages of palliative care workers and the strain that puts on those who remain. One said:
“I’m deeply passionate about what I do and I have seen many lives improved by palliative care but I’m exhausted and often think about giving up.”
The strains on the system have led, to quote again from one of my constituents, to
“a higher threshold for admitting patients and a lower threshold for discharging patients…we are being asked to stretch further, with less, for longer…you can’t give quality medical care when your hands are empty”.
My constituents stressed that there can be public misunderstandings about the nature of palliative care, which reduces suffering, and on average extends life. Those misconceptions have been exacerbated by some of the media coverage of the assisted dying debate, which can make people less likely to seek such care.
A number of hon. Members spoke about the importance of children’s hospice funding. The children’s hospice grant was effectively ended last year, although it is important to note that transitional arrangements were put in place. The new funding announced before Christmas has been welcomed by the sector; it is important to stress how welcome that funding is. I heard that recently at the Acorns children’s hospice, which in the last year has cared for 14 children from Northfield. I heard about the plans that Acorns has to put that funding to good use when I visited recently, alongside my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). It is an exceptional facility, but the sector still needs long-term funding certainty, set out on a multi-year basis, if it is to deliver efficiencies and certainty for staff.
I welcome the constructive approach that the Minister has taken on this issue since July. I ask him to give us an update today, or soon, on whether the Government will be in a position either to restore the children’s hospice grant on a long-term basis or provide similar certainty through another means. Whatever happens in this Parliament in respect of assisted dying, will the Government work with palliative care professionals to set out, as part of the NHS 10-year plan, a clear timeline for improving palliative care provision, which in too many areas is strained? I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time for this important discussion, and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for the constructive tone in which he led the debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have 60 minutes left, and 19 Members still wish to speak, so I will have to drop the time limit to three minutes.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I shall be as fast as I can, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is no doubt that there is massive support for the hospice movement in this place. While the new funding is welcome, Clare Gallie, the chief executive of the Lewis-Manning hospice in Poole said:
“There is simply no point in having fully fitted and beautiful buildings if we cannot afford the staff to run them!”
When someone has a terminal diagnosis, their world turns upside down. It may have come out of the blue, or it may be after years of intensive treatment, when they are already at breaking point and sick. Families have to come to terms with losing the person they love, and learn to cope with managing distressing symptoms, processing their own emotions, and managing money worries and potentially their own health issues. People will be coming in and out of the house at a time when they just want to be left alone. They will also be terrified of being left alone and something awful happening. They are more likely to call their GP on a Friday afternoon, worried that no one will be around at the weekend; more likely to witness a distressing symptom and ring for an ambulance, creating an emergency dash to the hospital and a lengthy stay on a trolley; and more likely to be subjected to blood tests and interventions that will not alter the path of their disease.
I went on that journey when my mum, Lin Foster, died of ovarian cancer aged just 59, but we were lucky: we had the support of district nurses and palliative care teams through Forest Holme. For the last eight weeks of her life, when she did not leave her bed, those people came in and out of her house with no need to knock. They knew where the kettle was, and they knew when we needed our own time. They managed her every need, including supporting her as she planned her own funeral. She did not want to go to hospital. She wanted to end her days in the thatched cottage that had been her lifelong dream. That is what most people say they want, but only 37% of cancer patients are at home at the time of their death.
Junior doctors tell us that palliative patients are spending months in general medical wards, frequently dying there. I was told:
“It is not right, it is not humane because general wards lack the skills”.
It also does not save the NHS money. I have written to the Minister about the Lewis-Manning anticipatory care model, which I also raised with the all-party parliamentary group on hospice and end of life care. That programme seeks involvement at the point of diagnosis. Lewis-Manning ran a pilot from April 2024 to this month that saved NHS Dorset £765,000 across Poole and Purbeck.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and to the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for her Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which has done so much to bring this debate into the national consciousness. Does my hon. Friend agree with the Liberal Democrat policy that the Government should exempt hospices from the NIC rise?
Vikki Slade
I completely agree, but what is really ridiculous is that, according to the Department of Health and Social Care, over 10 million hospital days followed an emergency admission in the last year of life, and 10% of people who died of cancer had three or more emergency admissions in the last three months of their life. The anticipatory care model can prevent some of those admissions and reduce the trauma. Further to my letter, sent in November, I urge the Minister to meet me and Clare Gallie to talk about a transformative approach.
I was deeply concerned when Marie Curie emailed me to say that Dorset integrated care board will stop commissioning specialist end of life care from March. The rationale is that personal care commissioning will go via council frameworks, but they do not require expertise in the provision of end of life care. I urge the Minister to insist that the specialists are listened to in the framework and to ensure that Lewis-Manning and Marie Curie are heard. Those organisations are looking to make redundancies and close services at a time when hospital beds are at a premium—
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Hartlepool is incredibly lucky to be served by an amazing institution—one that has touched the lives of so many in our town. Alice House hospice and the brilliant people who work there, like hospices across the country, provide essential support to those in their final stages of life, ensuring that they receive the dignity and care they deserve.
The stark reality, though, is that Alice House alone requires £3.6 million each year to operate, with only 25% of that money coming from the Government. That means it has to raise £7,000 a day just to keep the doors open and to provide services. Any additional work beyond ordinary maintenance comes at an extra cost. As we have heard, that is a situation mirrored across the country. Dignity at end of life should not rely on charity. Rising costs and inconsistent financial support have left many hospitals struggling, forcing them to cut back their services. Indeed, Hospice UK reports that as many as 20% of hospices were cutting some level of provision, fuelling a bed crisis. Sadly, that was the case for Alice House when it closed its long-term care unit in 2023.
I welcome the Labour Government’s recognition of this financial crisis and its backing through the £126 million announced in December. While that support is welcome, we cannot be complacent. We need to ensure that the 10-year NHS plan includes long-term commitments to reforming the hospice funding model. That is essential not just to prevent another funding crisis, but to ensure that hospices can provide the essential care on which our communities rely. The need for palliative care is projected to increase by 25% over the next 25 years. We must therefore act now to ensure that our hospices can meet demand. They are not just places of care, but vital support systems that relieve pressure on our NHS, providing specialised care and training to health professionals across the board. When hospices are forced to cut services, the need for care does not disappear. It shifts directly on to our already overburdened NHS.
Life has a tendency to shape and focus one’s attention on the issues in this place. My father has Alzheimer’s. Although he is currently very well, I know that our family—me, him and my wonderful mother—are going to face a difficult future. We have a responsibility now to fix that future for everybody who will need that care in the future, and I hope that is what the Government will do.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and to follow the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash). I thank him for his personal story. Personal stories tell the story of the debate we have in front of us. During the last debate on assisted dying, the dire straits of our palliative care system were rightly put under the spotlight, so I am pleased to see this debate to address the system and the lack of funding.
I will refer to two charities in Northern Ireland that I have had contact with. One of them is Northern Ireland Hospice. It has highlighted that the Government fund approximately 30% of service costs, so the majority of its income relies on the good will and generosity of voluntary donations and other fundraising activities. That means 70% of the funding to provide its specialist palliative care for over 4,000 infants, children and adults with life-limiting conditions in Northern Ireland comes from the funding raised by volunteers. We owe a lot to Northern Ireland Hospice and its volunteers.
The people of Northern Ireland are incredibly generous when it comes to charitable giving, but when we take into account the cost of living crisis and the fact that it naturally reduces what people can give—it is a fact of life—we can see the concerns of the hospice sector. Indeed, when Northern Ireland Hospice believed that its funding would be cut by health trusts last year, it announced that it would have to cut the number of beds available in children’s hospices from seven beds all week round to six beds Monday to Friday and only three at the weekend, which represents a massive change in what it is able to do. That is not the news that we want to hear. It does not mean that fewer children need hospice facilities, but that costs have risen, the ability of fundraisers has decreased, and the Government have not enabled health trusts to make up the difference. Although I have underlined the situation in children’s hospices, the issue is replicated in adult care in every corner of the UK. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) is here. He is a former Health Minister of Northern Ireland, and whenever Northern Ireland Hospice needed help, he was able to allocate funding to get it over that hard patch. I thank him on the record for all that he did to make that happen.
Funding for palliative care is simply not sufficient. I referred to burnout when the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) very kindly let me intervene earlier. Medical staff whose loyalty and passion for the job keeps them in post, doing overtime or working unpaid to provide cover, are exhausted and unable to carry on. Marie Curie says that one in four people will die without the right care and support. Far too many people are dying in avoidable pain, in poverty, and alone. By 2048, the need for end of life care will have risen by up to 25%, so the challenge for tomorrow is even greater than the challenge for today—over 730,000 people will need care every year. We know that that crisis is looming, and now is the time to make changes for our loved ones and our constituents. Like other Members, that is what I am asking the Minister to do.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for securing the debate.
I will challenge any politician, regardless of their rosette, when they say that the NHS is broken. It is not broken; it is just underfunded. It is starved of the resources that it needs to function at its very best. We on the Labour Benches are enormously proud of the NHS and its founding principles: the universal right to comprehensive healthcare that is free at the point of use. Money should never be the passport to the best treatment. People should get the best that modern science can offer.
The NHS is our greatest creation, and it is socialism in action. As the NHS endures another hard winter, so must Labour’s founding principles. The private sector should not always be the solution. The private sector receiving an extra £2.5 billion a year in Government funding to cut waiting lists is not one of the principles—of either the NHS or the Labour party. There was an earlier back and forth between hon. Members on how to find money. That does not necessarily have to mean cuts; I suggest an annual wealth tax.
In Scotland, our hospices remain under enormous strain. Annually, approximately 21,000 adults and children receive expert palliative care, end of life care and bereavement support. The heads of all 14 hospice charities in Scotland have said that their sector is in the grip of an insurmountable funding gap, and staff have spoken openly of the dire possibility of budget shortfalls reaching the point where there will be no other option but to introduce service reductions. Of course, staff will do everything in their power to avoid that, but it is the stark reality of palliative and end of life care in Scotland. The hospice sector needs the Scottish Government to provide further financial support to address the shortfall in statutory funding, which is not keeping up with increased costs. That, coupled with the Scottish Government’s delivery on their promise of a new national funding framework for hospice care, is desperately needed, so that hospices can prepare for the long term.
Seamus Logan
The Secretary of State repeatedly tells us that all roads lead to Westminster when it comes to funding. Does the hon. Member agree that the Scottish Government can do only what is possible with the resources made available by Westminster?
Brian Leishman
The Scottish Government need to do much better with the resources they have been given.
On the topic of funding, hospices also rely on financial donations, and people the length and breadth of the UK raise so much for hospices. Naturally, many loyal supporters of the hospice sector have not been immune to the bankrupt political ideology of austerity, and the ensuing cost of living crisis has seen ordinary people become poorer, with out-of-control food bills, escalating food costs and sky-high mortgages and rents. Overall, the general erosion of living standards means that donations are an expense that many people can simply no longer afford.
The rebuilding of wider society cannot happen without the rebuilding of and investment in the vital public services that people rely on. That includes a properly funded and resourced health and social care system that has the same principles and ethos as when Labour created it.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
I will not focus on assisted dying/assisted suicide this evening, because as the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) said in a good opening speech, we are all united in this place in our desire to see improvements in the palliative care system, but I feel compelled to make this simple point of fact. Studies and research show that in jurisdictions and countries around the world that have introduced an assisted dying/assisted suicide law, the investment in and the quality of palliative care has declined, relative to those that do not have an assisted dying/assisted suicide law. That is for reasons that are fairly comprehensible. That is a fact. I implore the House: let us fix our palliative care system before we consider opening up the law on assisted dying.
The United Kingdom is, of course, the birthplace of the hospice movement, and we have some of the best palliative care services and specialists in the world, but as we have heard this evening, our system simply is not working. We have demand for palliative care and hospice services on a scale that was never anticipated in the post-war years in which the NHS was developed. The challenges of growing demand have been sadly exacerbated by decisions that the Government have made, as we have heard.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On Friday, I went to St Barnabas hospice in Lincoln, our local hospice, which does wonderful work, and talked to its chief executive officer, who is tearing his hair out. Because of the national insurance increase, he is losing £300,000 a year. He pays his nurses less than the local hospital; he has to. He is literally funding the NHS and cutting his own service in the hospice. I beg the Government to think again about the national insurance increase on hospices.
Danny Kruger
My right hon. Friend makes absolutely the right point. It echoes the experience of hospices across the country. Prospect House, which is on the edge of Swindon and is in my constituency of East Wiltshire, receives only 23% of its funding from the taxpayer. It faced a significant deficit this year, so it took immense pains and steps to bridge its funding shortfall. There was a huge response to a public fundraising appeal, and it raised over £170,000 from the local community, but that was before the Budget. The effect of the national insurance increase alone on Prospect House is £170,000, so the public’s generosity has been entirely wiped away by the Chancellor, and Prospect House is back exactly where it was.
Julia’s House in Devizes is a children’s hospice, and the most wonderful, moving place that I have visited in my time as an MP. It has had a similar experience. It gets only 8% of its budget from the taxpayer. Its deficit has gone up from £900,000 before the Budget to £1.1 million now. We therefore desperately need a comprehensive review of palliative care.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and to Baroness Finlay in the other place. They are leading a review of palliative care, with a view to coming forward soon with recommendations for the Government on how to improve the system. Indeed, thanks to Lady Finlay’s amendment to the last Government’s Health and Care Act 2022, integrated care boards are required to commission palliative care. Unfortunately, no money was attached to that amendment, and as we have heard, the way in which some ICBs commission care is not good enough. I regret, for instance, that the ICB in our area will not commission Julia’s House, the children’s hospice that I mentioned, so we need a better commissioning model.
I take issue with the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) that ICBs cannot find the money for these services in their budgets. They could if they did their job properly and commissioned services locally. They should be able to move budgets around. The fact is that if proper investment is made in palliative care, money is saved elsewhere in the NHS; that is the crucial point. Expensive bed stays in hospital would be reduced, as would demand on ambulances and other services. It should be possible to improve palliative care within the ICBs’ current envelope.
We do not want a system of enforced uniformity, or a great new national bureaucracy. I am concerned to hear some hon. Members suggest that we nationalise the system; I do not think that is right. We need to ensure that ICBs can do the job that they need to do, and that hospices can innovate as they want.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The crisis in funding, and the postcode lottery and health inequalities faced by many families, particularly in accessing hospice and palliative care, weighed heavily on my decision to vote as I did in the debate on the assisted dying Bill. That is why I am sincerely grateful to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for securing this very important debate.
I was profoundly moved by the extraordinary work of our local hospice, Compton Care, when I recently visited its new hub in the Scotlands, Low Hill, just before Christmas. I was deeply moved by the work that its people do to support families who turn to them at their darkest time. I saw outstanding medical care provided by specialist medical teams and counsellors, but also the wraparound support that they provide—everything from creative therapies and grief counselling to bespoke support for bereaved children. There were also those quiet, crucial moments when the specialist staff knew just what to say, just when things were so difficult for families —moments that are unimaginable to navigate.
That is why the Government’s extra £100 million for hospices across the country and their extra £26 million for children’s hospice services are essential. It is the biggest investment in a generation, a clear sign of this Government’s commitment to everyone having access to high-quality end of life care. It will result in hospices such as Compton Care reaching more people, especially in communities that have long felt the brunt of deepening health inequalities. It will provide much welcome support for families across Wolverhampton and Willenhall, and ensure that no one faces the end of life without the care, comfort and compassion that they deserve. I welcome the Government’s investment boost in hospice and palliative care, but I will continue to advocate for equity in care.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
May I intervene?
Mrs Brackenridge
I have nearly finished, thank you. I will never lose sight of constituents’ fundamental right to dignity and care, which matters right until the very end.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I start by thanking the compassionate, dedicated and caring hospice staff and volunteers who, year round, support patients and their families through some of the most difficult moments of their life. I welcome this debate, which highlights the need for greater, more consistent Government support for the work of delivering that vital care.
Most pressingly, we must ensure that fiscal policies do not negatively impact our hospices, because hospices are pillars of our healthcare system. They support over 300,000 people annually and provide not just outstanding clinical care, but emotional and psychological support. I have seen at first hand the many ways in which hospices work to bring some sense of comfort and normality at a very distressing time, from providing group activities and special events to creating quiet spaces for reflection. Hospices are not just care providers; they are vital partners in the healthcare system, reducing pressure on NHS services by offering specialist in-patient care and community-based services. Hospices prevent unnecessary A&E visits and facilitate timely hospital discharges.
When hospices are forced to cut services, the burden on the NHS only grows. That makes long-term support for hospices not just compassionate but practical. A constituent recently contacted me to tell me about her husband’s experience. Unfortunately, there was no room for her husband at my constituency’s local hospice, the Princess Alice hospice. My constituent strongly believes that her husband’s end of life experience would have been more peaceful and less painful had he been admitted there. Instead, he was left at home, in extreme pain for hours. The community nurses did eventually come to administer pain relief, shortly after which he passed away, but my constituent has expressed that the whole experience was deeply traumatic for her and her children, and urged me to call for more funding, so that other families can be spared such distress.
Despite the crucial role of hospices, the hospice sector is at breaking point. As a fundraiser, I work closely with hospices, and I know just how precarious their financial situation is. Many people do not realise how little of hospice care is funded by the Government. On average, the Government fund only one third; for the remaining funding, hospices are reliant on charitable donations. This imbalance leaves hospices vulnerable to financial crises as, thanks to rising costs and inconsistent donations, they fail to bridge the gap. This funding model does not work. One in five UK hospices has had to cut services in the last year, or was planning to, due to insufficient funding, and this trend will continue unless action is taken.
Although I welcome the Government’s £126 million package for hospices, we must see it for what it is—a stopgap, not a long-term solution. We need a plan to put hospices on a sustainable, fair and consistent financial footing. A long-term reform of hospice funding is needed as part of the NHS’s 10-year plan. Hospices such as Shooting Star and Princess Alice embody the values of compassion and community. They provide comfort where there is pain, hope where there is despair and dignity where there is loss. It is our responsibility to ensure that they continue this vital work.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) and the Backbench Business Committee for enabling this important debate.
This morning, I visited Myton hospices’ Rugby Myton support hub, which, together with its two in-patient centres and teams providing many distinct services, gives valued care to my constituents in Rugby. I want to put on record my sincere gratitude to all the staff and volunteers. The team this morning briefed me on the services they provide at the hub, which I will briefly mention. They provide coffee mornings, counselling for patients and families, opportunities to enjoy arts and crafts and to hear music, physical exercise sessions, self-care advice, support for carers and much more. All are delivered with kindness, and all are supported by an amazing array of volunteers. This is all backed by incredible fundraisers, including the former mayor of Rugby, Councillor Maggie O’Rourke; Myton was her mayoral charity recently. Local communities often rise to the challenge of fundraising, and they recently helped Myton to secure £240,000 to recruit, train and pay five registered nurses, so that more people in Coventry and Warwickshire can access a hospice bed.
I hope the Minister will consider three points that arose from my visit. First, volunteers and good will are of course wonderful, but they can only go so far, so any additional long-term funding from the local ICB or central Government would go a very long way, particularly given that the charitable nature of hospices means that there can be a multiplier effect. Secondly, to dispel myths, today I saw that hospices are not just about the last few weeks or days of life. They give a huge range of support to people with life-limiting conditions, so that they can live better until the very end of their life. Furthermore, they are there to support families, and hospices wish to engage with people much earlier in their illnesses. Thirdly, on communications, I hope the Minister will consider the point that despite the best efforts of organisations such as Myton hospice, many people do not understand what hospices are and what services they provide, or that they are free and are not private providers in the traditional sense. What more can the Government do to help hospices educate the public about their services, particularly now that there is more of a spotlight on palliative care, following the recent vote on the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater)?
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Hospices in Devon were already struggling before the Government’s Budget last autumn, which introduced a hike in employers’ national insurance. To talk first about the national picture, we have heard that a third of funding for hospices tends to come from the state, through the NHS. However, in Devon, it is less than a fifth. For Hospicare, a charity based in Exeter, the figure is 18%, while for Seton Hospice at Home and Sidmouth Hospice at Home, the figure is 0%; they do not receive any funding at all from NHS Devon.
Last year, I got together with Ben Bradshaw and Simon Jupp, the former MPs for Exeter and for East Devon. We put aside our political differences—Simon Jupp and I were contesting the seat of Honiton and Sidmouth at the time—wrote to the chair of NHS Devon, the brilliant Sarah Wollaston, and secured an extra £500,000 for hospice care in Devon. None the less, the charity Hospicare still has a deficit of £2.5 million per year.
Following the national insurance announcement last autumn, The Guardian reported in mid-November that Whitehall was considering options to relieve the financial pressure on hospices. It suggested that civil servants were weighing up the possibilities of offsetting the NI rise, funding hospice nursing staff directly, or setting up a “direct funding pot” for hospices. Following the announcement on 19 December and the Christmas gift of capital funding for hospices, it seems that the Government chose the direct funding pot for hospices. The problem with the additional capital funding is that a lot of hospices do not have physical buildings. They do not have infrastructure. They provide nursing services and hospice at home, so they cannot simply offset day-to-day spending with that capital spending. They are completely missing out, and that is the experience for Seaton hospice at home and Sidmouth hospice at home services in my east Devon constituency.
In conclusion, these charities step in where the NHS does not. Providing care is central to the Government’s vision of shifting treatment from hospitals to communities, yet the current trajectory seems to be forcing patients back into overstretched, acute hospitals.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for securing this debate and for his excellent and moving opening speech. Hospices across the country care for hundreds of thousands of people living with conditions that limit their lives or mean they face their lives coming to an end.
I wish to put on record my thanks to two hospices that provide crucial services for people in my area. Ellenor is a specialist palliative care provider for adults and children based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan). Since 1985 it has been providing hospice care for those who need it most, and it recently opened a new wellbeing centre, which is a hugely welcome addition to its facilities. I also pay tribute to Demelza, which has children’s hospices in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) and for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford). Demelza supports families who are going through what I can only imagine are some of the most difficult circumstances I can possibly think of, where children are facing serious or life-limiting conditions.
Given the importance of such services, I understand the high degree of concern from the sector before the Government’s announcement of further funding last month, with the NHS England children’s hospice grant not having been confirmed at that point for 2024-25. I therefore join hon. Members who have welcomed the 19 December announcement by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care of £100 million in funding improvements for hospices, such as updated IT and improved facilities for patients and visitors. I also very much welcome the news that hospices for children and young people will receive £26 million in revenue funding for the next financial year. Hospice UK has welcomed that funding, saying that it will
“bring clarity to critically important services for children with life-limiting illnesses.”
Mr Angus MacDonald
What does the hon. Member think about the many hospices that do not need the capital but are desperate for the income? I would be interested in his answer.
Jim Dickson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The capital funding will be of immense help to a wide variety of hospices in ensuring that they can upgrade their operation so that they are less reliant on revenue funding from the charity sector and from the NHS. We need a sustainable funding model, and I know the Minister will come back on that at the end of the debate. Finally, let us wish Hospice UK, individual hospices, and our NHS every success with their amazing care for all who need their services, and hope that they will be able to find a sustainable financial future as a result of the Government’s work.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for bringing forward this incredibly important debate. Anyone who has been paying attention to my contributions in this place will not be surprised that I am once again expressing my deepest possible concerns about St Raphael’s hospice in my constituency. Its case is emblematic of the problems across this undervalued and dramatically important sector.
One of my first visits after being elected as the MP in July was to St Raph’s hospice, where I saw the incredible care that it offers to residents in my constituency and beyond. I have met people from the hospice several times since then, including just this morning, and it is clear that while the Secretary of State’s £100 million announcement is welcome, it simply does not go far enough. The funding is restricted to capital expenditure fractions, such as refurbishments and digital services. While undoubtedly important to modernise and update the capability of our hospices, the funding does not address their immediate financial hardship, especially in the context of the Chancellor’s Budget.
St Raph’s is set to face an estimated £140,000 increase in staff costs this coming year due to the rise in employer national insurance contributions. This burden only adds to the significant strain on the hospice, which is currently funded by the NHS for just 28% of its budget. It is therefore reliant on the generosity of charitable donations for the remainder. If the Government fail to see sense and exempt hospices from this hike, structural deficits will only continue to grow in the sector, pushing many over the cliff edge altogether and forcing those who remain open to cut their services to the bone.
While the announcement of additional funding is appreciated, it does not address the root of the problem. The Government’s approach is dangerously akin to tackling a leaking roof with a mop and bucket. The Secretary of State spoke last week about the need to shift the focus of healthcare from the hospital to the community, yet I fear their treatment of the hospice sector has done exactly the opposite. Due to the limited funding that St Raph’s receives, it has been forced to cut its hospice at home scheme, a vital service where staff directly attend to patients in their own homes in the local community. Those on the Government Front Bench say they want community-based palliative care like that under the hospice at home scheme, but the scheme has been cut further due to their actions.
These issues show why they must bring forward a long-term funding arrangement for hospices, if the Government intend to keep their promise. My Hospices and Health Care (Report on Funding) Bill, presented last year and due for Second Reading in July, sets out ways for the Government to consider those options to deliver a long-term funding deal. However, I sincerely hope that by July the Government will have listened and the Bill will not need to be debated at all. I urge them to please make my Bill completely redundant.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for securing this debate. Like many Members here, I am here to talk about my local hospice. Just over the constituency border in Whittington, St Giles hospice has been doing its vital work for more than 40 years. However, 2024 was a challenging year for the hospice, with rising costs, plus the impact of the cost of living crisis making fundraising more difficult, leading it to make some impossibly hard decisions last summer. St Giles had to close one of its wings and make a number of redundancies among its clinical staff. That was due not to reduced need across Lichfield, Burntwood, the surrounding villages and further afield, but only to the financial situation that the hospice faced.
I commend my constituent Sean Collins, who is leading St Giles’s urgent funding appeal. The hospice supported Sean and his children following the loss of their mother and wife, Felicity, at just 38 years old. I am not sure I would be strong enough to turn that tragedy into something as positive as Sean has, but he has all my support.
The generous donors to St Giles do so much to care for people they have never met with their donations. In a recent meeting with Elinor Eustace, the CEO of the hospice, she mentioned how much she values all that they do, but said that she does not want to have a fully funded model, because of the value that fundraising brings to the entire community around the hospice. Having said that, Government support is essential to making sure that hospices across the country can continue to do everything they do for all our communities, so I welcome the £100 million of additional funding that the Government announced just before Christmas. However, we must find ways to ensure that all hospices remain sustainable in the long term.
St Giles receives just 18% of its funding from the NHS, which is less than £1 in every £5 when the national average is £1 in every £3. Levelling that playing field cannot come fast enough. In addition, St Giles has to deal with five different integrated care boards. That is five different NHS organisations for five different geographies, all with different funding formulas, different grant processes, different reporting mechanisms, different key performance indicators and different timescales. That is all for grants that add up to nothing more than an administrative nightmare. Simplifying and standardising that process will ensure that St Giles can spend less time securing grants from the NHS and more time on caring for the community in my constituency and further afield. I ask the Minister to look very closely at that point, because there is a real opportunity to secure significant benefit for hospices across the country.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for bringing this important debate to the House tonight. I congratulate him, but it is unfortunate that it was not held in Government time, because this issue was raised on a number of occasions during the debate on assisted dying.
The debate has highlighted the importance of the discussion around palliative care. The All Ireland Institute of Hospice and Palliative Care conducted a recent study of 500 people in Northern Ireland, which indicated that more than one in three think that they only had days to live if their doctor or healthcare professional talked to them about palliative care, and more than one in four would feel that their doctor was giving up on them if they talked about referring them to palliative care. This debate and the previous debates that we have had raise the importance of these discussions with family and the wider community. Work has been done in Northern Ireland on conversations about advanced care planning, where families, health professionals and all parts of the society are involved in those open conversations.
Much has been said about the fundraising model for hospices and palliative care providers, and it is no different in Northern Ireland. We talk about the need for a funding model, but the Department of Health and the entire health service in Northern Ireland have been relying on year-on-year budgets since 2016. That puts stress not only on our national health service, but on palliative care providers, hospices, GPs and community pharmacies. There is a desire from the rest of health and social care in Northern Ireland to see a recurrent, guaranteed budget that we could use to make those transformation decisions.
I pay tribute to the hospices and palliative care providers in Northern Ireland, especially the people who work in them. Much has been said today about funding care models, how they are managed and all the rest of it, but often we forget that at the heart of every care package, every delivery, every door that is knocked and opened and every cup of tea that is made for someone in one of those conditions are those healthcare professionals. They have the strength and the ability to move on to the next patient and family, to give them the same level of dedicated professional support.
Finally, I pay tribute to the staff in the Macmillan specialist palliative care unit in Antrim area hospital. I had the honour and privilege of visiting them many times as Health Minister in Northern Ireland, but especially when they were providing support and care to Shirley Smyth almost this time last year—a fantastic supporter and grandmother of one of my councillors, and a fantastic lady.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I join colleagues in congratulating the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) on securing this important debate.
Bolton hospice had been facing a funding gap of £1.2 million, which could have meant cutting as many as a third of its beds. We should remind ourselves what each bed and every penny lost actually means: in many cases, the real-life impact of these numbers is the prolonged suffering of the most unimaginable kind for the individual, and the heart-rending experience of having to witness it for family and friends. Let us not forget that 300,000 people depend on hospices every year.
Bolton hospice, in part following a fantastic campaign from The Bolton News and the huge generosity of the people of Bolton, was able to cut its deficit to £400,000—still a large amount. I did my level best to contribute to that campaign by traipsing up Mount Kilimanjaro. Frankly, hospices are so important to so many people that they should not have to rely on the kindness of strangers. That is why I was pleased to learn just before Christmas that Bolton hospice is in line to receive a slice of the once-in-a-generation £100 million national funding boost announced by the Health Secretary. Such investment pays for itself in many ways, by supporting the Government’s plan to shift more care into the community and keep people who need not be there out of hospital, and, importantly, by ensuring that people can die in a place of their choice with the care that they need. However, more funding will inevitably be required as we cope with an ageing population with increasingly complex care needs. Given the pressures on public finances and the cost of living crisis, we must look for creative and innovative solutions.
With that in mind, I want to raise the work of my constituents Corin and Tricia Dalby, who, through tireless campaigning, have secured the support of 30 hospices, 36,000 petition signatures and more than 100 parliamentarians in raising the profile of hospices’ financial pressures, with a petition presented to No. 10 Downing Street last month. Corin and Tricia’s petition calls Government to redirect the first £100 million of fines levied by the Financial Conduct Authority on banks and other financial services firms to the hospice sector. Since April 2012, the money collected from FCA fines has gone to the Treasury, and can then go to charitable donations. We need to think carefully about how to ensure hospices are put on the sustainable funding platform they so desperately need, but I urge my colleagues, including the Minister, to carefully consider this proposal.
Finally, it would be remiss of me not to mention the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) on assisted dying. Palliative care provides the relief so urgently needed for hundreds of thousands of people around the country and their families, and we absolutely must make sure it is the best it can possibly be.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Like other Members, I begin by paying tribute to our hospices and to everyone who works and indeed volunteers in palliative and end of life care, providing such amazing support to patients and their loved ones around their death—that most difficult time of life—and helping people to have a good death. As many Members have said, that work is so crucial. I would particularly like to mention St Michael’s hospice, Hereford, in my constituency. It is a place I have had an association with for many years, as it has provided amazing care to friends of mine who have died there. It is so well loved in the community.
Is it not such a shame, as so many colleagues have said today, that palliative care is so dependent on charitable funding? As the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) said, it is integral to our healthcare system—except it is not, because it is not fully funded by our healthcare system. It is not actually free at the point of need, except thanks to the grace and kindness of strangers and charitable funding. Government Members have made mention many times this evening of the £100 million capital injection from the Government, which is absolutely welcome; it has been so frequently mentioned, in fact, that one might think the Whips have gently encouraged its mentioning. However, the problem is that this £100 million is a short-term capital injection, when what is needed is a long-term revenue funding solution.
Despite the amazing efforts of fundraisers, revenue budgets in hospices are under extreme pressure. That has been made worse by the rise in employer national insurance contributions; St Michaels will have an additional bill of £240,000 next year because of it. That is a problem. The current funding model for hospice care is a problem. It is good that there is now a statutory requirement for ICBs to fund palliative care, but there is a complete lack of parity across the country. Hospices have to negotiate individually with ICBs all across the country every year. A hospice leader said to me that they have no sight of the future; another said that when they are considering redundancies, it is no use telling people they are going to be resurfacing the car park with the new capital funding.
We need a sustainable revenue funding solution for hospices—a clear, fair, multi-year, long-term funding solution—with parity across the country, to provide those doing that amazing work to support patients and the patients themselves with the support they need and deserve.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Twenty years ago this month, both my parents died aged 60, of cancer. They died just one week apart, but that is where the similarities ended. My father died a horrible death, receiving very poor—if any—palliative care. My mother won the postcode lottery, if you like, and passed away in the Royal Stoke, in Stoke-on-Trent, where she received superb care and died a dignified death. I live with the twin legacies of those deaths. I stress to the Minister the importance of ensuring that trained palliative care staff are spread equally throughout the country. It is vital. It makes a difference.
Stoke-on-Trent has also won the postcode lottery in a way, with our excellent hospice, the Dougie Mac. Having merged with the Donna Louise children’s hospice, it now provides care for all people of all ages across north Staffordshire. It provides many innovative services, including a dementia care service and a rapid response ambulance service, which responds for patients at the end of their lives. Instead of taking them to A&E, they travel to the hospice. That saves the local hospital 350 A&E visits a year, saving on ambulances and saving the trust money. Unfortunately, the hospice does not receive any funding to help deliver that service. I want to take the opportunity to put on the record my thanks to the chief executive, who I spoke to at great length recently, to all the staff across both sites, in Blurton and Trentham in my constituency, for all the work they do, and to all the amazing volunteers in the shops throughout Stoke-on-Trent.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to funding hospices and the £100 million injection, but like everyone else I support ending the postcode lottery. We must end inequality in the delivery of service and we must provide a more sustainable model in future.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Hospices and palliative care are not just about easing physical pain; they are about dignity, compassion and humanity. How we care for those approaching the end of their life reflects who we are as a society. As has been mentioned by right hon. and hon. Members, palliative care should be an integral part of our wider NHS. Over half a million people die each year in the UK, yet too many of them do so in conditions that fail to meet their needs or respect their wishes. Hospices, the very sanctuaries of peace and care, are stretched to breaking point. Palliative care teams staffed by dedicated professionals and volunteers do extraordinary work, but they are increasingly underfunded, under-resourced and overlooked in policy debates.
Those challenges are not the fault of those on the frontline; they stem from systemic issues in how we prioritise end of life care. Funding for hospices comes primarily from charitable donations, with only about a third provided by the NHS. That is not sustainable and nor is it fair. We would not dream of asking our hospitals or schools to rely on bake sales and fundraisers for their survival, so why should hospices be any different?
I do not have hospices in my constituency, but I want to pay tribute to the local hospices that care for my constituents. The Kirkwood hospice has budgeted for a near £1 million deficit for 2023-24 and it expects the same level of deficits to continue in subsequent years. The picture is the same for the Forget Me Not children’s hospice in Kirklees, which also faces a £1 million shortfall and has put out an urgent appeal for public donations.
Another issue is access. Palliative care should be a universal right, yet we know that availability varies widely depending on where we live, and one’s age and condition. Too many people, particularly in deprived areas or from minority communities, face barriers to receiving the care they need. That inequality is unacceptable in a society that prides itself on fairness and must be addressed by the Government.
In conclusion, we must ensure secure, long-term funding for hospices and palliative care services. That requires a shift in how we think about end of life care: not as an optional extra, but as a core part of our healthcare system. The Government must step up and provide the sustainable financial support these services need to thrive now and for the future, and be able to support all communities equally.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Let me first pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for bringing this debate to the House.
Hospices such as Compton Care in my constituency provide invaluable palliative care, not only in terms of pain and symptom control but in providing psychological, social and spiritual support, support for people who wish to die at home, and rehabilitation, financial advice and support for family members, including bereavement support. However, the funding that hospices receive from ICBs across the country is inconsistent, and often does not reflect the cost of the services that they provide. As has already been mentioned, only a third of hospice funding comes from the Government, with the rest coming from charitable donations. As of May last year, at least a fifth of UK hospices had either cut their services in the previous year or were planning to do so.
When hospices cut services the need for care is still there, but it has to be met by the NHS. If they are given the long-term support they need, that can ease the pressure on the NHS. Sector leaders estimate that the need for palliative care in the UK will increase by 25% over the next 25 years. However, I welcome the £100 million that the Government have provided, which will improve buildings, equipment, accommodation and digital upgrades, as well as the £26 million revenue funding for children and young people’s hospices that will be provided in 2025-26.
There has been a lot of discussion about assisted dying this evening and when we discussed the assisted dying Bill, there was a lot of discussion about palliative care. Now we have an opportunity to take action, and we need to seize it to improve palliative care. If the assisted dying Bill does become law, we need to make sure that people in the future do not have to make a decision between assisted dying and palliative care.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Palliative and end of life care is about dignity, compassion, and giving every person their right to live their final days in comfort and peace, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) observed when compassionately describing his parents’ last moments. However, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) that access to high-quality care is a postcode lottery across the UK. Only a third of local NHS areas in England can provide 24/7 end of life care at home, which leaves nearly 100,000 people every year without the care and support that they deserve during their most vulnerable moments.
We must address this disparity. Every patient deserves a personalised care plan that respects their wishes and supports their physical, emotional, social and spiritual needs. Care plans should also offer non-clinical help, such as financial advice and opportunities for people to participate in meaningful activities while they can still do so; and let us not forget the families who require respite care during this period.
Hospices play a vital role in such care, but, unlike the NHS, hospice care is not fully funded by the Government. Hospices receive only about a third of their income from the state; the rest is raised through charitable donations, which is pitiful. This model is unsustainable. As a result of rising costs, which have not been helped by the national insurance increases, the sector faces a £60 million deficit this year alone. As demand for hospice care grows owing to an ageing population and advances in medicine that help children with life-limiting conditions to live longer, the strain on hospices will only increase. Without immediate action they will struggle to meet this growing demand, leaving more people without the care that they deserve.
We need bold and decisive steps to fix that. First, we need fair and sustainable funding. The Government must create a national plan to secure consistent funding for hospices. Emergency funding is urgently needed. Secondly, we need a national standard for care. National quality standards and agreed outcomes for palliative and end of life care are essential. Every integrated care board must meet minimum standards to provide fair access to care nationwide. Thirdly, we need support for underserved communities in areas where people are currently missing out. There should be access to palliative care in homes, care facilities and hospitals, ensuring that no one is left behind. Fourthly, the £26 million children’s hospice grant must be ringfenced.
Let me end by thanking the incredible teams at the two hospices in my city that serve my constituency: LOROS, which assists 2,500 people a year, and Rainbows, a fabulous organisation that cares for young people with life-limiting conditions. I want to thank them both.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for bringing forward this important debate, and all hon. Members for speaking with such compassion.
Although the £100 million for hospice capital projects is to be welcomed, it is cash that is most needed. Julia’s House, a children’s hospice in my constituency that has already been mentioned, will find itself out of pocket by £242,000 per year because of the rise in national insurance. Dorothy House hospice, which is also in my constituency, will lose even more. That is a lot of sponsored walks and parachute jumps—perhaps too many—if the hospices are to avoid cutting their services. I urge the Minister to think again, and to provide the funds that our hospices need.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for securing today’s important debate, and all hon. Members for approaching the conversation with the compassion and thoughtfulness that this topic deserves.
Examples shared across the House show that hospices are a vital part of our healthcare system. They provide outstanding care for patients approaching the end of their lives, offering dignity, comfort and support to families, and they are often driven by hundreds of volunteers, alongside the paid staff. Hospices will play a key role in meeting this Government’s objective to move care from hospitals to the community. This debate is very timely, given that the front pages of the newspapers are reporting today that half a million people were left languishing on trolleys in A&E and in corridors in 2024 because there were not enough beds to admit them.
Hospices, such as the extraordinary St Wilfrid’s in my constituency of Chichester, are the cornerstone of community care. I was blown away during my recent visit to St Wilfrid’s, and I am not ashamed to admit that I was brought to tears by the accounts of the family members, patients and staff I met that day. I applaud the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) for her show of emotion, because it is an emotive topic. St Wilfrid’s provides comfort and compassion to patients and their families during life’s most challenging moments—both directly in the calm and idyllic surroundings of the hospice and out in the community, providing palliative care for 300 people in the comfort of their own homes. It is St Wilfrid’s belief that everybody should be afforded a good death, and it strives to ensure that there is beauty in every day for patients and their loved ones, yet its service is being crippled by rising costs and a lack of sufficient Government support.
Hospices are in the process of setting their upcoming budgets, and many are having to make difficult long-term decisions to cut palliative care because they lack a long-term solution to address the growing financial strain. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) mentioned, it is all well and good being able to say you have a lovely car park when you do not have any nurses to park in it. Only 17% of the overall cost of St Wilfrid’s hospice is currently covered by NHS grant funding—well below the minimum requirement across the country.
One of the biggest components of hospice costs is the salary of their expert clinical and other staff. Hospices are trying to match NHS salary increases to ensure that staff can afford to stay with them, and to remain competitive. In addition, they are now burdened with paying increased national insurance contributions, whereas direct NHS providers are exempt. For St Wilfrid’s, the rise in national insurance contributions will cost an additional £210,000, which is a significant financial burden. Although we Liberal Democrats and hospices alike welcomed the capital investment announcement in December 2024, that funding does not address the challenges of day-to-day spend, so there is still a vast gulf between rising expenses and available income. As the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) said, the funding must be the start, not the end.
Hospice UK has warned that around 300 hospice in-patient beds—14% of the total—are currently closed or out of use due to a lack of funding and chronic staff shortages, meaning that fewer patients are able to access the end of life care that they need at one of the most vulnerable times in their lives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) mentioned the Marie Curie report, as did other Members across the House, which stated that one in four people who need hospice care cannot currently get it. The term “bed blocking” is not one I am particularly comfortable with, but if adequate palliative care is unavailable in the community or in a hospice, those people will remain stuck in hospital, and those hospitals cannot provide the expert care that a hospice can. Our hospices are ready and willing to take on those patients, but they need the support of this Government to do so.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), who brought forward this debate, said, people do not want to die in hospital. They want to die at home or in a specialised setting such as a hospice. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for hospices to be exempted from the rise in national insurance contributions. This targeted measure would provide immediate relief for a sector that is struggling under the weight of rising costs, and prevent further reductions in capacity or even closures.
We must think long term. Hospices need a sustainable funding model that guarantees they can continue their vital work of providing care for patients, supporting families and easing the pressure on the NHS. Hospices must also be a part of the conversation in the Government’s upcoming 10-year plan for the NHS, and that must include sustainable hospice funding reform. Examples from across the House today showed a shared recognition of the importance of hospice care. Now we need the Government to match that recognition with action for the patients, for the families and for a health service that depends on hospices.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for securing this debate. I was going to test the patience of the House by reading out all the hospices that have been named, but we got to 45 and I realise that time is short, so I will not do so. It is, however, a testament to those hospices’ services that so many Members have spoken so fondly about them.
On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I would like to discuss three areas: the conversation about death; palliative services and the ecosystem; and some specific technical questions. It is rare in this House that we debate a topic that impacts literally everyone, and it is an honour to play my part in highlighting something I have long argued is not talked about nearly enough—that is, death and dying. We all know that the only certainty is death, but there is a variable, which is the quality of death. That has been the focus of today’s debate. After all, it was Woody Allen who said:
“I’m not afraid of death, I just don’t want to be there when it happens.”
Palliative care services dedicate their lives to making sure that people who will die do so with dignity. Many people think of hospitals or hospices in relation to death, and their staff do fantastic work, but we must not forget the pivotal role played by the likes of district nurses and GPs in ensuring there is palliative care in our nation. In my constituency, I am blessed with hospice care from Loros for adults and Rainbows for children, both of which are much loved by the public and, most importantly, supported by armies of volunteers. Those people deserve this House’s and the public’s recognition and respect for what they contribute to our society.
Dying can be a difficult subject to talk about, as I know from my clinical days, but that does not make it any less important. I pay tribute to this House for the way in which it handled and discussed the assisted dying debate. Whatever position people take, it is fantastic to see a national debate now taking place across dinner tables up and down this country. So my first question to the Government is: what is being done to ensure that people look to plan their deaths better?
When we talk about the wider ecosystem, we have to consider the roles of hospices, hospitals and primary care providers such as district nurses, who are all key stakeholders, and the nature of how they have ended up being involved in palliative care and the different journeys they have made to do so. That is beyond the scope of this debate, but it is important because it informs the make-up and patchwork of palliation across this country. As we have heard, there is a balance between charitable funding and NHS funding, and even this House is divided on what that formula should look like and whether it should be solely state funded or charitable.
My second question to the Government is: will they consider consulting on a long-term funding model that allows this debate to take place, so that we have a better balance between the two? Building on that, looking at it from the clinical point of view, part of the issue at play is what the provision should even look like.
My third question to the Government is: will they commit to establishing agreed basic standard criteria for service-level provision, and to getting a national agreement on the provision of palliative care services and what they look like for whatever a person should choose?
On the record of the last Government, we legislated in the Health and Social Care Act 2022 to ensure that commissioning was taking place. As part of the NHS response to covid, £350 million was given to support hospices in those difficult times. NHS England also put in grant funding for a 24/7 single point of access for palliative care support. As we have heard, the last Government also increased the funding for the children’s hospice grant from £15 million in 2020-21 to £25 million, and I am pleased to see the Government continue that trajectory. To help manage staff, the last Government brought forward the first ever NHS workforce plan, and I commend this Government for continuing to commit to that.
With the debate about assisted dying and the concerns expressed by the Health Secretary about provision, however, my fourth question to the Government is: what assessment have they made of the impact of assisted dying on provision? I believe the Secretary of State was commissioning work on this, so when will the results be released?
On assisted dying and the ability to provide the services, this is not the right place to suggest whether they are right or wrong, but whether or not the Bill passes, I hope we will not let it distract us from the mission of continuing to improve palliative care and end of life services, for which there is momentum in the House and among the general public.
On the specific questions from the sector, it would be remiss of me not to raise the concerns about Labour’s Budget and its impact on the palliative care sector. The employer national insurance contribution increases are a tax on charities—fact. Charities are not covered by the NHS exemption. Hospices are charities, so they are being taxed—fact. GPs provide palliative care and support. They are not covered by the NHS exemption, so they are being taxed—fact.
Hospice UK has estimated that an additional £30 million will need to be found. This means that charities and non-profit organisations such as Sue Ryder, Macmillan and Marie Curie are being hit with additional wage bills, requiring more money just to provide the same level of care. The Government have said that they will give £100 million to hospices, but it has been made abundantly clear in this debate that it is for capital expenditure only, unless the Minister would like to correct me.
What assessment have the Government made of what the spending review will look like when it comes to palliation? It is hard not to see this as a Labour Government giving with one hand while taking with the other—taxing GPs and hospices in order to give them money back in a way that they do not want.
On staffing and contracts, some staff are employed by the NHS, while others are directly employed by the hospices. Have the Government made an assessment of the impact that will have on recruitment? For example, palliative care consultants face a postcode lottery of terms. Will the Government consider looking at that?
Palliative care consultants’ contractual arrangements throw up another oddity in the sector: some NHS palliative care consultants have Crown indemnity, while others employed by hospices do not, costing them thousands of pounds. Will the Government consider looking at that?
On the allocation of funding process, Together for Short Lives has called on the Government to confirm whether the £26 million will be ringfenced for children’s hospices and distributed centrally to avoid delays. Previously, the decision was made to give it to ICBs to better help local decision making. Although well meaning, that has resulted in delays. Are the Government aware of this issue and, if so, will the Minister commit to working to smooth it out?
There is much more that I could say on the topic, and I sure that the same is true for many others. The UK has an ageing population, and demand for palliative care will continue to rise in decades to come. In this House, we have the opportunity to make a difference for all who come after us. At the heart of looking after the dying is compassion. True compassion means not only feeling another’s pain, but being moved to help relieve it. This Government have the power to do that, and I hope they will.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for securing the debate and making such a powerful and thoughtful opening speech. I thank hon. Members from across the House—there are too many to list. It would be impossible to capture the richness of the contributions made. Something like 28 Back-Bench Members made speeches—I am sure Madam Deputy Speaker will correct me if my numbers are not quite right. It was an excellent debate, and I thank everybody for their contribution. I thank all those who work or volunteer in the hospice and palliative care sector for the deeply compassionate care and support that they provide to patients, families and loved ones when they need it most.
This Government are committed to building a society in which every person receives high-quality, compassionate care, from diagnosis through to the end of life. We will shift more care out of hospitals and into the community, to ensure that patients and their families receive personalised care in the most appropriate setting. Palliative and end of life care services, including hospices, will have a vital role to play in that shift. The reality is that we have a mountain to climb. Our health and care services are on their knees, but this Government will strain every sinew to build them, and to create a health and care system that is once again fit for the future.
In England, integrated care boards are responsible for the commissioning of palliative and end of life care services to meet the needs of their local population. To support ICBs in that duty, NHS England has published statutory guidance and service specifications. While the majority of palliative and end of life care is provided by NHS staff and services, we recognise the vital part that voluntary sector organisations, including hospices, play in providing support to people at end of life, as well as to their loved ones.
Most hospices are charitable, independent organisations that receive some statutory funding for providing NHS services. The amount of funding each charitable hospice receives varies both within and between ICB areas. The variation is dependent on demand in the area, and on the totality and type of palliative and end of life care provision from NHS and non-NHS services, including charitable hospices, within each ICB footprint.
We understand the financial pressures that hospices have been facing, which is why last month I was truly proud that this Government announced the biggest investment in hospices in England in a generation. It will ensure that hospices in England can continue to deliver the highest-quality care possible for patients and their families and loved ones.
Danny Kruger
I also welcome that, and congratulate the Minister on getting that money out of the Treasury, but will he acknowledge that there is a difference between capital and revenue? Hospices urgently need support for their day-to-day running costs, not just more money to support the capital. They also need capital support, but that is less crucial.
Stephen Kinnock
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but hospices face a range of pressures. The capital expenditure injection that we have provided will help them in the round. Clearly, anything that helps a hospice with its budget in the round, be it capital or revenue, will help the hospice.
We are supporting the hospice sector through a £100 million capital funding boost for adult and children’s hospices, to ensure that they have the best physical environment for care. There is also £26 million in revenue funding to support children and young people’s hospices. The £100 million in capital funding will deliver much-needed improvements—from refurbishments to overhauling IT systems and better facilities for patients and visitors—during the remainder of 2024-25 and throughout 2025-26. The investment will help hospices to improve their buildings, equipment and accommodation, so that patients continue to receive the best care possible.
Hospices for children and young people will receive a further £26 million in revenue funding for ’25-26 through what was known until recently as the children’s hospice grant. That investment demonstrates the Government’s recognition of the importance of integrating services to improve the treatment that patients receive. Furthermore, through our plans for neighbourhood health centres, we will drive the shift of care from hospitals to the community, which will bring together palliative care services, including hospices and community care services, so that people have the best access to treatment through joined-up services.
Warinder Juss
Money is not always the only solution, so will my hon. Friend confirm how the commission on palliative care that the Government announced last month will improve end of life care?
Stephen Kinnock
The Government announced a commission on the future of adult social care. A separate commission was announced by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) on palliative care. We will certainly monitor the findings of that commission very closely.
We will set out details of the funding allocation and distribution mechanisms for both funding streams in the coming weeks.
Jim Shannon
In my contribution, I made the House aware that the Northern Ireland hospice has to cut its beds from seven to six for five days of the week, and at the weekend, there are only three. The Minister knows that I respect him greatly. It is all very well to have capital money available, but there has to be money to run the system and provide beds. Otherwise, we can buy beds, but might not be able to keep them and run a service. There must be something seriously wrong with what he is putting forward.
Stephen Kinnock
As I said in a previous answer, hospices face a range of pressures that financial contributions from the Government will help to ease. The funding will, of course, have a knock-on impact on hospices budgets in the round.
In spite of the record-breaking package that we have announced, we are certainly not complacent. There is more work to be done, and through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Department is investing £3 million in a policy research unit on palliative and end of life care. The unit launched in January 2024 and is building the evidence base that will inform our long-term strategy. A number of hon. Members requested a long-term strategy and plan, which is sorely missing after 14 years of Conservative neglect and incompetence. I agree that we need a long-term plan, and assure Members that conversations are taking place between my officials and NHS England. The research needs to be based on evidence and facts, which the unit will help us to get.
Dr Ben Spencer
It is important that this debate is not a political ding-dong, and I really appreciate the tone that all Members, including the Minister, have taken. On evidence and facts, will he look into the impact of the national insurance contribution rises on hospice care and provision, how many hospices are running a deficit, and how many will likely go into deficit as a result of his policies?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that I have a section in my speech on employer national insurance contributions. I will get to it.
A number of colleagues raised concerns about regional variations. Facts and evidence are very important in that context. To address that issue, NHS England has developed a palliative and end of life care dashboard, which brings together all the relevant local data in one place. The dashboard helps commissioners to understand the palliative and end of life care needs of their local population, enabling ICBs to put plans in place to address, and track the improvement of, health inequalities, and to ensure that funding is distributed fairly, based on prevalence.
Stephen Kinnock
I will, but I have to finish at 9.58 pm, so there is only about five minutes left of my contribution.
Gregory Stafford
It is generous of the Minister to give way, so I shall be brief. Would funding continue to be produced through ICBs, or will the system be funded centrally?
Stephen Kinnock
That is precisely the topic of conversation for officials in my Department and NHS England, who are looking at this issue in the round and deciding how we will work. We need a system that empowers ICBs to deliver at the coalface, but we also need accountability from the centre to ensure that things are delivered. Getting the balance right is never easy, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand; that is what we are trying to navigate.
Alongside NHS England, my officials and I will continue to proactively engage with our stakeholders, including the voluntary sector and independent hospices, to understand the issues that they face. In fact, I will meet the major hospices and palliative care stakeholders, including Hospice UK, early next month to discuss potential solutions for longer-term sector sustainability. That will inform our 10-year health plan.
Munira Wilson
On the children’s hospice grant, will the Minister confirm that it will be ringfenced, and that it will go beyond the one-year settlement?
Stephen Kinnock
Again, that is on the agenda for discussion with officials. Having inherited a disastrous situation, we are using 2025-26 to stabilise and to try to enable the sector to survive. The hon. Lady will understand that as well as doing that, we are looking at long-term reform solutions, but when we came into power on 4 July, it was one minute to midnight, and we had to rescue the sector. That is what we are doing, and we will look at the long-term issues in due course.
A number of Members have raised the concern around employers’ national insurance contributions. Since we came to office in July, we have been completely focused on repairing the catastrophic legacy of 14 years of Conservative neglect and incompetence. The first step was to fix the foundations of the public finances at the autumn Budget, and that enabled the spending review settlement of a £22.6 billion increase in resource spending for our health and care system. Our approach to ENIC exemptions has been consistent with the Office for National Statistics definition and the approach taken by previous Governments. It does not include an exemption for independent contractors, including charities like hospices, although December’s record funding announcement was a clear recognition of our commitment to financially supporting this vital sector more broadly.
I ask Opposition Members from all parties who luxuriate in criticising the means by which we have raised the record funding for hospices what they would do. How would they have raised the £22 billion that our autumn Budget delivered? Which taxes would they raise? Which public services would they cut? Answer comes there none. The Government recognise the need to protect the smallest businesses and charities, such as hospices, which is why we have more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500, meaning that more than half of businesses and charities with ENIC liabilities either gain or see no change next year.
While the debate is not about assisted dying, I want to say a word on the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) put forward her Bill, and it has received its Second Reading. It is vital that our approach to end of life care and patient choice is holistic and driven by an in-depth understanding of patient need.
I thank everybody across the House for this excellent debate. Actions speak louder than words. This Government have acted to deliver the biggest financial contribution to hospices in a generation.
Mr Kohler
I thank everyone for contributing today. This is a vital issue, and the sheer number of Members who spoke at such short notice shows how important it is to the House. We have heard many excellent contributions, but I will not try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, by listing those who spoke. The one motif running through the speeches was the need for a long-term funding plan. I heard what the Minister said about the £3 million NIHR investment and establishing a long-term strategy. I fear that it sounds like a plan for a plan, but I look forward to the 10-year health plan, because we absolutely need a strategy for the next 10 years, not the next two years, and I will hold him to his word.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered hospice and palliative care.
Business without Debate
Sixth-form College Strikes: Sussex
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
In my constituency, our young people are fortunate to have several highly regarded sixth-form options, including three brilliant colleges just over the constituency boundary in Brighton, Hove and Horsham. Varndean is one of only a handful of state-funded colleges offering the prestigious international baccalaureate; students at BHASVIC—Brighton, Hove and Sussex sixth-form college—received over 50 offers to study at Oxford and Cambridge last year; and Collyer’s has the best results in west Sussex and is in the top 15 colleges nationally for value added.
Since late November, those three local colleges have been among 32 across England, including one in the Minister’s constituency, that have held seven strike days—four before Christmas and, to date, three in January. I secured this debate having already submitted written parliamentary questions, the answers to which further frustrated those caught up in the dispute. In my opinion, the Government have dropped the ball on fairly and adequately funding non-academised sixth-form colleges. I feel that teachers are being treated unfairly and that students in Mid Sussex and beyond are being badly failed as a result.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue, which also affects Scarborough sixth-form college in my constituency. There are high levels of deprivation in parts of Scarborough, and the sixth-form college is a key route to higher education or employment opportunities for young people. Will she join me in praising the dedication and hard work of staff at sixth-form colleges not just in Scarborough, but across the country, who enable students to reach their full potential?
Alison Bennett
I agree that sixth-form college teachers do a huge amount of good, supporting students from a vast variety of backgrounds, including disadvantaged backgrounds.
This evening, I was pleased to meet in Parliament my constituent Amelie Lockhart, a year 13 student at Varndean, and Fleur Hemmings, a philosophy teacher at Varndean. Amelie told me that the strikes are limiting the time left for year 13 students to finish their subject content, and she and her friends are worrying about hitting their grades for university. Sam, a BHASVIC student from Haywards Heath, said:
“I’m worried about learning all the content for my A-levels at this crucial point in my life but I support the teachers in this strike.”
Similarly, a year 12 double maths student from BHASVIC told me that because they complete A-level maths in just one year, the strikes mean that he has already missed out on the teaching of several full topics of learning crucial to his exams in June. In addition, BTec students started exams last week just as three days of strikes took effect, and university applicants who need extra support—often students from more disadvantaged backgrounds or with special educational needs—have been impacted just before the end of January application deadline.
Lily from Haywards Heath, who studies at Collyer’s, says:
“These strikes disrupted my learning during mocks week. I didn’t have the proper class time to prepare for my exams. Of course I support the teachers. I think they should get the proper salary they deserve.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. I spoke to her beforehand to mention an example and support her position. There have been similar strikes in Northern Ireland, and teachers’ strikes are approaching. The main thing my constituents tell me is that students, who are already under enormous pressure during exam periods, must not be left struggling under undue duress and pressure. When it comes to sorting out these problems, does she agree that, although wage increases for teachers are important, the issues facing students must not be ignored?
Alison Bennett
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and agree that the impact on students is at the centre of the debate.
Emma, a parent from Hurstpierpoint, has said to me that it is madness for the Government to think that they could agree a deal with one set of teachers and exclude another. Meanwhile, a BHASVIC parent told me that they support the teachers but are frustrated that their children, who were let down during covid by a Conservative Government, are now being let down by a Labour Government, too.
So it is that teachers such as Fleur decided to go on strike, with a heavy heart. They are mindful that students get just two short years at college to study and prepare for their futures and that every day counts. For our year 12 and year 13 students, this is just the latest round of disruption that their education has been subject to: they were in years 7 and 8 when the first covid lockdown was announced and did not get back into school for six months. That had a profound impact not just on their learning but on their social and emotional development, with soaring rates of mental ill health and school absenteeism still being widely reported five years later. Then, during 2022 and 2023, there were further rounds of strikes in those students’ schools.
As Arianne from Haywards Heath, who is a BHASVIC student, said this week:
“The most frustrating thing is the loss of routine. The strikes have made it hard to integrate back into college after Christmas. We can’t get as much support from teachers for coursework, which might affect our grades. It feels very disengaging. None the less, I still support the teacher strikes and understand that if change is going to happen you have got to do something disruptive.”
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
On Friday, I was at Marple college, where a number of young learners talked to me about the really important elements of quality teaching and how they help, just as my hon. Friend laid out. She has mentioned a number of her constituents who have made exactly the same point.
I have also been contacted by Danny Pearson, the principal of Aquinas college, who knew that my hon. Friend had secured the debate. I want to share one sentence of his. He said:
“We really should be putting students and their education first and it seems a great shame that we cannot avert these strikes and get sixth form teachers back where they belong, in front of our students.”
Does my hon. Friend agree with me and Danny that the Government should do more to get brilliant teachers back in front of their students, where they belong?
Alison Bennett
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I absolutely agree that more needs to be done, and with urgency.
Why would sixth-form teachers take this step and cause more disruption to their students? I think that these strikes have come about because of sheer frustration at an illogical pay offer that effectively creates a two-tier sixth-form system. In July, the Government accepted the recommendation of the School Teachers’ Review Body to increase the pay of teachers in schools by 5.5%, and £1.2 billion of funding was provided for that pay award, but the Government excluded teachers at non-academised sixth-form colleges, yet they do exactly the same job as those in academised sixth-form colleges and at maintained schools.
So far, the Government have provided two explanations for that illogical decision. First, in response to my parliamentary question, they said:
“The government is not responsible for setting or making recommendations about teacher pay in further education…colleges, including sixth form colleges.”
One college principal I have talked to described that explanation as
“inaccurate at best, deceptive at worst”.
In fact, the Government have made a choice. They could have chosen to provide more funding to colleges to help fund pay awards, but they did not. There is precedent for making that choice: in 2023, the then Conservative Education Secretary chose to provide more money for all colleges through the 16 to 19 funding formula. This choice is costing some students valuable teaching time, while others—in some cases at schools just down the road—are having no such trouble.
The Government’s second explanation is that they are facing a “very challenging fiscal context”. They were able to find £1.2 billion for the initial pay award but said they could not provide the extra £19 million needed to end the strikes. That relatively small amount would ensure pay parity for teachers everywhere in the country and, in doing so, stop students from needlessly missing out on vital days of education. As the 2023 funding settlement proves, it is absolutely possible to extend support to all sixth-form colleges and there is no legal or technical reason to prevent it. It is a choice in the gift of the Government.
To add insult to injury, sixth-form colleges are already facing significant funding inequalities. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Government spending on students in those colleges is 26% lower than it is for students in secondary schools, and unlike schools and academies they cannot reclaim VAT, costing them around £350,000 per year on average.
There are also the longer-term implications of the widening pay gap. The IFS has estimated that as a result of last year’s 5.5% pay award for schoolteachers and the 2.5% increase for college teachers, the pay gap in this academic year will be the highest on record—£7,000, or 18%. My constituent Jo, a senior sixth-form college teacher and a mentor for early-career teachers, told me that one of her mentees has already had to leave Brighton and return to Newcastle as he could not afford to live in the south-east, and another of her current mentees is finding it difficult to survive on his teaching salary. She said that the erosion of teachers’ pay over the past decade, together with the high cost of living in this part of the country, means that Sussex is losing very good teachers. In her words, that is a direct threat to current and future students.
The Government must take urgent action to ensure that teachers in sixth-form colleges receive the 5.5% pay award, backdated from 1 September 2024. That is essential if we want to ensure that students’ education is not further disrupted. As we have heard, there is a clear and compelling case for providing funding to sixth-form colleges. The Government must change course. They appear to have belatedly realised that they made the wrong choice and have recently offered a staggered pay rise, with the 5.5% pay award applying from 1 April. However, that would still leave a pay discrepancy of £2,000 for no logical reason, other than—I presume—not being seen to backtrack completely from their ridiculous initial decision.
The Government must prioritise the education of students from Sussex and across the country, and must ensure that sixth-form colleges can continue to recruit and retain excellent teaching staff. Varndean, BHASVIC and Collyer’s are currently offering some of the very best opportunities within the state sector to our country’s 16 to 18-year-olds, but that is at risk if the Labour Government do not urgently address the inequality they are exacerbating in the sector.
I close in the strongest terms, by urging the Minister and the Government to reconsider their approach; to find the small amount of money remaining to ensure that teachers are paid the same for the same job; and to finally put this cohort of students, whose education was most affected by covid disruption, at the centre of decisions made by Government that affect them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing a debate on this important subject. I will endeavour to respond to as many of the points as possible.
Since taking on the role of Minister for Skills, my noble Friend in the other place has met many of our amazing teachers, support staff and leaders in the further education sector, including our sixth-form college sector. I thank all those people for the excellent work that they do, day in and day out. Alongside schools, FE colleges and other FE providers, sixth-form colleges play a vital role in transforming the lives of our young people, breaking down their barriers to opportunity and ensuring they can progress into further training, higher education and higher-quality careers. This is central to our mission of delivering economic growth, ensuring and enabling success not just for individuals but for our communities, our companies and our country. Colleges, teachers, technicians, and everyone who supports students are important to us, and this Government will treat them with the value and respect they deserve.
The Government believe—as Labour Governments always do—that education is about opportunity, and that the role of government is to extend opportunity to young people from every background and every corner of this country. The Government’s commitment to the education of young people was plain to see in our Chancellor’s Budget announcement of an additional £300 million for further education, to ensure young people are gaining the education and skills that they and this country need.
Our fantastic sixth-form colleges will benefit from that increase, and we announced on Friday that we are making approximately £15 million of that funding available to sixth-form colleges and general FE colleges for April to July 2025. This one-off grant will enable colleges to respond to current priorities and challenges, including workforce recruitment and retention. The remaining funding will be made available in 16-to-19 funding rates for the academic year 2025-26, with the aim of ensuring that all 16-to-19 providers are funded on an equitable basis from 2025 to 2026. This was in the context of a very challenging fiscal landscape, and it demonstrates the value we place on further education.
I do of course acknowledge the challenges that sixth-form colleges and their teachers face, and the concerns about the disparity with schoolteachers following the schoolteachers pay award in July. The schoolteachers award was made in line with the recommendations of the independent School Teachers Review Body. However, pay in the FE sector, including in sixth-form colleges, is a matter for colleges themselves, not the Government. Colleges are able to base pay on their specific needs and are not bound by the schoolteachers pay award or related terms and conditions.
As Members will know, FE colleges, including sixth-form colleges, were incorporated under the terms of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which gave them autonomy over the pay and the contractual terms and conditions of their staff. On the six-day strike action that had taken place in this academic year, I know that both sixth-form college teachers and leaders are always concerned to ensure that the impact on young people is minimised as far as possible, and I acknowledge the information that the hon. Lady has shared about some of those students’ experiences.
As I have said, I know that both sixth-form college teachers and leaders are always concerned about the impact on young people. Some of their arrangements include providing online learning where possible, and keeping libraries and learning centres open to allow for independent study. I know that both sixth-form college teachers and leaders will continue to consider and mitigate the impact of strikes on young people during the course of any industrial action. We encourage open and constructive dialogue by all parties in the best interests of staff and students. We all have the shared goal of ensuring that our young people gain the very best education during this critical transition period.
Our great FE teachers play a critical role in the lives of young people. We know that high-quality teaching generates high-quality outcomes for learners, and this is why we need more great FE teachers, including in critical subject areas. After a decade in which education was far from the heart of Government thinking, the new Labour Government are bringing about change at pace. It is for this reason that we are committed to recruiting 6,500 new expert teachers across our schools—both mainstream and specialist—and colleges over the course of this Parliament.
Our measures will include getting more teachers into skills shortage subjects, supporting areas that face recruitment challenges and tackling retention issues. We have begun to make good early progress towards this key pledge. We have already rolled out our targeted retention incentive to teachers in further education, including sixth-form colleges, to boost recruitment and retention. For the first time, this gives eligible early career FE teachers in key STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—and technical shortage subjects up to £6,000 after tax annually on top of their normal pay. In addition, the Taking Teaching Further programme makes it easier for providers to recruit and retain those with relevant industry knowledge by providing early career support to help their transition into teaching. We also continue to support recruitment and retention with teacher training bursaries worth up to £30,000, tax-free, in certain key subject areas.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
This is a huge problem in my constituency. Between Sparsholt agricultural college, which provides specialist training, as has just been mentioned, and Peter Symonds sixth-form college, which is one of the biggest sixth-form colleges in the country, a total of almost 9,000 students are affected by this pay disparity and the resulting dispute just in my constituency alone. Does the Minister agree that the Government need to start viewing education as an investment not just in our young people, but to grow the economy, not purely as a cost to be cut, which seems to have been the case over the last few years?
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Member for mentioning those 9,000-plus students from his area. This Government are interested in and passionate about breaking down the barriers that prevent young people from progressing and, with one in eight young people not in training, education or employment, we recognise the need to give young people the skills and training that they need, and support into employment. That is one of the key focuses and missions of this Government, and we are totally committed to it.
The national further education teacher recruitment campaign is raising awareness and consideration of careers in FE. To find out more and plan next steps, it encourages people to visit the website Teach in FE, which received more than 450,000 visits in 2023-24. We are committed to ensuring that we recruit and retain more teachers across schools and colleges in our country. We are taking those steps to ensure that we attract and retain high-quality teachers across our schools and colleges, which forms part of our aim to create a clear, flexible high-quality skills system that supports people of all ages, breaking down barriers to opportunity and driving economic growth.
We have established Skills England to ensure that we have the highly trained workforce needed to deliver the national, regional and local skills needs of the next decade, aligned with the upcoming industrial strategy. Skills England will work closely with employers, unions, Departments, local organisations and other agencies. Skills England will ensure that the skills system is clear for employers and delivers the training that they need. It will play a key role in supporting the skilled workforce needed to deliver the Government’s five missions: driving economic growth; breaking down barriers to opportunity; supporting our NHS; safer streets; and our clean energy transition. That links to our commitment to 1.5 million more homes, and seizes the opportunity of net zero to create hundreds of thousands of good jobs. Skills England will ensure that the skills system is clear for individuals, including young people and older adults, strengthening career pathways into jobs across the economy. The Government’s dedication to skills reflects the utmost importance that we place on transforming lives and the economy.
I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex for securing this debate on such a vital matter, and I thank other Members for their contributions. I reiterate my thanks to the wonderful teachers and leaders who make such a difference to the prospects of our young people. This debate has given me the opportunity to talk about our plans for post-16 education and skills, which are essential for breaking down the barriers to opportunity and for the country’s economic growth. The additional £300 million of funding for FE, as well as the targeted retention incentive, teacher training bursaries, the taking teaching further programme and our teach in FE campaign, demonstrate the value we place on the FE workforce, including our excellent teachers and leaders in sixth-form colleges. I pay tribute to the transformative work that FE staff do day in, day out.
High-quality teaching is one of the biggest influences in positive learner outcomes, providing learners with the skills and knowledge they need to succeed. I am sure that we will continue to discuss skills and 16 to 18-year-old education in the coming months, because the Government recognise the importance of improving prospects for young people and how that links to our plans to drive economic growth. FE teachers are and will remain central to those plans.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Registrar (Identity Verification and Authorised Corporate Service Providers) Regulations 2024
Draft Unique Identifiers (Application of Company Law) Regulations 2024
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Registrar (Identity Verification and Authorised Corporate Service Providers) Regulations 2024.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the draft Unique Identifiers (Application of Company Law) Regulations 2024.
Justin Madders
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. The registrar regulations were laid before the House in draft on 22 May 2024, and the unique identifiers regulations were laid before the House in draft on 31 October 2024. They form part of a programme to implement the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.
The 2023 Act is a landmark piece of legislation that delivers the most significant reforms to Companies House in more than 180 years, in order to protect the public from fraud and deliver real benefits to the business community. There has already been much progress since the Act was passed, including the introduction of stricter rules and checks to help Companies House to cleanse the register. The two sets of regulations before us will help to implement perhaps the most important changes to the UK’s company registration framework in the Act, requiring identity verification for those setting up, running and controlling companies. The 2023 Act amended the Companies Act 2006 to establish two ways in which an individual can verify their identity: either directly with Companies House or via an authorised corporate service provider, which I will refer to as an ACSP. The providers must be supervised for anti-money laundering purposes and registered with Companies House.
I will set out specifically what the two instruments do. The draft Registrar (Identity Verification and Authorised Corporate Service Providers) Regulations 2024 set out the legal framework that underpins identity verification. The identity verification procedure will involve an individual delivering specific information to the registrar or to an ACSP, which must include their name, date of birth and any further information specified in the registrar’s rules, which are a form of tertiary legislation.
Given the technical and increasingly evolving mechanisms for identity verification, it would be inappropriate to list every single identity document that must be provided to the registrar or an ASCP, or every single step that an individual must take in the regulations. Instead, the registrar is enabled to specify the requirements in a more suitable form and adapt or tweak the detail quickly where necessary. Companies House has produced a draft version of the registrar’s rules—I hope that they are in the Committee Room for Members to see—which I hope will provide some examples of the kind of information that might be required from applicants. When the registrar or ACSP receives all the correct information from an applicant, they will grant the identity verification application if they are satisfied that the information provided is true. That is the broad legal process for identity verification.
In practice, Companies House will use the gov.uk One Login platform to deliver its identity verification service. One Login is a cross-government verification platform that enables users to have a single login and verified identity for multiple government services. An individual will create an account and can verify their identity using a range of evidence, such as a passport or driving licence, or through knowledge-based verification questions based on their credit record or banking information. The process also includes checks to ensure that the individual matches the picture on their photo ID. For most people completing the purely digital route, the process will take a matter of minutes. Individuals can also complete the process in person at a post office.
If an individual decides to verify via an ACSP, the ACSP must follow the legal procedure established in these regulations and in the registrar’s rules. Companies House will issue guidance to ACSPs to explain how the procedure should be applied in practice and what checks they must perform on the information received. That will ensure that both routes achieve the same level of assurance in identity verification. Once an ACSP verifies an applicant’s identity, it will deliver a verification statement to Companies House to confirm that it has followed the correct procedure. The verification statement will be published alongside the applicant’s appointments on the register to maximise transparency. Alongside this verification statement, ACSPs must give the registrar information about the evidence they relied on to verify an individual’s identity. That means that Companies House will not lose access to crucial identity data if someone uses an ACSP and will also be provided with an assurance that the identity checks have been completed correctly.
The regulations add other checks and balances to the ACSP regime. ACSPs will be required to maintain records relating to the identity verification for seven years from the date they determined the identity verification request. The registrar can suspend and de-authorise an ACSP if they do not consider it to be fit and proper to carry out the functions of an ACSP. Finally, the registrar can perform spot checks on ACSPs and ask them to provide information about their identity verification obligations. All those provisions combined ensure that Companies House has the tools at its disposal to ensure that the ACSP regime is as effective and robust as possible.
I now turn briefly to the second set of regulations, the draft Unique Identifiers (Application of Company Law) Regulations 2024. These are technical and apply provisions on unique identifiers contained in the Registrar (Identity Verification and Authorised Corporate Service Providers) Regulations 2024 to other entities. A key mechanism underpinning the operation of identity verification is the use of a unique identifier or personal code, which we use to identify individuals who have had their identity verified, as well as registered ACSPs.
The first set of regulations we covered will enable allocation of unique identifiers to individuals associated with companies. These regulations give the registrar the power to allocate unique identifiers to ACSPs and individuals associated with other entities, namely limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships, companies authorised to register, unregistered companies, and Scottish qualifying partnerships. Identity verification requirements will eventually apply to other entities registered at Companies House, so it is necessary that we make these regulations relating to unique identifiers to ensure these requirements can operate in practice.
Finally, I want to update the Committee on the timings of identity verification. Companies House published its outline transition plan last October, which confirmed that it aims to start requiring identity verification from autumn of this year. In a few weeks, ACSPs will be able to register and individuals will be able to voluntarily verify their identity with Companies House, giving people lots of time to complete the process before legal requirements actually start.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
I will start with the Registrar (Identity Verification and Authorised Corporate Service Providers) Regulations 2024. I am pleased to see that the Government are continuing this legislation, which was first proposed in May 2024 by the previous Government. The legislation will assist Companies House to identify individuals, improve efficiency, and reduce fraud.
The Companies Act 2006 required individuals who set up, ran or controlled a company to verify their identity. Individuals may verify their identity through the registrar directly or via an authorised corporate service provider, such as an accountant or solicitor. The aim of the identity verification requirements is to prevent individuals from creating a fictitious identity or from fraudulently using another person’s identity to set up and run a company.
However, prior to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, the legal framework required Companies House to accept information from entities and individuals in good faith, with no checks to confirm that someone registered as a director or person with significant control had given their consent or was a real person. This instrument sets out the procedure that must be followed for an individual to have their identity verified or re-verified by either the registrar or an ACSP. For instance, identity verification applications must contain specific information, and this SI confers a power on the registrar to require further types of information and evidence.
The instrument also provides a framework for the suspension and de-authorisation of ACSPs judged by the registrar not to be fit and proper persons, requires ACSPs to keep particular records relating to identity verification checks they complete, and introduces duties for ACSPs to provide updated information to the registrar. The aim is to prevent nefarious agents from acting on behalf of their clients.
Finally, the regulations introduce offences if the ACSP fails to comply with the duty to keep records or provide information to the registrar upon notice. The instrument makes provisions for the allocation and discontinuation of unique identifiers, which will be allocated to all individuals who have had their identity verified and to ACSPs.
I welcome the measures taken by the Government in this SI, which builds on the work of the previous Government. However, given the importance of the legislation, I would like the Minister to provide further clarity on two areas. First, what assessment has he made of how much this measure will reduce administrative costs in Companies House? Secondly, the impact assessment made no mention of the cost for small and medium enterprises, so will the Minister say what assessment he has made in that regard?
I am pleased to see that the Unique Identifiers (Application of Company Law) Regulations 2024 also build on the good work of the previous Government through the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. This statutory instrument builds on the Registrar (Identity Verification and Authorised Corporate Service Providers) Regulations 2024, by extending the provisions to individuals associated with limited partnerships and limited liability partnerships. It will assist Companies House in identifying individuals, improving efficiency, and reducing fraud.
I have two questions for the Minister on this statutory instrument. First, once again, what assessment has he made of how much it will reduce administrative costs in Companies House? Secondly—and different from the first instrument—no impact assessment was carried out for this statutory instrument, but one was conducted for the first instrument, so will the Minister explain that discrepancy?
Justin Madders
I am pleased to hear that the shadow Minister has already started using the acronym ACSP, which is very encouraging—I am sure it will enter the vernacular shortly.
In terms of the cost to businesses of individual identity verification, it will be free to businesses to log in. It is estimated that on average it will cost £10.50 to verify an individual’s identity and £2.10 to confirm verification for each appointment held. It is estimated in the impact assessment that the annual cost to UK businesses will be about £19.5 million in ongoing operational expenses. It should be said that we believe that this measure will be of benefit to legitimate businesses, enabling them to move forward with confidence that they are who they say they are. Of course, the companies register is estimated to be worth up to £3 billion to the UK economy each year, due to the amount of information that is available free to the public.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the cost to Companies House. He will be aware that incorporation fees have been increased in recent times. Indeed, an economic crime levy has also been apportioned to Companies House, to recognise the fact that there are substantial new demands on it, and there are not substantial numbers of new staff that have been recruited to undertake these activities. However, there is no intention to increase the cost to the Treasury; rather, it is expected that these costs will be generally recovered through Companies House activities.
My understanding is that the second set of regulations would not have attracted an impact assessment due to the estimated cost to individual businesses. I will double-check that point for the hon. Gentleman and write to him if that proves to be incorrect, but I think it is normally the case that there is a £5 million floor on impact assessments, and my understanding is that these regulations did not exceed that; therefore, no impact assessment was required. On that note, I thank hon. Members for their time, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT UNIQUE IDENTTIFIERS (APPLICATION OF COMPANY LAW) REGULATIONS 2024
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Unique Identifiers (Application of Company Law) Regulations 2024.—(Justin Madders.)
Draft Clean Heat Market Mechanism Regulations 2024
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 12 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Clean Heat Market Mechanism Regulations 2024.
The regulations were laid before the House on 21 November 2024. It is this Government’s mission to deliver warmer homes that are cheaper to run. Low-carbon heating is key to our efforts to lower emissions. It is also central to how we alleviate fuel poverty. Our goal is to make energy fair and affordable for all by strengthening the nation’s energy security and by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and international markets that we cannot control. That is at the heart of everything that we are trying to do as a Department.
We have experienced a particularly cold start to 2025 and we can no longer afford to leave consumers facing high energy bills and cold, draughty homes. That is why we are charting a way forward through our warm home plan: a new approach that will result in millions of homes being upgraded and lower energy bills for families across the country. At the same time, it will back British businesses and create new opportunities for jobs and skills in every part of the country.
We are running at this. We have already set in motion the development of new standards for minimum energy efficiency in the private and social rented sectors that will lift 1 million people out of fuel poverty. We have announced changes to planning restrictions—including the removal of the outdated 1 metre rule—that will make it easier for people to install heat pumps. We are expanding our boiler upgrade scheme, almost doubling the budget to £295 million for next year, so that more people can have access to support for installing heat pumps, and we are working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to make sure that we are building future-proof new homes.
Making the transition to cleaner, cheaper heating is one of the most important challenges that we face as a country. We are absolutely determined to make that transition in a way that is ambitious, achievable and, critically, absolutely affordable for consumers. Every household deserves the security of a home that they can afford to heat and we believe heat pumps have a key role to play in that. Heat pumps are, on average, three times more efficient than gas boilers and are powered by electricity that becomes cleaner every year as the share of renewables on the grid grows. Heat pumps can therefore slash the level of energy we use for heating and reduce our reliance on gas. That reliance cannot be overstated: nearly half of the UK’s total natural gas consumption every year is currently used for heating buildings, producing roughly a quarter of total greenhouse gas emissions.
The proposed changes to our energy system will not happen overnight but it is important that we communicate that this is part of a long-term plan, and that we will keep this as a key priority. Nowhere is that more important than the critical work we must do with business as we make this transition. It is essential that the businesses that we work with, throughout the supply chain, know that they can put in the steps they need to build skills, and that they will have incentives and support to deliver this transition, and to do the critical job of helping households benefit from the switch to the cleaner, more efficient heating that we believe heat pumps can provide.
That is why, in addition to direct support for heat pump installations through schemes like the boiler upgrade scheme, the warm homes social fund and the warm homes local grant, we are providing investment in home-grown heat pump production through the heat pump investment accelerator competition. It is also why we are supporting installers through the heat training grant and why we are stimulating further investment in the supply chain by introducing the clean heat market mechanism with this instrument.
Since taking office, we have taken steps to engage with and listen to all parts of industry about the overall approach that we need to take on this policy. We are committed to continuing those conversations in the months and years ahead, including in relation to the clean heat market mechanism. We are proposing a reformed scheme that will provide the UK’s heating industry with the stability, clarity and policy direction to build a strong and resilient heat pump market that will benefit from the transition as we sprint towards low-carbon heating. The changes that we have made to the previous Government’s proposal for the mechanism will ensure that manufacturers have the time they need to scale up the supply chain and expand sales without penalising consumers. We will also need manufacturers to have the incentives and clarity to drive the innovation we need in the market, so that we can ensure we are delivering heat pumps that are cheaper and that respond to changes in the market.
The scheme will require boiler manufacturers to achieve the sale and installation of a proportion of heat pumps relative to their gas and oil boiler sales or the equivalent credits from other heat pump manufacturers. For the first year of the scheme, starting on 1 April this year, this is set at 6% of relevant boiler sales. As set out in the consultation response published in November, we have also decided to reduce the payment in lieu for any missing heat pump credits to £500 for the first year from the £3,000 previously proposed. We have also aligned the periods over which boiler sales and heat pump installations will generate obligations and credits, respectively, providing manufacturers with more time to prepare.
We are confident that between 2025 and 2026, the market can achieve the volume of heat pump deployment that the scheme is targeting, building on the substantial growth in sales seen in 2024. We are committed to working with industry to do the vital work of boosting demand for heat pumps and ensuring that it is as easy and painless as possible for consumers to go on this journey with us.
We are committed to ensuring that the transition to clean, affordable heating works for homes and businesses. That means having consumers firmly in our mind’s eye as we develop policy in this area and ensuring that we are working in lockstep with industry. That will be at the heart of our approach in the warm home plan. The statutory instrument is just one part of our overall strategy for delivering homes that are warm and cheaper to run, but it is an important part of how we deliver warmer homes with lower energy bills. It signals our ambition to tackle fuel poverty, which is still experienced by far too many people in this country, as we make that vital sprint, as we must, to clean power by 2030.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship yet again, Mr Vickers.
The clean heat market mechanism imposes Government targets on the manufacturers of gas boilers. It tells them that they have to sell a certain amount of heat pumps each year and imposes fines for every gas boiler they sell above their quota. Inevitably, the fines will be passed on to the consumer. Far from having consumers in their mind’s eye, the Government have already shown flagrant disregard for consumers in a host of areas: including their grocery tax, which will cost families £56 a year; their family holiday tax, which will cost up to £300 a year; their eye-wateringly expensive energy policies; and their misguided national insurance hike, which the Bank of England warns will raise prices and lower wages—a double whammy hitting people’s pockets.
Now they are asking us to support the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, who clearly has no interest in the cost of living in this country, having unfettered power to interfere with the price of people’s boilers. Last year, when we were in government, the then Secretary of State was clear that we would not introduce a policy that punishes people who choose not to install a heat pump. The current Secretary of State has an ideological obsession with going further and faster than any other country. Handing him the powers to push up the cost of installing new gas boilers in this country is a recipe for piling extra costs on to consumers. Because people usually have to replace their boilers at short notice, that will come at a time when families are least expecting it and can probably least afford it. The British people will once again be forced to pick up the bill for this Government’s ideological approach to net zero.
Around 1% of people in this country have a heat pump. Many who have chosen to install them are happy with them. If people want to spend their money to electrify their heating, it is not the Government’s job to prevent them from doing so, but the Government should not punish people if they do not want, or cannot afford, to make that switch.
We were happy to give families a helping hand, which is why we increased the grant available through the boiler upgrade scheme by 50% to £7,500, making it one of the most generous schemes in Europe. Applications actually increased by 75% as a result. It is simply not sustainable, however, to impose ever larger taxes to force consumers to switch to technologies if they do not want to do so.
That is even more dangerous given that the Labour party’s plans will make electricity much more expensive and, therefore, electrified heating much less desirable. The Electrification of Heat demonstration project report, published last month, found that the average installed cost of a high-temperature heat pump was more than £17,000. Even with the £7,500 Government grant, that means the cost of installing a heat pump is about three times that of installing a new gas boiler. That is before considering the extra hidden costs that go along with heat pumps, such as more insulation, replacing radiators, underfloor heating and more. Furthermore, let us not forget that many properties are not, and never will be, right for a heat pump. The same report found that even 34% of homes recommended for heat pumps as part of the trial were found, in the end, not to be suitable.
If the cost of gas boilers is pushed up, those families who have no choice or who live in unsuitable homes such as older properties or blocks of flats will face an unavoidable and unjustified price hike. In government, we exempted households who were not suitable for heat pumps from ever having to rip out their gas boiler. If the briefings to the newspaper are correct, of course, we welcome the Secretary State’s decision to scrap the 2035 boiler ban, but it is plain to see that the Government are simply replacing a boiler ban with a boiler tax. This draft SI will give the Secretary of State the power to increase the cost of new gas boilers, making things harder for people, even those whose homes cannot be made suitable without extra work costing tens of thousands of pounds.
During the election campaign, the Minister and her colleagues promised the British people £300 off their energy bills, a promise that we hear no Labour MP repeating at the moment. As soon as they got into Government, they snatched the winter fuel payment away from millions of pensioners in poverty, taxed family farmers and taxed the North sea oil and gas sector. Now, they are taxing people’s boilers, too. The evidence is increasingly clear that the Government’s rush to decarbonise the electricity grid by 2030 will increase the cost of electricity in this country, so that all those who have been told to move over to heat pumps—in fact, all our constituents—will face higher electricity bills as a result.
Last week, the Secretary of State said that we will only tackle climate change by working with other countries. But there is no sense in making our own people poorer and enforcing hardship on them in the name of reaching net zero, because no other country will want to follow our lead. Only by increasing prosperity and living standards will we convince the world’s largest polluters to cut their emissions. Once Ministers have snuck this power on to the statute book, they will be free to ramp up the fines dramatically in the years ahead in order to meet the Secretary of State’s targets. In fact, if they are to meet their legally binding climate targets, they will have no choice but to ratchet up the fines and to inflict more hardship on the British people.
Ministers should ask people why they do not want heat pumps, not force people to have one by making gas boilers increasingly unaffordable. The Conservatives believe that consumers get the best products when they drive the market through choice. As the Secretary of State has said, an overly centralised approach to net zero targets will slow down the take-up of new technology, requiring ever larger subsidies and ever stricter punishments to force consumers to buy the products that Ministers in Whitehall have decided are right for them.
That is why we have said that the carbon budget system needs a rethink. It is sending us down an increasingly prescriptive path, where Government tell businesses that they must sell a certain amount of a certain product by a certain date. It is central planning by the back door, and it is leading to perverse incentives, where Ministers are presented with endless submissions that say, “We must implement this policy”, not because it lowers costs for consumers or businesses, but because it will help us to meet our carbon budgets. That is wrong. I am afraid it is why Ministers are before us today to push through a policy that they know will make life harder and more expensive for people across this country.
When we were in government, we pushed back on that policy because we were not willing to pile extra costs on consumers to force them to adapt to and adopt technologies that they did not want. We said that free markets were a much better route to cheaper products and better technology, which actually improve people’s lives. If the Government want households to install heat pumps, they should let the manufacturers make the case to their consumers to convince them that they are worth while and that the power of the market brings prices down naturally without endless Government intervention. In this area more than any other, we need to put living standards before ideology, but I am afraid that with this Government, whether it is their family farm tax, their rush to shut down the North sea or their attack on educational standards, ideology seems always to come first. That is why we cannot support the introduction of the boiler tax.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
When the Conservative party was in government, it was willing to see sky-high energy bills. The reality in this country today is that, quite frankly, many people cannot afford the cost of energy. That is the reality that the Conservatives were happy to deal with, but it is not a reality that we believe is either tenable or acceptable, and it is one that we are determined to change. That is why we are making the sprint to clean power and are determined to deliver a warm home plan that can deliver cheaper and warmer homes for consumers across the country.
I will address some points that are quite frankly wrong. First, there will be no compulsion to impose heat pumps. Our job as a Government is to work with industry to make them as attractive a proposition for consumers as we can. We will not force people to adopt them, but we believe that heat pumps are three times more efficient than gas boilers and will be an attractive proposition for consumers. We saw demand for our boiler upgrade scheme reach record levels in 2024, because consumers are starting to realise what we know from the evidence base: that this proposition absolutely works for their pocket and for their homes. Our job is to ensure that not just wealthy households but every single household across the country can benefit from it.
To debunk the second point made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, this is absolutely not a tax. There is no requirement for industry to impose costs on consumers. We have worked very hard with industry to reform the proposal put forward by the Conservative party, which industry absolutely hated, to get to a proposition that we believe will do the job of incentivising the market for heat pumps, as everyone recognises we need to do, while protecting consumers.
Finally, we have to get to the right solution for every household in the end. We are not ideological about this. We care about getting consumers warmer homes and lower energy bills, and we will find a range of solutions that mean that where heat pumps work—we think that they will work in the majority of households, including in rural households—we will make it as easy as possible for consumers to adopt them. Where there is a need for alternative technologies, we are keeping those technologies under review so we can ensure the right solution for every single household.
The status quo is not tenable, nor should the Conservative party be proud of it. Quite frankly, it is a status quo that we are absolutely disgusted to have inherited. Our job is to take the country on the journey that we need, which is why we will not resile from driving forward with our clean power mission. In the end, we have to take ourselves off the rollercoaster of international fossil fuel markets over which we have no control. That is why we will drive forward our warm home plan. Heat pumps and the clean heat market mechanism will be a key part of that. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I am quite frankly staggered by the criticism from the Opposition. I remind Conservative Members that they had a policy of exactly the same architecture in recent years, with targets set at a level that produced a textbook example of unintended consequences. I will not accept any attempt from them to rewrite history on the matter.
I welcome the ambition in the draft regulations and in our mission for dependable, affordable and clean energy. In particular, I welcome the fresh approach from this Government of partnership with industry, understanding markets and putting people first. As the representative of a constituency that is home to one of our large domestic heating technology manufacturers, which produces boilers, heat pumps and other technologies for heating, I welcome the renewed targets that come with these regulations alongside and as a result of the Government’s fresh, constructive approach. I welcome that approach, because there is much more to be done in the transition for heating.
This is just one point in that journey. I would like to see us exploring an approach to air source heat pumps, alongside other technologies, and I am confident that we are now in the best possible place to navigate the way forward. I therefore thank the Minister for the approach that she has demonstrated with industry and with the market, and I ask whether she is prepared to continue in the same spirit of partnership, openness and innovation that she has begun.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester. We absolutely will approach it in that way. We know that we cannot do this on our own, and that we must work in collaboration with industry—that is what has got us to this point.
My hon. Friend is completely right to point out the flip-flopping from the Conservatives. Let me quote what the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine said about the clean heat market mechanism when he was in government:
“The Government back the dynamism of industry to meet the needs of British consumers, which is why we are taking a market-based approach that puts industry at the heart of leading a transformation of the UK heating market, while keeping consumers in the driving seat with choice. Through the planned low-carbon heat scheme—the clean heat market mechanism—we will provide the UK’s world-leading heating appliance industry with a policy framework that provides the confidence and incentive to invest in low-carbon appliances. That will make heat pumps a more attractive and simpler choice for growing numbers of British households.”––[Official Report, Energy Public Bill Committee, 6 June 2023; c. 145.]
That was when the hon. Member was enlightened.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
What happened to that guy, indeed. It is a shame to see the Conservative party flip-flopping rather than doing what it knows is right for the country and right for consumers.
Question put.
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
Children’s Social Media Accounts
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 661407 relating to children’s social media accounts.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg.
It is a privilege to have the opportunity to open this important debate as a member of the Petitions Committee. I start by paying tribute to the petitioners and in particular the petition creator, Ellen Roome, who I had the honour of meeting as part of my preparations for this debate and who is in the Gallery today.
Ellen’s son, Jools, died in April 2022. Since then, she has been a determined campaigner not just to get access herself to Jools’ social media data to help understand the circumstances of his death, but also to secure a future in which other bereaved parents do not face the situation that she has. I welcome that Ellen’s MP, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), is here, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), who has been working with Ellen on this issue. I look forward in particular to their contributions, which I know will provide further insight and will rightly ensure that Ellen’s own words are on the parliamentary record.
Since Jools’ death in 2022, the law and practice related to social media data has changed in several ways, most notably through the Online Safety Act 2023. The changes were secured in large part thanks to the efforts of the Bereaved Families for Online Safety group, other members of which are also here today; I pay tribute to their work. What I hope will become clear in this debate is that recent changes to the law, the implementation of those changes and the response of social media companies are not yet sufficient, and further change is needed to help bereaved parents such as Ellen. The petition attracted 126,000 signatures. That is a testament to Ellen’s campaigning efforts and the public’s concern about these issues.
Online services such as social media, streaming and messaging are now features of everyday life, including children’s lives. There are undoubtedly positive aspects of age-appropriate online services—giving children opportunities to explore the world, connecting with others who share interests and extending peer support options—but as the level of public concern recognises, it is beyond doubt that there has been significant exposure of many children to online harms, and that the action in response to that has not yet been sufficient or fast enough to meet the challenges.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Ellen Roome has gone through the unimaginable; I am absolutely amazed at her ability to continue fighting for answers for her son Jools. Does the hon. Member agree that social media companies are not in the wild west of the internet age any more and have become an integrated part of our society with certain responsibilities? Does he also agree that one of those responsibilities is ensuring that children in Wokingham and across the UK are protected from harmful content?
Lewis Atkinson
I agree that social media companies rightly face regulation; I will talk a little more about that later.
There is, rightly, debate and campaigning in the media and elsewhere—we saw some of that over the weekend—about the level of regulation of online content that children may access online, whether that is illegal content or legal but harmful content. Although the regulation of content itself is not the focus of today’s debate, as a concerned parent myself, I am impatient for online services to take proper responsibility for what our children see. Social media companies must not shy away from their responsibilities to protect children, either because of misguided free speech concerns or out of concern about their levels of profit.
It is important to note, as context for today’s debate, that the law does not allow online services to collect or store the personal information of children under the age of 13. As a result, most popular services require users to be at least 13 years of age, but enforcement of that requirement has historically been lax. The age-assurance requirements in the Online Safety Act must be implemented without delay.
I know that hon. Members will want to touch on various elements of the approaches to social media regulation, but in parallel to the wider debate about content regulation, the petitioners are clear that there are specific issues about parental access that warrant a response in their own right, from both social media companies and the Government, so I want to focus my remarks, and I hope this debate, on those specific questions.
First, the petitioners call for parental access to social media when children are alive. I understand the instinct behind this call—the instinct to directly monitor what a child is doing online in order to protect them from the harms to which I have referred. However, in the course of preparing for the debate, I heard clearly from multiple perspectives, including children’s charities such as the NSPCC, that broad, overarching parental rights to children’s social media would not be appropriate. Of course, given that the minimum age of use should be 13, we are talking about teenagers. Children—teenagers—do have long-established rights to privacy, as set out by the UN convention on the rights of the child, and established UK law and practice in a range of areas reflects and recognises that.
Such rights are important not just as abstract concepts but because, as I have heard, older children sometimes need private online spaces to help them to explore the world—for example, a teenager understanding their own sexuality before they wish to share it with their parents. We also know that, sadly, in some horrible cases, parents are themselves perpetrators of abuse against their children. Establishing a blanket right to access children’s online activity would remove an important safe route for children to seek support and alert others in such cases.
The petitioners themselves have reflected on such matters, and although they remain determined to support parents to keep their kids safe online, there is a recognition that establishing an overarching parental right to access the data of living teenagers is unlikely to be the appropriate way forward. Instead, it appears to me that parental oversight of a child’s social media use should rather be achieved through strengthening and significantly increasing the uptake of parental controls and other specifically designed arrangements that children and their parents agree to together, as part of the sign-up processes for online services. It is clearly the responsibility of online services to implement and expand such measures, and I hope for rapid progress in that area as a key part of online services’ work to improve children’s safety online in partnership with parents.
I now turn to the issue of bereaved parents’ access to social media data, which is the specific issue for which Ellen has been campaigning, because she is still not able to access data about Jools’ use of online services before his death. I cannot begin to imagine the anguish of losing a child and, even more so, not being given information that might help a parent to understand the circumstances of their child’s death. We rightly talk about laws, protections and rights, but we do not talk enough as a society about the right—indeed, the need—to grieve a loss, especially one as painful as the loss of child.
In preparing for this debate, I spoke with SLOW, or Surviving the Loss of Your World—a charity that offers bereavement support for parents following the loss of a child. The charity emphasised to me the absolute necessity, as part of the grieving process, of establishing an understanding of what led to death. By being denied data about Jools’ online activity before his death, Ellen has been denied the ability to grieve as she wishes. The petition recognises that it cannot be right that a grieving mother is forced to go through years of campaigning and investigation to try to get answers about her son’s death. I urge everyone—especially those working in social media companies—to reflect on the evident injustice of the situation, and to commit to finding a way to do the right thing: to give Ellen the information and answers she needs.
The Online Safety Act 2023 made important provisions for Ofcom and coroners to access social media in relevant cases following a child’s death, in turn helping bereaved families. It is welcome that the current Government’s Data (Use and Access) Bill, which is making its way through Parliament, strengthens those powers and the requirements for data retention so that the risks of data loss in such cases are reduced. However, the provisions do not have retrospective mechanisms, and are therefore not sufficient for historical cases, such as Jools’, where the coronial process has already concluded. As a result, Ellen is in the situation where she has to try and crowdfund a significant sum of money for legal action to get Jools’ inquest re-run, so that the coroner can use the powers now available in law to access Jools’ social media data. It cannot be right that this is necessary.
Some online services say that without a change in the law, they cannot legally release data to bereaved parents like Ellen, but what has struck me in preparation for the debate is that there is not a consensus on the current legal situation. The online safety and data protection expert, John Carr, told me that he did not believe that the general data protection regulations necessarily limited the release of children’s usage data to bereaved parents. Snap, the provider of Snapchat, told me that it already, on a case-by-case basis, discloses usage data to a parent who is the successor to a deceased child.
Other online services—including some of the most prominent social media services used by young people, such as TikTok—seem to take a different interpretation of the law. They state that data protection legislation prohibits them from releasing any data they hold that would give parents like Ellen the answers they deserve. I find this inconsistency of interpretation from online services at best troubling and at worst suspicious, given the historical behaviours of some social media companies that were involved in minimising—and indeed covering up—evidence of the impact of online harm. I believe it is incumbent on all online services to use their considerable resources to push the existing law as far as they can, and to find a way to release data to bereaved families.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
We owe it to our constituents that we work together, and leave no stone unturned to understand the trends and drivers that lead our children to take their own lives. Social media companies headquartered overseas have repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot be relied on to take reasonable action out of good will, so I invite the hon. Member to agree that it is up to Parliament to legislate accordingly.
Lewis Atkinson
I agree that legislative action has been necessary, as the Online Safety Act shows, and indeed, there are provisions on this in the current data Bill. The issue is that there is a lack of clarity; under the existing law, some social media companies seem to be finding a way of doing the right thing while others are not. I will come to the hon. Member’s point when I ask a couple of questions of the Government.
I can assure the social media companies—in the event that they carefully do the right thing, on a case-by-case basis, and then face data protection questions from regulators in response—that they will find allies across Parliament in defending their actions.
I ask the Minister and the Government: what scope is there for stating clearly in law that, so long as due care is taken on a case-by-case basis, the release of data to bereaved parents is permitted? Could the data Bill be amended to include a clarification to remove, once and for all, the claim of some companies that they are prohibited from giving parents like Ellen the data and answers they deserve? Are there any other steps the Minister believes could be taken to right this injustice? I look forward to hearing the perspectives of colleagues and the Government’s response to this important debate.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the Petitions Committee for enabling this debate and the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for opening it.
There is nothing any parent fears more than the loss of a child. Tragically, in 2022, Ellen Roome suffered this loss. Her world was shattered when she came home to find her son Jools not breathing. He had taken his own life aged just 14. While Ellen was dealing with the enormous pain of her loss, she also had questions about what had happened in the days, weeks and months leading up to Jools’ death. Jools was a happy boy. A video filmed just before his death shows him playing happily with friends. The absence of any hints that he might have been inclined to harm himself led Ellen’s search to his social media accounts.
In her search for answers, Ellen found herself blocked by a legal system unable to tackle the complexities of social media and obstructive social media giants that placed process ahead of compassion. The police had no reason to suspect a crime, so did not see a reason to undertake a full investigation into Jools’ social media. The inquest did not require a thorough analysis of Jools’ online accounts. None of the social media companies would grant Ellen access to Jools’ browsing data, citing regulations. A court order was needed to access his digital data, which required eye-watering legal fees.
Ellen sought nothing more than what amounts to access to her deceased child’s personal effects. In years gone by, that would have required searching through a child’s bedroom, perhaps looking at diaries, notes, letters, toy boxes, stickers or any other clues. The modern-day equivalent of such a search necessitates access to social media accounts, but because the law has not kept pace with the realities of modern life, that search has not been and cannot be completed. This is a cruel and inhumane process to impose on a grieving parent seeking nothing more than answers about what happened before their child took their own life. That is all Ellen wanted.
I ask all of us present, and anyone watching at home, to consider what we would want to happen if we found ourselves in Ellen’s shoes, and go further to think what rights a parent would assume in those circumstances, as a matter of natural justice. There is, of course, a much wider debate about online harms, but Ellen is using her experiences and her campaign to bring about positive change in this debate. She is seeking answers in order that others do not have to in future.
The case of Jools and Ellen is not the first time that social media companies have come up short. The dynamic and fast-moving nature of the internet means that social media companies are able to act before legislators have a chance to catch up. This is a problem that has persisted for many years, but it is notable that they act only when pushed by brave campaigners like Ellen shining a light on what is happening.
As we have heard, the Online Safety Act takes us a step forward, and it does improve rights of access. The current legislation, however, means that bereaved parents like Ellen are still left to fight bureaucracy. In Ellen’s case, she is seeking retrospective action too. The Government should look at how exactly they can rectify that urgently and in retrospective cases.
There is now an acknowledgment that giving parents the right to automatic access to living children’s social media accounts may have unintended and undesirable consequences relating to child protection, but if the law and parents are to acknowledge that balance, social media companies must do their bit to keep children safe online from predators, inappropriate content and content that may cause children to harm themselves.
Sadly, in recent weeks and months we have seen social media companies make increasingly vociferous claims that the protection of free speech and freedom of expression online must come above all else. The examples of Elon Musk’s bizarre approach to X and Meta’s decision to ditch moderation in favour of community notes are instructive of what is happening and what could happen next, and there has also been much discussion of the impact of the TikTok algorithm on children’s mental health. Other platforms and examples will come up in the future. We have also seen democracies start to act to curtail the power of social media companies—the example of the Australian Government’s approach is instructive, whether or not Members of this House agree with the detail.
I thank the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) for her support for my constituent Ellen; I know it has been valuable to her over the past few weeks and months. I thank Ellen herself and pay tribute to her: she is the person whose petition brings us here today. The heartache and devastation she has endured is unimaginable for the rest of us, but Ellen has turned her grief into something that is positive and could be even more positive for this country and other parents. Having watched her campaign so tirelessly, and provided support where I could for the past few months, I am immensely proud of what she has achieved. We should all be thankful for what Ellen and other members of Bereaved Families for Online Safety are doing. They know what we in this Chamber, the Government, the legal system, police forces and social media companies know: the system is badly failing children and families.
Social media companies must now be placed on notice. They must protect children and respect families or face the consequences. They must protect children so that the Joolses of the present and the future do not meet a tragic and early end. They must respect the Ellens of the past, present and future so they can be confident that their children can be safe too.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
It is every parent’s worst nightmare to lose a child—imagine losing them and not knowing why they are gone. Ellen Roome is Jools’ mum. She deserves answers but, unbelievably, she is not allowed access to the data that might provide them, which is so wrong.
This petition is for Jools’ law, which would allow parents to have access to their child’s online data in specific circumstances. Jools Sweeney was hugely loved and is greatly missed by his family and community. In actuality, Jools’ law would present a small amendment of no more than 100 words to the Online Safety Act 2023; the amendment and Jools’ law would appear in section 101 of chapter 4, which is titled “Information powers and information notices”.
The Act currently outlines the powers that a senior coroner has in relation to instructing Ofcom to issue a notice to online platforms to provide data in relation to the death of a child. Section 101 of the Act will be amended by clause 122 of the Data (Use and Access) Bill to strengthen the powers that Ofcom has to prevent the deletion of a child’s data when a notice has been given and issued to the regulated platforms that the child has died.
The progress made in this policy area is testament to the parents of children who are no longer with us and to their incredible strength and work. I thank those present and those watching for everything they have done to protect our children. We need to build on this work to allow parents access to data without the need for a second inquest.
A further amendment would allow for Ofcom to be notified as a routine course of action in the event of future tragedies of child suicide or unexplained deaths. That would alleviate the risk of vital answers to parents’ inevitable questions being deleted, and mitigate the reality of it being solely the responsibility of the parents to request the data in those painful early days of grief. The authorities should initiate a data notice in the event of a child’s death to protect those answers from being lost. The amendment, while small in word count, would be transformational to the rights and experiences of bereaved families. We in this place would be hard pressed to find a parent, or indeed anyone touched by the darkness of a child’s death, who would not support the measures.
Ellen Roome is Jools’ mum. She and I have bonded over our shared belief that there can be a future where our children are safe online, and that there must be a future where every child, in every corner of our great country, is protected from online harm. We are bonded by the fact that we will continue to shout loud until that becomes a reality. Ellen has asked me to read her statement about her work to get to this point—her story. That is a great privilege, and I will read her statement in its entirety without taking interventions, as a mark of respect for her incredible work in this area and for all those she speaks for who have experienced such intolerable pain. The work of the Bereaved Families for Online Safety group has already changed the law, and for that they should be immensely proud.
Before I read Ellen’s statement, I must pay tribute to her. We all hope that if we were put in Ellen’s position or faced with her reality, we would stand up and fight for change. The hard truth is that most people cannot, but Ellen Roome is not most people: she is exceptional. Her grit, tenacity and determination to turn her pain into purpose and progress, and to fight for answers for her family, for all those who knew and loved Jools and for those who have found themselves in the same terrible situation, is truly remarkable. More than that, it is Ellen’s warmth, openness and grace that I have been moved by.
These are her own words:
“It only takes one person to make a stand for morality and justice; in this case, that’s me. However, I'm supported by thousands and thousands of people across the world who think it is morally wrong that I am not entitled to see my child’s social media data, which might provide answers as to why my 14-year-old son chose to end his own life.
When I launched the petition, I asked that ‘Parents should have the right to full access to their child’s social media accounts either whilst they are still alive (to protect them) or if they die, as in my case’. It hadn’t crossed my mind that the parents might be the perpetrators. I now understand this could be the case and hope the Online Safety Bill and Ofcom can protect live children online. However, in my case and that of other parents, when the child has died, who are we protecting? The predators on these platforms? Social Media companies? Surely, I should have the right to look for answers to his cause of death. Jools’ young friends struggle to understand why he is no longer here. The ripple effect of his death is felt not only by us as his parents, but also Jools’ friends, teachers, and everyone in his life was so shocked as to why he ended his life – we deserve possible answers or at least to try for answers.
I am his parent, and he is a minor. As a child, he consented to terms and conditions that permitted social media companies to control his online data. I’m unaware of any other legal context in which a 13-year-old can authorise a legal document, such as terms and conditions.
I have always said that I do not know if it was social media that caused my son to end his own life; however, as a parent, I feel I should morally and humanely have the right to that data to give me possible answers as there was nothing offline which seemed to be an issue to Jools. He was not bullied; he was doing well at school and had many friends. There didn’t appear to be body issues, and whilst he didn’t like his floppy hair or chin, we are unaware of anything else that could be of concern. Yes, he had a cheeky side to him, as do a lot of teenagers, but he was a great kid who loved his parents, and his parents loved him VERY MUCH. I fight now for the right to possible answers as to why my son is no longer alive. I have always thought this to be an online challenge gone wrong.
Many MPs feel that the data bill will solve this issue. It won’t help me or other parents who are in the same awful boat as me. The data bill will allow a coroner the right to access this data in future deaths of children, BUT only if the coroner or the police request it. How do we stop future cases where neither the police nor the coroner asked to see this information? This is what happened in Jools’ case.
As a bereaved parent, I was barely breathing myself after the death of Jools, and I was in no fit state to ask or even think of asking the police and or coroner for this information. This could easily happen again with the new data bill. Also, retrospectively, we cannot obtain this information without applying to the High Court for a second inquest. My lawyer has quoted that it will cost me up to £86,000 to hopefully succeed in the high court, but that seems so wrong to have to find this level of legal fees, which is beyond the reach of almost all bereaved parents, to start looking into missing online activity and what was going on. Also, what a waste of legal professionals and staff involved with a new inquest. I’m just asking for data which I feel should be available to me as his parent. However, I’m not allowed to see it, which is wrong.
I hope this will be a good debate. But please remember that as a member of the Bereaved Families for Online Safety group, I represent many other families in the same awful situation and want to try for answers as to why their precious children are no longer alive.
If this had been your child, you would want answers too. I don’t want any other family to be in this hideous position, which will forever affect us all: our family, Jools’ friends, his teachers, everyone in Jools’ life, and their families, forever.”
Those are Ellen’s words. Ellen’s campaign for justice is rare. As a new MP, I may be forgiven for my perceived naivety, but to me Ellen’s campaign poses a binary choice for us—there is no grey area—so I ask that the Minister does everything in her power to help those seeking answers now, whose cases may not be supported through new measures. It is simply wrong that information that may offer clarity and peace to parents who face a new reality without their child is denied them. It is simply wrong that parents who are living in that unenviable reality now face the colossal emotional and financial burden of a second inquest to discover whether the information exists at all. Ellen Roome is Jools’ mum, a campaigner, a leader and a mother, and Ellen Roome is right.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg.
I join colleagues in thanking the petitioners, and Ellen Roome in particular, for initiating the petition and enabling this Westminster Hall debate. We were all deeply affected by hearing the statement that was just read out. Ellen, you have the sympathies of everybody here on the loss of Jools aged just 14. We think also of other bereaved families and other campaigners—in the last few days we have been reminded of Ian Russell and the work he has done since the tragic death of Molly—and all those who take the most unimaginably awful situation for a parent and a family and use it to try to make something better for others for the future.
The Government’s response to the petition notes not only that, under the Online Safety Act, platforms have to set out their policy for dealing with such tragic situations, but that the Act
“introduces measures to strengthen coroners’ ability to obtain information”
from platforms via Ofcom, thereby providing a route for parents. We will have to see how that works in practice and how timely it is. What we must not do is put a new, onerous layer on top of parents at the most difficult time imaginable, as they are grieving.
As has been mentioned, there is also the question of historic cases. There will be future historic cases, because not in every case will the inquest have covered this question. I hope the Minister will be able to say a word about whether the data Bill is the opportunity to put it beyond doubt that, ultimately, the parent has an absolute right, with the right safeguards and verifications, to see the information related to their child.
Let me turn from the most tragic of cases to all families and all children. I start with the most important point, which is that trust, support and love within families are the most effective things. Most of the time it is irrelevant what the law is because, within families, we set our own rules. Generally, it is clear that even if our rules are, at times, a pain for our children, they are well-intentioned. We must also note that not quite all families are loving families. Some parents are abusive, and children must always have ways confidentially to seek help from child protection services, the police, the health service and bona fide charities. That applies at any age.
It is also true that everyone needs a degree of privacy, but there have always been different degrees of privacy, and how private something is should be proportionate to the level of risk involved. In discussing accessing online services, we are talking about things that can have very serious consequences. We want and need to be able to protect our children from harm—from bullying, from unwanted contact, including from adults, and from being drawn to dangerous interests, which can become dangerous obsessions. We also have a responsibility, and we should be held responsible, for them not perpetrating harms on others. Although we trust our children, we know that children do sometimes get into trouble and can come under pressure, and in some cases severe coercion, from others. Of course, they potentially have ready access to material of all sorts that is much more harmful than we had as children. They can go deeper and deeper down rabbit holes.
Parents are not the only ones who can help children, but they have a unique position in children’s lives and are uniquely placed to help and support them. That is why I agree in principle with the petitioner that parents should have a right to see what their child is subjected to or is doing for as long as they are a child and we, as the parents, are responsible for them—and that means at least until age 16. There is a separate debate to be had about the extent of that, and what the threshold and process should be. I understand entirely what the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) was saying. I do not think anybody is proposing constant, ongoing monitoring, but there are situations that a child could find themselves in that I believe warrant the availability of that access.
There is also a problem, or a hurdle, with the principle: we can only request access to something that we know exists. It is common for children to have multiple social media accounts on a single platform. They probably have different names these days, but people used to call their fake and real accounts finsta and rinsta. The account their mum sees is not necessarily the real one—ironically, the one that was called “fake” was the one where their real lives were actually happening. Of course, they could also be on lots of other platforms that parents and others do not necessarily know about.
I agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland Central, who opened the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, that it is of paramount importance that we are able to put some guardrails around what children can access. That is one of the reasons we have parental controls. How those controls work, and the limits of them, are what I want to talk about this afternoon.
I will read out a short note from Microsoft, which is not a company that people normally worry about—it is a very responsible operator—to a constituent ahead of their child’s 13th birthday. It says:
“Congratulations on Fred’s birthday. At this age, certain laws allow them to have more control and choices over their own account settings. This means that they’ll be able to change a number of family safety settings, even if you already have them set up. Fred will also need to allow you to continue receiving data about their activities to guide their digital journey. They can turn off your ability to see their activity on Windows, Xbox, and Android devices. They can turn off your ability to see their devices and check on updates…safety settings like firewall and antivirus…They can stop sharing their location through their mobile phone.”
That was for a child approaching their 13th birthday, which leads me to question what “certain laws” are being cited. I can only assume it is the Data Protection Act 2018, which sets out that
“a child aged 13 years or older”
can
“consent to his or her personal data being processed by providers of information society services.”
The genesis of that was European law, and Parliament was debating and voting on it in parallel with, but before actually completing, exit from the European Union. The age 13 is not universal. EU law specified a range between 13 and 16, and multiple countries did select 13, but not all. France set the age at 15, with some limited non-contractual consents for data processing allowed between 13 and 15. Germany and the Netherlands set the age at 16. There is that question of what is the appropriate age, but the other big question is what that age actually means.
The 2018 Act was passed before we considered the Online Safety Bill, which became the Online Safety Act 2023, but we were already concerned in this House about online safety, and I am fairly sure that it was not Parliament’s intent to reduce parental oversight. In particular, I do not think saying that a service can have a child sign up to it at 13 is the same as saying that the parent cannot stop them. Still less, it is not the same as saying that the parent should not be able to know what their child is signed up to.
In setting out why the age was set at 13, the explanatory notes to the 2018 Act say, quite rightly, that that is in line with the minimum age that popular services such as Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram set, but they go on to say, slightly unrelatedly:
“This means children aged 13 and above would not need to seek consent from a guardian when accessing, for example…services which provide educational websites and research resources to complete their homework.”
I think that sentence might have a lot to answer for. It sounds very sensible—we would not want children having to get over hurdles to finish their homework—but if we think about it, it is not necessary to sign up to research something on the internet for homework anyway, and educational websites are generally exempt from consent requirements. But the big question is, what else might it allow—or, crucially, what else might it be interpreted to allow?
I repeat that I do not believe that it was Parliament’s intent in effect to disable parental safety controls for 13, 14 and 15-year-olds. There is a whole other question about those safety controls themselves and how they work, and how difficult it can be for parents—and even all of us, who tend to think we are quite good at this sort of thing—to keep on top of them, particularly if they have multiple children, different operating systems and multiple platforms. There really should be a single industry standard entry system that can cover all of screen time and basic, entry-level approvals with a default “safety on” version of the different platforms.
We talk about age thresholds and age limits; there is a whole other set of questions about how those apply and how we make age assurance or age verification work properly. Those are both debates for another day. Today, I simply ask the Minister: is it the Government’s understanding of the existing legislation that children under 16 should be able to switch off parental controls? If not, what could be done to clarify the situation? Is a change needed in primary legislation?
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank all those who signed the petition for raising this issue. My heart goes out to Jools’ family, and I thank them for their work to bring about change so that this does not happen to other people in the future.
I was recently joined by local leaders at an event in Worcester’s fantastic local library to hear the views of young people in the Worcestershire Youth Cabinet. They presented their manifesto for young people, and I was struck by their insights and passion, and in particular by their deep concerns about the impact of the online world on their mental health. I share their concern that online harms have run away from us. We live in a world where people young and old are exposed to harmful content and interfaces. I would like to see us move at pace to regulate not only extreme harms online, but persistent low-level harms that are eroding young people’s mental health.
Having recently met Ofcom, I am concerned that there is much more to do to regulate harmful online media. Although I welcome us taking some first steps in this area, we are far behind where we need to be. If I were to liken our regulation of online harms to the regulation of drugs, we would be in a situation where a local newsagent would be required to assess the risk of supplying class A drugs, while alcohol, cigarettes and over-the-counter medicines remained an unregulated free-for-all. These are historical shortcomings due to previous Governments, but none the less we have much work to do to address the risks of online bullying, harassment and addiction.
In my constituency, I have heard at first hand the stories of men struggling with addiction to pornography and the damaging effects that has had on their relationships and personal wellbeing. We need to be open eyed about the impact of the new online world on adults and young people alike, and it is the duty of Government to empower people to stay safe.
Young people in Worcester told me that although they want online sources to be regulated, and to be equipped themselves for that world, what they want most is for their parents to be empowered to advise, guide and journey with them through the digital world. I agree that most parents are currently very poorly supported, and I welcome the enthusiasm I sense from Labour leaders for family hubs, which offer a community-led and empowering vehicle for that work. Does the Minister agree that we should equip parents and carers to navigate these hazards with their children, so that instead of feeling isolated, anxious and alone, young people feel supported, understood and empowered?
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I am very grateful to be able to speak in this debate, which was prompted by Ellen Roome’s petition, although I am extremely sorry that any of us needs to be here at all. I pay tribute to Ellen and all the other families in the Bereaved Families for Online Safety network for their tireless campaigning.
A week before Christmas, I sat in a Committee Room with Ellen and senior representatives from all the major tech firms, including Meta, TikTok, YouTube and Snap. One conversation that morning will stay with me for a very long time—a conversation that I can describe only as harrowing, shocking and deeply depressing. Sitting alongside two other heartbroken parents who have also lost their children because of online harms, Ellen confronted the representatives of TikTok and Instagram, pleading with them to release information that could give her some peace of mind following the death of her beloved son, Jools. There can be nothing worse for a parent than losing a child, but to lose a child and not understand how or why must compound that agony.
Ellen does not know why Jools died. Unlike many other children and young people, he was not being bullied online and did not seem to have any mental health issues. All Ellen wants is to find out what her son was looking at online before he died; it might shed some light on this tragedy that has clearly caused immeasurable grief. It was infuriating to listen to the tech firms’ pathetic excuses that morning about why they could not or would not release the data that Ellen is asking for.
There was—there is—no good reason not to release that data. Jools is no longer with us, so claiming data protection seems frankly pointless. TikTok said that it would be fined for releasing the data, but my question is: by whom? Who is going to press charges against a global tech company for supporting the request of a bereaved mother? Who in their right mind would think that a court case on that point would help anyone?
As we have heard from the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), some social companies have behaved differently in such cases. It is quite clear, however, why some will not agree to release that data: it is a pathetic attempt to avoid the potential bad publicity that will follow if it becomes clear that Jools’ short life ended after taking part in a social media challenge, which is one possibility. It is about protecting the reputation of those social media companies. It is about the accountants who fear the lawsuits. In short, I suggest it is about money. The absence of humanity, care and compassion in that room before Christmas was palpable and I applaud Ellen for having the courage to come back here today.
I can see no reason why tech companies cannot immediately release the data that these devastated parents are asking for. I fully support Ellen and all the other parents in their attempts to get Jools’ law on the statute books. In the meantime, I plead with Instagram and TikTok to not wait for a legal challenge, but just release the data: find your inner human and do something decent; imagine if it were your child.
Under UK law we have clear, legal processes for handling physical estates after death. It is high time that we establish clear protocols for the digital estates that are left behind, particularly the digital estates left by young people. The law must catch up with the world we are living in. Current provisions, such as Facebook’s legacy contact feature, are not sufficient, because they rely on a child making a decision while they are still alive, often without fully understanding the implications, as has been mentioned. It is also quite possible that, if children were asked whether their parents could have full access to all of their digital online life in the event of their death, they would say no. Without formal, legal access arrangements, parents are left with no way of viewing their children’s account.
Lola McEvoy
I was reading up on that issue in preparation for this debate and I came across some amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill that would require those huge providers and tech companies to have a complaints procedure, where parents could appeal to their better nature for the release of the data, but if they were refused it, there would be a proper complaints procedure. Does the hon. Lady think that goes far enough?
Caroline Voaden
No, I do not believe that goes far enough. There should be a legal right to access that data without having to go through any complaints process, particularly at a time when one is struggling with the worst bereavement imaginable.
The petition seeks to address that gap in law and ensure that, in the tragic event of a child’s death, parents have the right to access their child’s account to gain closure, to preserve memories and to ensure that harmful content is removed. I support the addition of Jools’ law into the Online Safety Act, and I urge the Government to do whatever they can to apply it retrospectively for those who have campaigned on this issue.
What Ellen’s family have been through is the absolute worst imaginable, but tens of thousands of families up and down the country are struggling with the impact of social media on their children and teenagers. Those children are addicted to their screens because of the wicked algorithms that lure them in; cowed by bullies who can intimidate them in their own bedrooms late at night; struggling with their body image because they do not look like the influencers they watch; depressed because their lives do not resemble the doctored, airbrushed Instagram image of perfection; and brainwashed by influencers who spew toxic messages through their pages.
The damaging impact of social media on our children is vast. Medical professionals from all disciplines tell us regularly of the harms children are experiencing from hour after hour spent glued to a screen. Their physical health is damaged, their mental health even more so, and even their ability to communicate and socialise with other humans is changing.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is about not only mental health harm, but inattention? I speak to many headteachers in my constituency who tell me that children are unable to concentrate any more because of hours spent on their screen. Would she agree that the Government study announced in November that seeks to explore that issue further should be published soon, because every day and every year we leave it, more children are at risk of harm?
Caroline Voaden
I could not agree more. What is becoming obvious is the impact of children being on their phones late at night, which affects their sleep—even that has a knock-on effect on how well they can operate.
Parents across my South Devon constituency are desperate to protect their children, but they are overwhelmed by the digital world and the power it has over young people. They need legislation to empower and support them. The NSPCC reports that over 60% of young people have encountered online bullying. That is a staggering number, highlighting the need for more robust protections from us for children in the digital space.
It is clear that we need more robust protection, and it is incumbent on us as lawmakers to protect children as we do from other harms such as tobacco and alcohol. It may be right that parents should not have access to their teenager’s social media because of privacy reasons and to protect children’s ability to seek support online, but that makes it even more important and urgent that social media companies should be required and obliged to take responsibility for watertight age verification, and that we should look seriously at raising the age of access to some social media platforms to 16.
I urge the Government to work with social media companies and other stakeholders to create a clear and respectful framework that allows parents access to their child’s social media accounts after a death with no questions asked. This is not about data protection; this is about ensuring that families can concentrate on grieving and healing rather than going into battle against the world’s tech giants.
It is abominable that any bereaved parent should have to do what Ellen and other campaigners are doing. I urge the Minister to legislate so that that does not happen again. I commend the Petitions Committee for bringing this debate to the House and the hon. Member for Sunderland Central for introducing it.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I pay tribute to Ellen Roome’s steadfast campaign in the most awful, unimaginable circumstances, and to the campaigns of all the other bereaved parents who seek change so that no other parent has to suffer like they are.
As citizens, parents and legislators, we are rightfully worried about what our children consume online. The recent Channel 4 programme “Swiped” demonstrated the addiction our children have, the concerns parents have about the time they spend online, and the harms that children continue to face.
Before they are able to properly comprehend it, our children are sucked into the online world by algorithms that are designed to get them hooked and, as if it were a drug, they keep coming back for more. In this world, they are taught to look up to influencers with unhealthy opinions, unrealistic beauty standards and conspicuous wealth beyond their dreams. They are told that they are not good enough, they may be cyber-bullied by their peers for not being good enough, they have trouble sleeping and their attention span withers. We also know that short-sightedness is becoming more prevalent. Our children’s work suffers and they find it increasingly difficult to read and learn.
Our children see pornography online before they receive high-quality sex and relationships education in school. They are shown adverts for apps that can use AI to nudify their peers and spread such images to their friends and around school. They are criminalised for doing that, but the tools they use remain legal and readily accessible. They get trapped in the whirlpool of online pornography and dragged into increasingly extreme and violent content. They become desensitised and their perceptions and expectations of sex and healthy relationships are warped. Online behaviours quickly become offline behaviours, such as self-harm, dangerous viral challenges and peer-on-peer sexual abuse, which do huge harm to mental health, so that one in five children now has a diagnosable mental health disorder.
A generation of children chronically online and harmed by it bear the brunt of a technology that was never designed with children’s development in focus and that acts with no regard for the consequences of the harm it causes. When questioning tech companies recently, none of them could confirm that they develop products widely consumed by children with input from child development experts. I do not understand why we expect stringent standards in all other aspects of our children’s lives—their toys, cots and bikes, and our cars—and yet not on the impact of social media products.
We cannot stand idly by in the name of freedom, because there is no freedom in addiction or in being harmed. We cannot let our children’s lives be dominated by the dangerous online world. Whether it is depression or misogyny, eating disorders or myopia, we are failing children by continuing to subject them, and those they interact with, to the impacts of a childhood spent online. We need to reclaim childhood for the real world.
I recognise the important role of internet access in providing spaces for children to access support, but I wonder how we weigh up the harms caused through access to social media, which support services, mostly in the voluntary and community sector and our public services, need to mop up afterwards. We must look more at whether we could provide that access more safely in school settings or through youth services. I am very aware of the huge impact of abusive parents and carers, but it might be time for us to start asking whether we are using that as an excuse, rather than thinking about how we ensure our children can get the access they may need to get safe without also succumbing to the dangers of the online world.
We fundamentally need to change the role the internet plays in growing up, and that must be a societal shift, given the pressure children and young people feel to be online. That is why I back Ellen Roome’s call for parental oversight. Parents deserve to have all the tools available to them to help them to protect their children, and that is why I am proud to be one of the co-sponsors of the safer phones Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister).
Much of the focus is on parental control, but as the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) has eloquently outlined, there is potentially no control from the age of 13. Even with controls, who sets what is the right developmental level for access to some apps and social media when there is no child development expert involved? App stores, for example, determine age restrictions themselves. In a number of instances, developers have set an age restriction of 18 for an app, but app stores have lowered that to 17 or 16. There is access but no scrutiny. Unlike for films or other things that our children consume, we have no way of understanding whether there has been independent, child-led expert oversight.
We need to raise the age of internet adulthood and ensure that, this summer, Ofcom properly implements age verification for pornographic content as part of the Online Safety Act 2023. We need to remain open to the need for a new online safety Bill to fill the gaps left in the legislation, as has been argued for recently by Ian Russell, Molly Russell’s father. I also support the calls in this debate for bereaved parents to be given retrospective access to their children’s social media accounts. With children’s safety and the future of our society on the line, the time for action is now.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for introducing this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. He made some powerful points in his speech, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to them. I also associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), who spoke so eloquently, and my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson).
It is only right to start by paying tribute to Ellen and Bereaved Families for Online Safety, who are in the Public Gallery. They have raised this petition following the heartbreaking loss of Ellen’s son, Jools. It is unbelievably courageous to turn away from the abyss of pain and grief, and to turn that into a campaign for good. It is, frankly, inspirational to many Members in this House and I thank the 1,711 Gloucester constituents who signed the petition.
As a relatively new parent, I now know what it is like to really worry about a child. People say that no one really knows what it is like to be a parent before their child is born. I laughed that off and thought, “Of course you can know,” but, truly, no one does. The moment a parent meets their child for the first time, their world changes. I realised that I would literally walk through walls for my child. Thankfully, my child is only one. He does not yet have any social media channels that I am aware of. If that could continue for as long as possible, I would be grateful.
I know that parents are increasingly worried about their children’s use of social media across the country and in my constituency of Gloucester. According to the Children’s Commissioner, two thirds of parents are concerned about the content that their children can access online, and the impact that it is having on their children’s mental health. Those concerns are felt by not only parents but children themselves. Research shows that nearly three quarters of teenagers have encountered potential harms online and three in five secondary-school age children have been contacted online in ways that have made them feel uncomfortable. As social media becomes increasingly embedded in our children’s lives, it is clear that urgent action is needed. While the Online Safety Act 2023 was a long-awaited start to protecting children online, we must go further and I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology say that he is “open-minded” about introducing new legislation. I encourage him to consider introducing Jools’ law.
My remarks will not particularly focus on online content, although my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) outlined some of the dangerous and horrific online content to which children and young people are exposed. Members of this House do not need to be reminded of the horrific content available online. Not long after being elected, I found that pictures of myself and my baby had been posted with a threatening message, anonymously, as part of an online “spotted” page. Members of this House develop a relatively thick skin in this job but imagine the impact of that on a teenager. I think back to my teenage days, and whether I was mentally equipped to be able to deal with cases of bullying. I am just about young enough to remember when Facebook came in—I was a teenager when Facebook started—and back then it was a very different place. Nowadays, we see, frankly, a cesspit of online content and I do not think that I would have had the mental capacity, during my teenage years, to deal with that level of abuse.
Cameron Thomas
The hon. Member, my constituency neighbour, makes an interesting point. My school years are long behind me and we sometimes look back at our youth with rose-tinted glasses, but being at school can feel like being in a warzone—there is so much pressure. If someone is being consistently bullied, I can barely imagine what it must be like for them to try to escape that at home and then have a device in front of them with such material coming in, even at night. Does the hon. Member agree?
Alex McIntyre
The hon. Member is entirely correct that, in the days before social media, bullying was confined behind the school gates and in most cases, though sadly not all, the home was a place of safety and a haven in which a teenager could recover and steel themselves for the next day. That safety has been removed by social media and people are able to get someone, wherever they are.
As a teenager, I grew up with social media as it was first coming out—with Bebo, which I do not think exists anymore, and MSN Messenger. My parents had no oversight over what I was accessing or who I was talking to. Frankly, it was dangerous. That is not to question my parents’ parenting skills; they are of an age where they are still learning how to use Facebook in 2025. However, we need to do more to protect teenagers at such a vulnerable age when they are learning about themselves and about how to build the mental resilience to deal with some of the stuff that some Members of this House experience on a regular basis.
Although we could have another debate on online content, we all know why we are speaking about the petition today. It concerns me that grieving parents cannot access information that may relate to the death of their children. We know that there has been a worrying rise in dangerous pranks and trends that go around on social media and in people using social media to groom and target young people, and that dangerous information is going viral—information that may have played a role in tragic and heartbreaking deaths up and down the country. Giving grieving parents the right to find answers for themselves must be within our power as a Government. I encourage the Minister to do what we can to support parents and families in this absolutely heartbreaking position.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I would like to start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson). I am sure all my constituents in Edinburgh South West who signed the petition will be grateful for the time he invested in crafting his introductory speech. Like others, I pay tribute to Ellen Roome. She has shown herself to be a fantastic campaigner and I am sure her family is proud of her. However, the situation she finds herself in is absolutely shameful. The hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) is right to question the motives of the social media companies and to ask who would oppose them doing the right thing. Hopefully we will hear from them sooner rather than later on this issue. However, we have to accept that the framework within which these companies are operating was set by either action or inaction within this building, so we have a duty to fix it.
My children are all adults now, at least in theory—I hope they are not listening. However, when they were younger, it was always difficult to get the balance right between respecting their privacy and ensuring that they were safe in all aspects of life, but particularly online. We have to accept that the internet is a dangerous place. All of us are concerned about material online relating to eating disorders, self-harm and even suicide and, we should remind ourselves, have a duty to do more about it.
The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) is not in his place today, but before Christmas he had an Adjournment debate on the role of internet service providers in blocking the most harmful content, which had been linked to the deaths of vulnerable young people. I went along to that debate just to learn more about the subject, but was utterly ashamed and frustrated at what is happening. There are companies that seem to be looking for reasons not to do the right thing rather than find a way to support vulnerable people across our country.
I hope the Minister can support as much as possible what Ellen Roome and her campaign are asking for, but we all, including the Minister, have to go beyond that. It is not just about the law: it is about creating a culture online for our young people where service providers and social media companies feel that they have a social responsibility to support the most vulnerable people in our society and do all they can to support them.
Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I pay tribute to Ellen Roome in the most genuine and heartfelt way for what she has achieved and what she does. The pain she has been through is utterly unimaginable. What we can do today, as I hope the Minister’s response will, is make her bravery worth while.
I will focus my brief remarks on the Online Safety Act 2023, because so many of our hopes as parents, campaigners and elected representatives were pinned on that legislation. It is a step forward, but only a first step. I believe that more should be done. The Act was the product of a weak Conservative Government, with many Ministers and Back Benchers who shared the then Opposition’s conviction that strong regulation of social media companies was essential but were being held to ransom by extreme libertarians who had dressed up their ability to monetise hatred and extreme content as a free speech issue. Government Ministers gave in to an alliance of social media companies that were not willing to dilute profits to spend on effective moderation and that had a financial and political interest in driving engagement with extreme content. That was a deplorable outcome, as many hon. Members said at the time.
Plainly, as a first task, the new Government must make that legislation work as best they can. I understand why my right hon. and hon. Friends are pressing on with implementing it as best as they can. However, my request to them is to heed the petition and recognise that what was good enough for the then Government under those circumstances cannot be good enough for this new Government in the medium and long term. It is certainly not good enough for our children.
The immediate concern for me, for the people I speak to at the school gates and for many of my hon. Friends is that the proposed regulatory regime will let some of the most dangerous and extreme websites escape the proper regulation that the vast majority of people in this country expect them to receive. It cannot be right that we allow some sites to escape accountability for their failure to remove certain promotional material speedily simply because they are small. Of course they are small—such content is so vile that the chances of the promoters getting bigger audiences will always be limited—but the need for the firmest regulation in these cases is driven by content, not by size.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The failure of Ofcom to regulate the small but risky platforms seems to mean that a site such as LinkedIn is being regulated to a greater extent than platforms such as Telegram or Discord, which are overrun with far-right activism, self-harm, misinformation, homophobia and antisemitic content. Does my hon. Friend agree that that needs to be rectified and that Ofcom needs to raise its game?
Joani Reid
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I believe that more needs to be done. I do not believe that the Government have ruled that out: they are collecting evidence, so I believe that in future iterations of the code, if that argument is accepted by Ofcom, they will make the appropriate changes. It is up to us to continue to submit the evidence and to call for those changes to be made.
The main point in the debate is about the balance between regulation and innovation and about where we draw the line between the obligations of site users and those of content providers, so that we do not discourage new services and investment. However, I believe that that is not the issue that the petition we are debating addresses. Hatred and the data to which we are calling for access are not drivers of economic growth. Nor is the inclusion of high-harm sites in category 1 a barrier to investment plans for the frontline market leaders. This is about doing the right thing. I hope that all the voices will be heard today.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg, and to debate such a powerful and moving topic.
I want to start, as more or less everyone in this room has done, by paying tribute to Ellen for her tireless campaigning work. I cannot come close to comprehending the pain that the death of Jools must have caused you, even before it was exacerbated and extended by the lack of closure when social media companies refused to give you access to data that could help to explain what happened to him and when collectively, as a society, we showed ourselves impotent to compel them to do so. Your ability to turn that pain and that love into such a powerful petition and call for action, which motivated so many parents in my Hitchin constituency to sign up to it too, is a true inspiration to so many of us in the room. Just as we are inspired by you, we are inspired by the many families here with you today as part of the Bereaved Families for Online Safety support group, which has been doing so much important campaign work on the issue.
It is pretty clear to all of us who have spoken today that for far too long we have tolerated a belief that online harm is too tricky and too practically infeasible to regulate in the same way that we would regulate every other form of harm to which a young person could be exposed, often in contexts in which as legislators we have historically been more comfortable getting involved. We cannot tolerate that state of affairs any longer. Although there have been some steps forward, which are to be welcomed and which I will touch on shortly, the petition highlights several areas in which it is clear that we need to consider going further to ensure that we are all living up to our duty to do everything we can to protect young people right across society.
Both as a teacher and as a children’s social lead, I got to see at first hand some of the very real ways in which young people can be exposed to harm by our failure to act on the issue of social media and online harm over the past decade. As an MP now, I am always struck by the fact that, heartbreakingly, whenever I do an assembly, even in a lower school or a primary school, almost without fail there will be one young person, and often several, who will raise their hand and talk to me about an example where they have been made to feel unsafe or at risk online and ask what I, as their MP, am going to do about it. I know that urgency to act is felt by so many colleagues across party boundaries, both in this Hall today and across the House.
The petition focuses on particular aspects where we could do more to ensure that parents have both the right ability to provide oversight for children on social media and access to really important data after bereavement. I know that, following the petition, there has been some important progress from the Online Safety Act to give some powers to coroners and to Ofcom to ensure that in certain circumstances they can support parents’ ability to access that data, but as colleagues have pointed out, there are clear areas in which it does not go far enough.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) set out, it is pretty clear that at the moment some ambiguity in the legal position is being used as an excuse by social media companies not to act. We should not tolerate that; we should do all we can, hopefully as a Government, to clarify the position. Collectively, we should not be letting social media companies off the hook for not doing everything in their power to give the families access to the data where no right-minded individual could see any reason not to and where no right-minded individual or agency is likely to seek recourse against them for doing so. So many Members have rightly pointed out that that feels like an excuse, not a reason, to fail to disclose data. We should not tolerate that excuse from companies that we come into contact with in our work as representatives.
However, as has rightly been pointed out, it is important that we do not just look at this issue in the context of the existing legislation. We know that there are very real risks after bereavement that the data could be deleted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) pointed out, thinking about ways in which we can compel earlier notification to Ofcom and to social media companies and online platforms that can have that data in order to remove that risk at source is surely a common-sense way of ensuring that that risk to getting justice and getting closure can be closed off.
Moreover, the petitioner and many others rightly point out and ask us to reflect on the fact that if we are really interested in child safeguarding and keeping young people safe, it simply cannot be only after a tragedy, after bereavement, that the opportunity for parental oversight and involvement takes place. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central rightly set out some of the very real and justified concerns that children’s charities and advocates have about unfettered and complete access, but as many other Members have set out, that should not be the case. It should not be beyond us to reason and think through how, in exactly the same way that parents provide oversight over every other aspect of a young person’s life, they can have access to the best and most sensible ways to do so on this platform, too. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) pointed out, thinking about the age at which young people can meaningfully and rightfully consent to opting out of parental oversight has to be part of that process.
It is fair to say that a few hon. Members are concerned that the implementation of the Online Safety Act, as it is currently envisaged and as some of Ofcom’s recent publications show, may fall short of doing justice to the importance of the issues. Whether it is considering what more we can do to protect young people from imagery and content relating to suicide and self-harm on social media, ensuring that we do not tolerate technical infeasibility as an excuse for tech companies not to act on the most egregious forms of harm, or having well-intentioned and important conversations about the right age of consent, to which many Members have alluded today, there is clearly a lot more that we can do collectively.
Monica Harding
Will the hon. Member go further and say that Ofcom’s implementation so far has been weak, overly cautious and fundamentally disappointing? Does he concur that it is unfair to put parents in the intolerably pressured situation of being the policemen of their children’s social media activity?
Alistair Strathern
Some aspects of how Ofcom has said it will take these matters forward are to be welcomed, but I absolutely agree with the underlying sentiment of the hon. Lady’s comment. Currently, what has been set out does not go anywhere near far enough. As representatives of our communities and of the families who want to do everything possible to keep young people safe from online harm, it is our responsibility to ensure that we are holding Ofcom accountable for being far more ambitious about how it can most creatively and robustly deploy the powers that we are giving it to keep young people safe.
Lola McEvoy
I thank my hon. Friend for his impressive and articulate outlining of the debate so far. Will he join my calls for Ofcom to strengthen the upcoming children’s code and, as the code is not yet published, to use this opportunity to include functionality, a stronger dynamic risk assessment—a live document that will be constantly updated—and the measures that my hon. Friend has laid out for the smaller and riskier platforms?
Alistair Strathern
I concur wholeheartedly. My hon. Friend has been a tireless campaigner on this issue, both in our debate today and throughout the time I have known her—a very short time, but an impressive one none the less. As she rightly points out, the children’s code is a real opportunity to do right by the intentions of the legislation and by the collective ambition that we are discussing today. From my hon. Friend to the children’s commissioner, campaigners on the issue are pretty united about the opportunity that a more ambitious code could deliver for safeguarding young people.
For far too long, we have allowed young people to be exposed to a level of harm online that we would not tolerate in any other aspect of life. It is potentially understandable, but not excusable, that as legislators we are sometimes more comfortable imposing restrictions or acting in areas where we have more direct lived experience, as in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill or the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. Those are tangible things that we are comfortable and used to voting and making laws on, whereas online harm can sometimes feel a bit more nebulous and a bit tougher. However, that is no excuse not to act. The failure to act is written across the tragedies experienced by so many families across the country and so many campaigners in the room today. We must do better, and we have to make sure that this is the Parliament in which we do.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I pay tribute to Ellen and all the families for their tireless campaigning and for this petition, which 119 people in my Bournemouth West constituency signed. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins), I want to talk about some of the broader harms of social media and smartphone use that students and parents have raised with me. This is particularly salient in the context of announcements this week about the removal of independent fact-checking from Meta and other platforms.
Last week, I visited Bourne academy, a secondary school in my constituency that is taking part in the Dorset boys’ impact hub project. The project aims to champion the experiences of young boys who face inequalities, and provide a platform for their voices. The boys I met raised a range of issues, from knife crime to the desire for safe and legal spaces to practise graffiti art, but the thing I found most interesting was that we got into a long conversation about the impact of social media in their lives and its uses in their socialising. Frankly, I was shocked by some of the things they told me about the content they are pushed on these platforms.
The boys mentioned Reddit and Instagram as particularly vile examples of distressing content: as soon as they log on to those platforms things like videos of people being decapitated and other forms of serious violence are pushed. They said that Snapchat is a platform where group chats are regularly used to conduct cyber-bullying and to spread rumours, with very little accountability because all the messages disappear within 24 hours. Clearly, as it stands what we have is not working to protect young people. The boys also reported that age restrictions are incredibly easy to get around, whatever the age restriction.
[Sir Desmond Swayne in the Chair]
It is worth noting that Bourne academy has a no-phones policy. Kids are not even allowed to use them during breaks, which caused consternation among the young people. It is clear that smartphones and social media are changing how young people interact and socialise. This can expose them, with very little oversight, to high volumes of violent, inappropriate and harmful content, which many of us will not be used to in our lives. Social media is linked to wellbeing and self-esteem issues, which can have a direct impact on behaviours and the views young people hold, and in some cases is linked to significant increases in young people reporting anxiety, depression, self-harm and suicidal ideation.
Will the Minister outline what further steps the Government are taking to protect young people from harmful content and to prevent young people from circumventing age restrictions? We have discussed potentially raising those restrictions, but that is also key.
I have been contacted by parents about this issue, and there is growing support for the Smartphone Free Childhood movement in Bournemouth and throughout the country. One parent of a five-year-old daughter got in touch with me. He shared some very misogynistic content that he came across and expressed worry about it being so easy for her to access that content. Other schools in my constituency have spoken specifically about the impact of misogynistic content on school behaviour, and the extra effort they have to make to try to address it without the toolkits that they need.
It is not just about content. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) mentioned, platforms produce compulsive and addictive behaviours. Another parent, a father of two who is an active member of the Smartphone Free Childhood movement, raised with me the addictive design features, from the pull to refresh to the gamification, photo scrolling and push notifications. He has a lot to say on that because he was somebody who designed such features for smartphones and social media. He has a real concern about how they affect both children and adults. Does the Minister’s assessment of online safety include an assessment of the impacts of addictive and compulsive features? What steps is the Department taking to address them?
Among the parents I have spoken to there is a variety of views about what the answer is. Some want a ban on smartphones for under-16s; some want an Australia-style under-16 ban on social media; and some would prefer a school-led approach. Many are simply worried about how to push back on the social pressure that they get from very young children to have smartphones and access to social media. Will the Minister outline what steps her Department is taking to engage young people, parents and schools about the best way to find an appropriate solution?
As we have heard from many Members, technological change often goes faster than we can deal with. We cannot keep up with it. We have the ability to regulate it, but it is a bit too slow. I commend the Ministers and the Government for their work on this issue, but encourage them to take heed of the things we have heard about today, support the efforts by parents and teachers to help young people to grapple with the challenges, and ensure that the measures we introduce reflect the need to protect and safeguard young people sufficiently.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am delighted to contribute to this extremely important debate. I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for setting out in such a well-informed and balanced way the issues we are considering.
With your permission, Sir Desmond, may I take this opportunity to address Ellen Roome directly? I want to pay tribute to your great courage and bravery. I am a mother of two young children. I cannot begin to imagine what you have been through. To start this petition and push this campaign forward in the way that you have is—
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
No; all remarks are addressed to the Chair.
Munira Wilson
Okay. I will do so now. Thank you, Sir Desmond.
I pay tribute to Ellen for her campaign. I also want to say how cross I am that Ellen is having to push this campaign to get access to Jools’ online data. A number of us who were here during the passage of the Online Safety Act in the previous Parliament attended a meeting organised by Baroness Kidron, at which she brought together Ian Russell and some of the lawyers who supported him in Molly’s case. They talked powerfully about the battles they had to go through to access data. Baroness Kidron led a really strong campaign to change the law but, sadly, it has still not happened, which is why we are here today.
The use of social media accounts is now prolific across society, especially for young people. Ofcom’s 2023 Online Nation report highlighted the fact that children aged eight to 10 spent an average of two hours and 23 minutes a day online. That rose gradually to an average of four hours and 35 minutes online daily—the equivalent of 66 days online per year—for 15 to 17-year-olds. That is just an average; we all know that a number of young people spend far more time than that online.
The digital age has transformed the way we live, communicate and interact, and social media in particular has become an integral part of our daily lives, especially for children. Although the platforms offer numerous benefits, they also pose significant risks. As Liberal Democrats, we advocate a balanced approach that respects the privacy of our young people while ensuring their safety and wellbeing.
The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) touched on the point that of those aged eight to 17 with profiles on social media, video sharing platforms or messaging platforms, nearly six in 10 have said they use more than one profile on any particular social media app or site. When asked why, just under a quarter said it was because one account was just for parents and families to see, while a similar proportion said that one account was for close friends and one was for everyone else. Meanwhile, 13% of eight to 17-year-olds who had more than one profile said that one account was for the “real me” and another contained edited, filtered posts or photos. Those statistics tell us an awful lot.
Children themselves are concerned about their time online. An Ofcom report last year showed that young adults were less likely than older people to think they had a good balance between their online and offline lives. Another Ofcom survey showed that children’s concern about their time online increases with age. Indeed, last year the Children’s Commissioner published a brilliant report on the “Big Ambition” survey, in which she spoke to more than 367,000 children. The survey found that staying safe online was a huge issue and priority for many young people.
We must remember that young people want to be consulted and involved in the discussion and solutions. It is not just about us telling them what is right, and it is not about the tech companies telling them what is right: it is about involving young people in the solutions. That is why the ongoing inquiry into youth violence and social media by the Youth Parliament is so important. I urge young people throughout the country to participate in the inquiry by sharing their experiences on social media, and I keenly await the publication of the inquiry’s findings.
Behind each of the statistics I have cited are young people, their peers and their families. I have heard from some of those parents and young people in my constituency, and I thank the 465 people in Twickenham who signed the petition. I also speak as the mother of two young children. I have a six-year-old and a 10-year-old, and the 10-year-old is desperately begging her parents every single day for a smartphone. Some of her friends already have their own YouTube channel. We are trying to delay as long as we can—hopefully until some time into her secondary schooling—before we give her a phone. I know, as a parent and from hearing from other parents and young people in my constituency, that we as legislators have a responsibility to act.
I am afraid it was after many years of delay that the Conservative Government introduced the Online Safety Act. The Liberal Democrats welcomed a number of the measures in the Act as an important step forward, and we support its swift implementation. Empowering coroners to obtain information from online services about a deceased child’s online activity was a significant step in the right direction but, as we have heard so powerfully today, there is a strong case to be made for parents to be able to access data after their child is deceased. That provision should be made retrospective as well. As others have pointed out, the data Bill provides an ideal opportunity to explore such a change and how it could work.
However, measures often come too late, and too many young people’s lives have been tragically lost already. We cannot afford to delay before we take some sort of action, and there is much more we can do to protect our children and young people online by putting in place more guardrails, as others have described them. Social media companies must do more to enforce their existing minimum-age requirements, using the latest age-verification technology. They must do more to create age-appropriate digital environments and increase transparency in their data practices. Ofcom should do more to use the full powers of the Online Safety Act, including looking at the harms caused by the functionality and design of social media, as well as the content.
After meeting organisations such as the Internet Watch Foundation, 5Rights and the Molly Rose Foundation, it is clear to me that we must push for not just strong regulation but safety by design. We must recognise that children and teenagers are particularly vulnerable to the dangers of the online world. Cyber-bullying, exposure to harmful content and online prejudices are just a few of the threats they face. Both the Government and the social media companies must do much more to protect children from harmful content and activity online. I would like to hear what the Government are doing to work with Ofcom to ensure that children are protected during the transition period.
We must also be mindful of the importance of privacy and trust. There are good reasons why parents cannot access children’s data while they are alive. That is an important safeguard, and we have heard some of the reasons for having it. Adolescence is a time of exploration and self-discovery, and young people need space to express themselves freely. However, that safeguard relies on children being kept safe online, which is patently not currently the case, so Ofcom and social media companies need to do much more on that front. Any measures that we implement must strike a delicate balance between safeguarding children and respecting their right to privacy.
Education is crucial to achieving that balance. Schools need to teach children about online dangers and how to use the internet and social media safely and responsibly. Parents must also be empowered to protect our children online—I say that as a parent who feels like I am way behind my younger children—including through digital literacy education and advice and support on best practice. Dare I say, although this is not necessarily a politically expedient thing to say, that we parents also have a lot of responsibility over how much time we allow our children to spend online and what devices we give them access to. It is hard when our children face so much peer pressure, but we need to take responsibility too.
The Education Committee report last year, “Screen time: impacts on education and wellbeing”, also called for education, as well as a cross-Government, holistic approach. It said:
“Government should work across departments including DHSC, DSIT, Education and the Home Office to produce guidance for parents on how to best manage and understand the impact of screen time on their children.”
I look forward to what the Minister has to say on that point. That is why the Liberal Democrats are also calling on the Government to create an independent children’s online safety advocate, as called for by the NSPCC, which would act like a consumer watchdog to promote and protect children’s interests. We must ensure that proper safeguards are in place and that children are not just protected from online harms but empowered to exercise their digital rights.
This petition on parental access to children’s social media accounts highlights a critical issue that demands our attention. As we navigate the complexities of the digital age, we must prioritise the safety and wellbeing of our children. By implementing thoughtful and balanced measures, we can protect our young people from the dangers of the online world while respecting their right to privacy. Let us move forward with compassion, determination and a commitment to creating a safer digital future for our children. Thank you, and with apologies, Sir Desmond.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for introducing this debate. I would like to start by thanking Ellen Roome for her determined work in fighting to highlight this issue. Her courage and her stoicism in pursuing this cause have been hugely impressive, and Parliament would not be debating this today were it not for her impassioned commitment.
This e-petition has garnered some 126,000 signatures in support of calls to give parents and guardians the right to access the social media accounts of their children. We have heard many important contributions from Members this afternoon, and I am sure that parents across their constituencies will be grateful to them for doing so. The hon. Members for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) paid tribute to Ellen Roome and have shared her own words. The hon. Members for Sunderland Central and for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) spoke about the refusal of social media companies to release data, citing legal restrictions. The hon. Members for Worcester (Tom Collins) and for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) spoke of the impact of harmful content on children’s development, and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) spoke about how current legislation gives control to children as young as 13.
With the vast majority of children now having access to a phone or tablet by the age of 12, children are exposed to an enormous range of content online. Many children are being exposed to social media content that is inappropriate and dangerous and poses substantial risks to safety and development. There has been a growing crisis in children’s mental health, with recent research highlighting that 32% of eight to 17-year-olds state that they have viewed worrying or upsetting online content in the last 12 months, yet only 20% of parents with children and teenagers in that age group report their child telling them they had seen something online that scared or upset them during the same timeframe. Evidence has shown that the widening of access to the internet has seen more children moving away from social interactions, with the subsequent detrimental impacts on mental health and social development.
We welcome much of the work that this Government are doing on protections for children by building on the foundations laid by the previous Government, but could I ask the Minister what is being done to increase mental health support for children? In January last year the Labour party pledged to introduce specialist mental health support for children and young people in every school, as well as open-access children and young people’s mental health hubs in every community, as part of the child health action plan. Although I appreciate that it is not part of her brief, could the Minister outline what progress the Government are making towards the delivery of those pledges, as they relate to this topic more broadly?
Keeping children safe online in the current media landscape is a challenge that will require agile and adroit legislation that simultaneously keeps pace with technological developments and reflects cultural usage of media platforms. We also need to recognise the power that social media giants now hold, and ensuring accountability will be a key aspect of any legislation. We must ensure that parents have the right to be able to ensure that their children are safe from harm on platforms, especially in circumstances where children may be being mistreated.
I have previously heard Ellen describe how social media companies have abdicated responsibility in assisting in the disclosure of messages that could help to identify how a tragedy has occurred. In Jools’ case, TikTok has not released any of the messages on his account, and Instagram Meta has released some but not all. Any parent should be concerned that they will not have the right to access details of their child’s online life, even if it is suspected to have contributed to their death. Parents like Ellen are currently required to take legal action to pursue the release of such information and, even if they have the financial resources to do so, why should any parent be forced to go to such lengths just to find out what may be, at best, critical information and, at worst, closure? The majority of parents do not even have access to such resources.
As a newly elected Member, I will not stand here and pretend that the previous Government got everything right, but the Online Safety Act was a crucial and positive step forward to keeping more children and young people safe online so that fewer families have to face situations like those we have heard and spoken about in this debate. Under section 101 of the Act, Ofcom has the power to support the investigation of a coroner or procurator fiscal into the death of a child via the data preservation measure. The measure came into effect under the previous Government in April last year, and it is under this section that the amendment that would be Jools’ law would sit.
Although the current iteration of section 101 is a step in the right direction, it is not an easily accessible outcome and it can only be put into effect following a tragedy. In many instances, parental access to social media accounts could prevent tragic outcomes. Do the Government plan to introduce legislation to give parents and guardians the right to access their child’s social media accounts and the messages contained within them? If they do, would that build on the Online Safety Act?
There are further considerations that must be taken into account, such as safeguarding. Though parental access to children’s social media accounts may sound like a simple and prudent solution, not every child has parental figures who have their best interests at heart, and that includes vulnerable children in a family with an abusive parent. A child who is seeking help in communicating domestic abuse to friends or organisations may find their only avenue of escape is compromised. There may also be instances in which a parent could use their child’s social media account to gain access to information about other children and teenagers. There are therefore wider implications to granting parents unrestricted access to the information of children other than their own, as that could unintentionally make unsolicited and inappropriate contact easier. Would the Minister consider how parental access rights could be designed to give parents the ability to monitor their children’s safety and to ensure children have the privacy they may need to facilitate their own safety, and how such measures could be designed so as not to be exploited by any of the parties that are subject to them?
I was reassured to see the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology meeting bereaved parents who have lost children after being influenced by harmful content online. I also welcome the publishing of the Secretary of State’s “Draft Statement of Strategic Priorities for online safety” in November last year, which provided clarity on the framework that the Government will expect the independent regulator to work within. The Secretary of State has stated that the Government will be
“implementing safety by design to stop…harm occurring in the first place”,
and we should consider whether the expectation should fall on users themselves to take precautionary steps to avoid severely harmful content. Given how instrumental algorithms are in pushing themed content to users’ feeds, what plans do the Government have to give users the ability to opt out or reset these algorithms?
We support parents in raising concerns about content they do not want their children to see by requiring sites to take measures to remove content as soon as it is flagged. Since the introduction of the 2023 Act, we have seen many cases in which the response from platforms has been far quicker than before, and we would welcome a detailed plan that lays out how the Government will ensure that all companies act quickly and the cost of their not doing so.
It is right that services must assess any risk to children from using their platforms and set appropriate age restrictions to ensure that child users have age-appropriate experiences and are shielded from harmful content, such as pornography or content relating to violence, self-harm, eating disorders or even suicide. That is why the last Government tightened up age restrictions by requiring social media companies to enforce their age limits consistently and protect their child users, but many parents still believe that these age limits are too easily circumvented by children lying about their age. The Government talk of ensuring that age-assurance technology to protect children is being effectively deployed, but how do the Government intend to ensure this? How do they intend to ensure that companies are investing in the most up-to-date technology to facilitate that? Will the Government proactively stress-test that capability and, if so, how?
For all of this, Ofcom plays a vital role. As an evidence-based regulator, its task is to regulate the trust and safety systems and processes. Its role is not necessarily to police individual pieces of content; it is to ensure companies have the correct measures in place to minimise harms to users. At the end of last year, we heard about how the Government had informed Ofcom that it would need to build more safety measures into these systems. I would welcome the Minister’s outlining how the Government will aid Ofcom in its aims and ensure that any Government support needed will be supplied. These regulations would not be anything without empowering Ofcom to take action, which is why we gave it powers to issue fines of up to £18 million or 10% of global revenue, whichever is higher, or to pursue criminal investigations into senior managers if they fail to comply with enforcement notices. Will the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to make sure that Ofcom brings forward its children’s safety codes and guidance in April?
As we have all seen, technology keeps moving and advancements are constantly made, so the risk of digital progress outstripping the pace of legislation is an all too real prospect. We must embrace technology and understand that the internet and social media, embedded in our daily lives, can be a force for good, but we must also understand that checks and balances are essential if we are to ensure a safe online environment not only for today’s users but for those newly entering the online world. It is for the Government not only to guarantee an environment conducive to users of all ages, but to ensure that parents have the confidence that the online environment can be made as safe as they strive to make the home environment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I start by paying tribute to Ellen Roome both for launching this petition and for all the campaigning she has done in this area. Let us take a moment to remember her son, Jools. As a parent, I know that we do everything to keep our children safe. We teach them how to cross a road and why it matters not to talk to strangers—we do all we can, but it can still be terrifying to think about what our children are exposed to, even in the safety of our own homes. I can only imagine how it would feel for a parent not to know how or why their child lost their life. I know that parents across the country feel the same way.
As we have heard, Ellen’s petition received over 120,000 signatures between 10 May and the dissolution of Parliament on 30 May. That shows the strength of feeling on this issue, and I am grateful to the brave parents, including Ellen, Ian and others who campaigned on this issue during the passage of the Online Safety Act, who continue to shine a light on it. The Secretary of State has met them a number of times, and their views are absolutely crucial to the work we are doing in this area. Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for securing a debate on this e-petition on behalf of the Petitions Committee, along with other hon. and right hon. Members for their powerful contributions.
I know how long it has taken to get the Online Safety Act across the line. It is not a perfect piece of legislation, and the delay in delivering it has come at a heartbreaking human cost. As the Secretary of State has set out numerous times, we are working to implement the Act as quickly as we possibly can so that the protections it puts in place can begin to change the online world that our children experience.
The Act has two provisions relevant to this debate. First, section 101 seeks to address problems faced when there is uncertainty over the circumstances leading to the death of a child. The provision supports coroners and procurators fiscal in their investigations by giving Ofcom the power to require information about a child’s online activity following a request from the investigating coroner. It is already in force, and the coroners have begun to make use of the powers available to them.
Secondly, section 75 imposes additional duties on categorised services to be transparent with parents regarding a company’s data disclosure processes following the death of a child. We have been clear that we plan to build on the Online Safety Act where it does not go far enough, and the Secretary of State only yesterday set out how the Online Safety Act is uneven and, in some cases, unsatisfactory. He also set out the need for Parliament to learn to legislate much faster—we cannot wait another 10 years to make changes to the legislation.
At the end of last year, the Secretary of State decided to use his powers to issue a statement of strategic priorities to Ofcom, asking them to ensure that safety is embedded in our online world from the very start. That is why the Government will also seek to establish a data preservation process through clause 122 of the Data (Use and Access) Bill. The proposed clause will require Ofcom to issue a data preservation notice to specified companies at the request of the coroner or, in Scotland, the procurator fiscal. That will require these companies to preserve information relating to the use of their services by the child who has died. This proposal fulfils a manifesto commitment to further strengthen powers, and will help coroners understand the tragic circumstances surrounding a child’s death.
Let me turn to the matter of coroners sharing information with families. Interested persons, including bereaved families, have the right to receive evidence from coroners, subject to their judicial discretion. The chief coroner has provided detailed guidance on this. Coroners have a statutory duty to issue a prevention of future deaths report if their investigation reveals that future deaths could be prevented by one or more measures. Evidence accessed via Ofcom powers will help to inform a decision on whether a report should be issued.
I know from parents and children just how complex this issue is. The Secretary of State recently visited the NSPCC, where he met a group of young people to understand more about their lives online. The NSPCC was concerned that giving parents complete access to their children’s social media accounts could raise complex issues around children’s rights to privacy and, in extreme cases—as we have heard today—safeguarding. For example, as raised earlier, if a child is exploring their sexuality online, they may not want their parents to know and they would be right to expect that privacy.
All Members raised the retrospective application of section 101 of the Act. Ofcom’s powers to require information from companies on behalf of coroners can still be used where a second coroner’s inquest is ordered. Ofcom can use these powers on the instruction of a coroner. Ofcom will also be able to use data preservation notices in the event that a second coroner’s inquest is ordered. Any personal data that is captured by the data preservation notice, and held by the online service at the time of issue, will still be in scope and must be retained upon receipt of notice. However, I have heard very powerfully from all Members today about the lengths parents have to go to request a second inquest and about the associated costs. As I have said, the legislation is not perfect and there is room for improvement, and I would like to meet Members and parents to explore this matter further. We need to continue to review the legislation.
When it comes to age limits, a smartphone and social media ban for under-16s has been raised. We are aware of the ongoing debate as to what age children should have smartphones or access to social media. As the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has previously said, there are no current plans to implement a smartphone or social media ban for children. We will continue to do what is necessary to keep our children safe online.
Cameron Thomas
On that note, we have heard from several Members today about their concerns for children’s mental health, when their expectations are often measured against heavily doctored images they see online. Will the Minister commit to use and/or amend legislation that commits hosts—as is common with regulated news outlets —to clearly identify doctored imagery, and the accounts and pages that spread them?
Feryal Clark
I will come to that point.
On the issue of a ban on smartphones and social media for under-16s, we are focused on building the evidence base to inform any future action. We have launched a research project looking at the links between social media and children’s wellbeing. I heard from the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) that that needs to come forward and I will pass that on to my colleagues in the Department.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) mentioned the private Member’s Bill in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister). We are aware of his Bill and share his commitment to keeping children safe online. We are aware of the ongoing discussion around children’s social media and smartphone use, and it is important that we allocate sufficient time to properly debate the issue. We are focused on implementing the Online Safety Act and building the evidence base to inform any future action. Of course, we look forward to seeing the detail of my hon. Friend’s proposal and the Government will set out their position on that in line with the parliamentary process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) raised the issue of Ofcom’s ambitions. Ofcom has said that its codes will be iterative, and the Secretary of State’s statement will outline clear objectives for it to require services to improve safety for their users.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) mentioned engagement with children, and we know how important that is. Ofcom engaged with thousands of children when developing its codes, and the Children’s Commissioner is a statutory consultee on those codes, but of course we must do more.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) raised the matter of mental health services and our commitment in that regard. He is right that the Government’s manifesto commits to rolling out Young Futures hubs. That national network is expected to bring local services together to deliver support for not only teenagers at risk of being drawn into crime, but those facing mental health challenges, and, where appropriate, to deliver universal youth provision. As he rightly said, that is within the health portfolio, but I am happy to write to him with more detail on where the programme is.
We want to empower parents to keep their children safe online. We must also protect children’s right to express themselves freely, and safeguard their dignity and autonomy online.
Damian Hinds
The Minister spoke earlier about age limits. I was not sure if she had finished responding to Members’ comments and questions, and whether she would be able to comment on not only what the various age thresholds should be, but what they mean. In particular, if the GDPR age is 13, does that mean that parental controls can effectively be switched off by somebody of age 13, 14 or 15?
Feryal Clark
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman’s party would have discussed the issue of the age limit and why it was 13 during the passage of the Online Safety Act.
Feryal Clark
I am more than happy to write to him in detail on why the age limit has been set at 13. As I said, there is currently a live discussion about raising the age and evidence is being collated.
The challenge of keeping our children safe in a fast-moving world is one that we all—Government, social media platforms, parents and society at large—share. As we try to find the solutions, we are committed to working together and continuing conversations around access to data in the event of the tragic death of a child.
I will finish by again thanking Ellen for her tireless campaigning. I also thank all the speakers for their thoughtful contributions. I know that Ellen has waited a long time for change and we still have a long way to go. Working with Ellen, the Bereaved Families for Online Safety group, other parents and civil society organisations, we will build a better online world for our children.
Lewis Atkinson
I thank Members from across the House for their contributions to this well attended and powerful debate. We have demonstrated significant consensus across the House about the need to continue to strengthen and evolve online regulation, which, as the petition shows, is a matter of significant public concern. I think it is fair to say that the public expect Parliament to work on a cross-party basis on these issues, and I hope that in future months we can continue the debate in the spirit in which it has been conducted today.
I thank the Minister for her response. I particularly welcome her indication that the Government will give consideration to any potential changes to the forthcoming data Bill to put it beyond doubt that, in historic cases such as Jools’, parents have rights to access data following bereavement and that the powers that have been set out to coroners can be applied without undue financial penalty or campaigning by parents like Ellen.
Of course, the people that we have not heard from today are the social media companies, although I am sure they are listening to us all. I invite them to demonstrate that they genuinely want to do the right thing—to get in touch and do the right thing for bereaved parents like Ellen; not to hide behind data protection regulations; and to actively engage with policymakers and families to get this right, to allow children to be protected and, in tragic cases when a child has died, to give parents the opportunity to grieve properly.
I thank the Petitions Committee staff for their assistance in organising and preparing the debate, which it has been an honour to lead. It is right that I use the final words of the debate to pay tribute to the 126,000 petitioners, and in particular to Ellen Roome: may Jools’ memory always be a blessing, and I sincerely hope that today’s debate helps you and other bereaved families get the data and the answers that you need.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 661407 relating to children’s social media accounts.
Written Correction
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Correction
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Culture, Media and Sport
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Seamus Logan
The Minister mentioned a number of mitigations for charities, and she said that she thinks that virtually all charities will benefit from those, so where are the Government actually obtaining the resources to fill the hole in the public finances?
Stephanie Peacock
I did not catch all of that intervention, but I said that half of charities would either stay the same or gain from the changes. I am happy to discuss that with the hon. Member after the debate, or write to him if I have misunderstood his point.
[Official Report, 7 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 314WH.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock):
Stephanie Peacock
I did not catch all of that intervention, but I said that half of employers, including charities with national insurance liabilities, would either stay the same or gain from the changes. I am happy to discuss that with the hon. Member after the debate, or write to him if I have misunderstood his point.
Written Statements
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Live Events Ticketing: Resale and Pricing Practices
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
The UK has a world-leading music and live events sector, which plays an important role in our national life and supports economic growth across the country. However, the Government are concerned that tickets for many live events have become inaccessible to fans due to highly inflated ticket prices on the resale market. In addition, new practices within the live events sector, such as dynamic pricing, are presenting challenges for fans when buying tickets, particularly around transparency.
We want to put fans first, ensure that they are treated fairly and, in so doing, support an economically successful live events sector.
To support these objectives, the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have published a consultation on the resale of live events tickets and a call for evidence on pricing practices in the live events sector, which are available on www.gov.uk.
Consultation on the resale of live events tickets
The Government recognise that a well-functioning ticket resale market can play an important role: helping to redistribute tickets between genuine fans; and allowing those who cannot attend an event to give an opportunity to others to get a ticket, while recouping some or all of their costs. However, it appears that professional ticket touts are systematically buying up tickets on the primary market and then reselling them to fans at often hugely inflated prices, with none of the profits going back to the performer, venue or the live events sector more generally. To address these issues, the Government are seeking views on a range of possible options, including:
Limits on ticket resale, such as via a price cap, making it illegal for tickets to be resold at more than a certain percentage above the original price, and fixed limits on the number of tickets that a seller can resell;
Increasing the accountability of secondary ticketing platforms by placing a duty on them to ensure that information provided by sellers is accurate;
Supporting the enforcement of existing consumer protection laws by updating provisions in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to make enforcement more efficient and effective, including a licensing regime focused on resale platforms; and
Encouraging industry-led actions to improve the transparency and accessibility of ticket sales, for example by phasing ticket distribution.
Call for evidence on pricing practices in the live events sector
The live events sector has adopted new approaches to selling tickets, including pricing strategies using new technologies. These practices are changing both how the system works and the experiences of fans when they purchase tickets. It is important that fans are treated fairly and openly with timely, transparent and accurate information being presented ahead of sales, particularly when demand is high.
The call for evidence is seeking views to determine if there is a case for future intervention, specifically examining:
How the ticketing market works in the UK, when and how tickets are sold using dynamic pricing, and other technologies used to sell tickets;
If and how consumers have been impaired by a lack of transparency, for example the transparency and timeliness of information provided to inform purchasing decisions, and the extent of hidden fees, tiered pricing or pressure selling; and
Whether the current legal framework provides sufficient protection, including whether gaps exist or if there is potential for new harms arising from emerging trends.
Next steps
The consultation and call for evidence will be open for 12 weeks. We encourage all interested stakeholders, including fans, ticketing platforms and the wider live events sector, to respond.
I am placing a copy of the consultation and the call for evidence in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS359]
UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue: 2025
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
I visited China 10-13 January to deliver the 2025 UK-China economic and financial dialogue.
Growing the economy is the No.1 mission of this Government. But that growth must be secure and resilient, built on the stable foundations that we have prioritised as we deliver on our Plan for Change and embark on a decade of national renewal.
National security and growth are not opposed. They are mutually reinforcing. We must and will continue to engage with international partners on trade and investment to grow our economy, while ensuring that our security and values are not compromised.
This means finding the right way to build a stable and balanced relationship with China. One that recognises the importance of co-operation in addressing the global issues we face, competing where our interests differ, and challenging robustly where we must.
It is for this reason that I visited Beijing and Shanghai for an economic and financial dialogue with China. I was accompanied by the Governor of the Bank of England, the chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority, and representatives from Britain’s financial services firms. This dialogue unlocked market access for UK exporters in financial services and agri-products, providing greater certainty for business and an expected boost to the UK economy of £600 million over five years.
However, this is not a return to the “golden era” of UK-China relations. Throughout the visit, I was clear that while we must co-operate on areas of mutual interest, we will also confidently express our economic and trade concerns to the Chinese, including on market access and wider market distorting practices. A key outcome of this dialogue is that we have secured China’s commitment to improve existing channels so that we can openly discuss sensitive issues and the ways in which they impact our economy. Our engagement also advanced wider UK interests. I raised a range of UK concerns in meetings with Chinese Government counterparts, including Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine, developments in constraints on rights and freedoms in Hong Kong, and human rights. Our approach ensures we can confidently challenge China on areas where we disagree and uphold the UK’s national security—the first duty of our Government.
This visit builds a platform for a long-term relationship with China that works squarely in our national interest, ensuring our economy has the broad base and resilient foundations for the growth that makes working people in every corner of Britain better off.
[HCWS361]
Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
This Government have committed to rebuilding Britain, delivering 1.5 million new homes, along with the critical infrastructure that underpins economic growth. As set out in the “Plan for Change”, we will deliver housing in the right places, supporting our towns and cities to grow, and providing the homes that people want, near to businesses and employment opportunities. This Government are therefore committed to growth and have promised to take tough decisions to get Britain building.
One of our first actions was therefore to revise the national planning policy framework, which was formalised on 12 December 2024. This marks the next step in radically reforming the planning system to meet the needs of the country and made major changes to the rules around the green belt. It is therefore right that the application is now properly analysed, with consideration given to the Government’s updated policies.
This statement confirms that it is necessary to extend the deadline for the Secretary of State’s decision on the application by Anglian Water, under the Planning Act 2008, for the Cambridge waste water treatment plant relocation project development consent order (DCO).
Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make his decision within three months of receipt of the examining authority’s report, unless the power under section 107(3) is exercised to extend the deadline and a ministerial statement is made to Parliament announcing the new deadline.
The DCO application for the Cambridge waste water treatment plant relocation project was received by the Planning Inspectorate under the previous Government’s planning system.
The deadline for this decision is therefore to be further extended to 14 April 2025, to enable the application to be analysed in the light of this key policy update.
The decision to set the new deadline for this application is without prejudice to the decision on whether to grant or refuse development consent.
[HCWS362]
Artificial Intelligence Opportunities Action Plan
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
In July, I commissioned Matt Clifford CBE, tech entrepreneur and chair of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, to develop an AI opportunities action plan. Today, that plan, and the Government’s response to it, have been published.
This Government promised to deliver change and improve lives in every part of the country; to grow a faster, fairer economy with good jobs that put more money in working people’s pockets; and to rebuild our crumbling public services and provide our citizens with the world-class healthcare and education they deserve.
That clear sense of purpose has fundamentally shaped our approach to AI. This is no longer a technology that belongs in a distant future—the AI revolution is already happening, and it will define the decade to come. We must decide whether we sit back and wait for this technology to shape our lives or get ahead and ensure that British people are the first to benefit.
This Government are hugely optimistic about AI’s potential to change our country for the better and deliver a decade of national renewal. AI is at the heart of our plan for change. From building an NHS fit for the future and making Britain a clean energy superpower, to taking back our streets and bringing down the barriers to opportunity for all, none of our national missions are possible without embracing the power of technology. Most importantly, an AI-powered economy will improve living standards for working people across the country.
We have led the world on AI safety. Now, we have a responsibility to capitalise on our unique position to provide global leadership in seizing the opportunities of AI. The AI opportunities action plan proposes 50 recommendations reflecting the scale and pace required to strengthen the foundations of the UK’s AI ecosystem, deliver real change for citizens through using AI in the public and private sectors, and securing our future by ensuring the UK is a first mover on AI.
In our response, we set out how we intend to shape the application of AI within a modern social market economy, based on the principles of shared economic prosperity, improved public services and increased personal opportunities. To deliver the plan’s recommendations, we are taking decisive action to deliver enduring change:
Creating AI growth zones, areas with enhanced access to power and streamlined planning approvals, to establish new public-private partnerships and accelerate the development of AI infrastructure on UK soil.
Expanding our sovereign AI compute capacity by at least 20 times by 2030, ensuring that the UK can keep pace as our compute needs grow.
Creating a new AI Energy Council, bringing together industry leaders from the energy and AI sectors, co-chaired by me and the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. The Energy Council will provide expert insight on the energy needs of AI, alongside opportunities to accelerate investment in the develop of renewable and innovative energy solutions to meet those needs.
Launching a new dedicated team with a mandate to strengthen the UK’s sovereign AI capabilities by supporting our national champions at the frontier of AI. Operating with the agility of the vaccines task force, the team will partner with AI companies and use every tool at Government’s disposal to ensure they have access to the compute, data and talent they need to succeed.
The action plan shows us that we have a narrow window to secure our stake in the future of AI, and deliver a better future for British people. We must take decisive action before it is too late. Today, we have set out our plan to secure our global leadership in the AI revolution and fulfil our fundamental promise to the British people. This is a top priority for the Prime Minister. Working right across Government, we will use AI to grow our economy, rebuild our broken public services and improve living standards for working people. Together, we will ensure that British citizens are the first to benefit from the extraordinary opportunities this technology can offer.
[HCWS360]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber we will adjourn this Committee for 10 minutes. However, that is extremely unlikely.
Registrar (Identity Verification and Authorised Corporate Service Providers) Regulations 2024
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leong
That the Grand Committee do consider the Registrar (Identity Verification and Authorised Corporate Service Providers) Regulations 2024.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 22 May 2024. I shall speak also to the Unique Identifiers (Application of Company Law) Regulations 2024, which were laid before the House on 31 October 2024. These regulations form part of a programme to implement the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which I will refer to as the 2023 Act. The 2023 Act is a landmark piece of legislation which delivers the most significant reforms to Companies House in more than 180 years to protect the public from fraud and deliver real benefits to the business community.
There has already been much progress since the 2023 Act was passed, including the introduction of stricter rules and checks to help Companies House cleanse the register. The two sets of regulations we are debating today will help to implement perhaps the most important change to the UK’s company registration framework in the 2023 Act: requiring identity verification for those setting up, running and controlling companies. Through amendments to the Companies Act 2006, the 2023 Act establishes two ways in which an individual can verify their identity, either directly with Companies House or via an authorised corporate service provider—ACSP. These providers must be supervised for anti-money laundering purposes and be registered with Companies House.
I will set out specifically what the two instruments will do. The Registrar (Identity Verification and Authorised Corporate Service Providers) Regulations 2024 set up the legal framework that underpins identity verification. The identity-verification procedure involves an individual delivering specific information to the registrar or to an ACSP. This must include their name and date of birth and any other further information specified in the registrar’s rules, which are a form of tertiary legislation. Given the technical and increasingly evolving mechanisms for identity verification, it would be inappropriate to list in these regulations every single identity document that must be provided to the registrar or ACSP or every single step an individual must take. Instead, the registrar is enabled to specify the requirements in a more suitable format and to adapt or tweak the detail quickly where necessary. Companies House has published a draft version of the registrar’s rules, which have been shared with Members today. I hope they provide a useful example of what evidence and steps might be required from applicants. When the registrar or ACSP receives all the correct information from an applicant, they will grant the identify verification application if they are satisfied that the information provided is true.
That is the broad legal process for identity verification. In practice, Companies House will use the GOV.UK One Login platform to deliver the identity-verification service. One Login is a cross-departmental verification platform, enabling users to have a single login and verified identity for multiple government services. An individual will create an account and can verify their identity using a range of evidence, such as a passport or driving licence, or through knowledge-based verification questions based on their credit record or banking information. The process also includes checks to make sure that the individual matches the picture on their photo ID. For most people completing the purely digital route, the process will take a matter of minutes. Individuals can also complete the process in person at a post office.
If an individual decides to verify via an ACSP, the ACSP must follow the legal procedure established in these regulations and in the registrar’s rules. Companies House will issue guidance to ACSPs to explain how the procedure should be applied in practice and what checks they must perform on the information received. This will ensure that both routes achieve the same level of assurance in identity verification. Once an ACSP verifies an applicant’s identity, they will deliver a verification statement to Companies House to confirm that they have followed the correct procedure. The verification statement will be published alongside the applicant’s appointments on the register to maximise transparency. Alongside the verification statement, ACSPs must give the registrar information about the evidence they relied on to verify an individual’s identity. This means that Companies House will not lose access to crucial identity data if someone uses an ACSP, and will provide them with assurance that identity checks have been completed correctly.
The regulations add other checks and balances to the ACSP regime. ACSPs will be required to maintain records relating to identity verification for seven years from the date when they determined the identity-verification request. The registrar can suspend and deauthorise an ACSP if they consider that they are not fit and proper to carry out the functions of an ACSP. The registrar can perform spot checks on ACSPs and ask them to provide information about their identity-verification obligations. All those provisions combined ensure that Companies House has the tools at its disposal to ensure that the ACSP regime is as effective and robust as possible.
The second set of regulations, the Unique Identifiers (Application of Company Law) Regulations 2024, are technical and apply provisions on unique identifiers contained in the Registrar (Identity Verification and Authorised Corporate Service Providers) Regulations 2024 to other entities. A key mechanism underpinning the operation of identity verification is the use of unique identifiers, or personal codes, that are used to identify individuals who have had their identity verified, as well as registered ACSPs. The first set of regulations will enable the allocation of unique identifiers to individuals associated with companies. These regulations give the registrar powers to allocate unique identifiers to ACSPs and individuals associated with other entities—namely, limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships, companies authorised to register, unregistered companies and Scottish qualifying partnerships. Identity-verification requirements will eventually apply to other entities registered at Companies House, so it is necessary that we make these regulations to ensure that the requirements can operate in practice.
I want to provide an update on the timings of identity verification. Companies House published its outline transition plan in October 2024, which confirmed that it aims to start requiring identity verification from autumn 2025. In a few weeks, ACSPs will be able to register, and individuals will be able to voluntarily verify their identity with Companies House, giving people lots of time to complete the process before legal requirements start. I beg to move.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, I rise on the principle that the Executive should be accountable. I shall be brief. I thank the Minister for shedding some light on these dense and complicated regulations. They are obviously of help to the department, to Ministers and to business, but I dare say the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not reading them on her recent outward journey to the People’s Republic of China.
I found the factsheet helpful, and I acknowledge the strong statements therein. It states that the requirements will
“make it challenging for individuals to create a fictitious identity, or fraudulently use another person’s identity, to set up or run a company”,
and talks about being
“registered with a UK supervisory body for anti-money-laundering purposes”.
As the Minister implied, economic crime is debilitating to the nation and, without a doubt, we have problems with it in Britain.
Who is the registrar and when was she or he appointed, for what term and at what salary? Is Companies House running smoothly, so as to cope with requests and approaches from directors and people with significant control? Are there bottlenecks or significant hold-ups, perhaps even labour disputes? Are there impediments to those who file? How many money laundering cases did the registrar take to court in 2023 and 2024? These questions are designed to be helpful. If they are not answered immediately, perhaps there might be a letter.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. For those of us who worked on the economic crime Bills, this is a welcome development. I am interested in the timeline, because it seems some time ago that we debated the Bill, which I believe has become an Act, and we find ourselves looking to the autumn of 2025 before some of these vital identity-verification processes will reach the statute book. I certainly do not blame the Minister, because he is new to this, but what is behind the delay and how many more statutory instruments are we due? I think there are still quite a few on the stocks. When can we expect them and what functions will they unlock? When we debated the original Bill, I think we all felt this to be a real and present issue that needed immediate, or near-immediate, attention. Clearly, things are dragging on and I wonder what is causing that.
Further to the noble Lord’s comments about the functioning of Companies House, we were absolutely clear that this would be a culture change for Companies House, which will cease to be a filing cabinet and start having to investigate and verify what is coming across its desk. The previous Minister was confident that funding was in place and that the process to create that new culture was under way. We would benefit from the new set of eyes from the Minister, if not now then perhaps in a separate meeting where we can review the functioning, including the future functioning, of Companies House—a follow-on from the meetings that were so helpful during the formulation of the Bill.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his explanation. These regulations are clearly a crucial step in modernising and strengthening the UK’s corporate governance. Building on the Companies Act 2006, they were laid before Parliament, as the noble Lord, Lord Leong, noted, by the previous Conservative Government in May 2024 to address the growing concerns about corporate fraud and business registration transparency.
The regulations introduce unique identity verification for individuals involved in setting up and controlling companies and will ensure that the integrity of the business registration process is robust. The initiative aims to combat the use of fraudulent or stolen identities in business dealings and will make it harder for individuals to engage in corporate fraud. The core aim of the regulations is to ensure that only properly verified individuals can establish and control companies. The registrar is granted the authority to impose further requirements on applicants, with the flexibility to adapt as identity-verification technologies evolve.
The regulations also introduce unique identifiers for verified individuals and authorised corporate service providers, streamlining the registration process and ensuring that the Companies House register remains accurate and reliable. I think I was the Minister whom the noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to. I sincerely hope that the funding remains robust, as it was a few months ago. I look forward to hearing an answer to that question.
The ACSPs are now subject to stricter oversight, including anti-money laundering regulations, with provisions for suspension or deauthorisation if they fail to meet required standards. I will come back to that in a second. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, also asked why we need ACSPs. They, or their equivalents, are common in many jurisdictions and they provide an incredibly useful service to people who wish to set up a business but have neither the time nor the inclination to get into the weeds of doing so and prefer to subcontract it. I think it is perfectly reasonable that ACSPs exist and they just need to be properly verified.
While the intention behind the regulations is clear—they improve the integrity of company registration and prevent fraud—there are several areas where further clarification is required. Given that the regulations were last discussed under the previous Government, I would like to understand how the current Government intend to address the evolving nature of identity-verification technologies.
In addition, these regulations impose new obligations on ACSPs, particularly in terms of record-keeping and in providing additional information to the registrar. Although these measures are essential for transparency, I ask the Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, also asked, to clarify how these new duties will be enforced. What penalties will be applied to ACSPs that are found to be non-compliant and what measures are in place to ensure that these rules are upheld consistently across all service providers?
I am also concerned about smaller businesses and individuals who may be impacted by these additional verification processes. Will the Government ensure that the new regulations do not create undue burdens on smaller enterprises, which may already be facing significant challenges in meeting regulatory and other requirements?
Finally, while the power to suspend or deauthorise an ACSP is necessary to combat fraud, I would like assurances that proper safeguards will be in place to protect service providers from unjust penalties or removal.
In conclusion, these regulations are important reforms to strengthen the UK’s business environment and combat fraud. As with any regulatory framework, careful consideration is needed on enforcement, monitoring and adaptation, so a review process will be essential to assess the regulations’ impact on businesses of all sizes to ensure that they deliver their intended benefits without imposing unnecessary burdens.
Lord Fox (LD)
With the Committee’s permission, I have just one question that I had meant to ask the Minister. It is around the obligation to retain identity information over seven years, which the noble Lord just mentioned. In the event of the ACSP going out of business, what is the expectation of how that information, which would not otherwise be retained, would be retained for the potential use of Companies House?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken for their valuable contributions to the debate. I will respond to some of the points raised but, if I do not cover some, I will ensure that I write.
As to my noble friend Lord Jones’s question about the registrar, the current Registrar of Companies in England and Wales is Louise Smyth. I will write specifically on his other, quite technical questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised a few questions, so I ask noble Lords to bear with me while I go through them. His first question was on the timeline. Identity verification will be required from approximately 7 million people in year 1. Since the Act received Royal Assent, Companies House has been busy cleaning the register. From March to November 2024, Companies House removed around 50,400 registered office addresses, 39,600 office addresses and 36,700 addresses of persons with significant control. It redacted around 37,100 incorporation documents to remove personal data used without consent and removed around 7,800 documents from the register, including 800 false mortgage satisfaction filings, which have previously required court orders.
Companies House has been really busy since the Act received Royal Assent, putting this in place. It has also employed more people to do this work, increasing its workforce from 1,400 to 1,700, with another 100 due to be in place before the end of the year. We need people to do this and Companies House is getting those people.
In answer to the question about funding from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, Companies House has been investing in new capabilities to prepare for the implementation of these reforms, as part of its wider transformation programme. This includes £108 million of funding for transformation across previous spending reviews and increased fees to fund a course of measures. As noble Lords know, incorporation fees have now gone up to £50 and any filing fees for confirmation statements have gone up from £15 to £34—so that is extra funding coming in.
In addition, funding of £20 million has been awarded via the economic crime levy for new intelligence cells in Companies House and the Insolvency Service, allowing both agencies to plan to step up their anti-money laundering work. A significant amount of preparation has been undertaken to reach this point, including system development, recruitment and training.
I shall move on to the couple of other questions that were asked. On the statistics, I mentioned earlier that something like 7 million unique officers or directors will need to be identified by spring 2025. The annual cost to a UK business of verifying this identity is estimated to be close to £19.50 in ongoing operational expenses.
Companies House is very experienced in dealing with a high volume of transactions. For example, in 2023-24, it processed something like 14.2 million filings. Companies House has been preparing customers, and there is a lot happening in the education and engagement process; in fact, the Companies House website shows a timeline when this is done, thus informing stakeholders about the introduction of these identity-verification requirements.
Various questions were asked about ACSPs. Let me go through them. A firm will not be able to register as an ACSP unless it is supervised under the UK’s anti-money laundering regulations, and the registrar will not accept applications if the applicant is not fit and proper. From then on, the ACSP must be supervised under the UK’s anti-money laundering regulations at all times. Companies House and the supervisors will regularly share intelligence and changes to an ACSP’s supervisory status; Companies House can suspend or deauthorise any ACSP if it thinks that it is no longer fit and proper to perform these functions.
In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about what happens to an ACSP if it goes bust or closes, the ACSP must keep records of all of these IDVs for at least seven years. So records will be kept. I assume—I am looking at my officials now—that these records will eventually be passed over to the Registrar of Companies, but I will confirm that point in writing.
Lord Fox (LD)
On Companies House’s right to suspend an ACSP, what right of appeal does the ACSP have in those circumstances? Does it go to judicial review? What happens?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I do not want to go down that legal route. Based on normal administrative law, I assume that judicial review would apply, but I will come back with a more definitive answer in writing, if I may.
As I mentioned earlier, ACSPs will be required to keep records relating to the identity-verification checks they complete and to respond to Companies House’s spot checks. Failure to comply will be a criminal offence.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked how many more SIs we will see. All I can say is that a mix of SIs will be laid in spring this year—before the summer, I assume—including ones applying reforms to limited liability partnerships. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord.
In respect of the question from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about enforcement, currently, if an individual officer does not comply to have their identity verified, sanctions are applied. It can be either a financial sanction or a criminal offence; that applies also to ACSPs.
I hope that I have answered all noble Lords’ questions. If not, I will definitely write to noble Lords.
Unique Identifiers (Application of Company Law) Regulations 2024
Lord Leong
That the Grand Committee do consider the Unique Identifiers (Application of Company Law) Regulations 2024.
Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gustafsson
That the Grand Committee do consider the Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and Treasury (Baroness Gustafsson) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations amend the Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance Regulations 2017 and the Limited Liability Partnerships (Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance) Regulations 2017 to introduce requirements for in-scope businesses to publish certain information twice per financial year about their retention practices, policies and performance where retention clauses are included in construction contracts.
Tackling late payments is critical for the UK economy’s growth and productivity. Fifty-six million hours are wasted each year by businesses chasing late payments, imposing a considerable and unfair burden on small businesses. Long payment terms and late payments are a causal factor in an estimated 50,000 UK business closures each year.
This Government are committed to addressing the issue of late payments. In September, we announced a package of measures to improve payment practices and help small firms. This included the launch of a new Fair Payment Code and announcing our intention to bring forward legislation to make it a requirement for large businesses to include payment reporting in their annual reports. We will also be launching a public consultation which will consider additional legislative measures to hold large businesses to account on their payment performance and to support small businesses and the self-employed. We have also prioritised this statutory instrument, originally proposed by the previous Government, which was withdrawn due to the general election and which we have now reintroduced.
Prompt and fair payment has long been an issue in the construction sector, and particularly affects small businesses in the supply chain. This includes the practice of cash retentions, or firms deducting a percentage of the value of a payment being made to a supplier. Holding retention money is a long-established practice in construction contracts. While originally introduced as a form of insurance against contractor insolvency and defective work, it is controversial and can often lead to smaller contractors losing money. Construction contracts do not offer any protection against the loss of retention if the employer becomes insolvent. Furthermore, sums, which are often deducted at each tier of the supply chain, may be subject to late or partial return or even non-payment.
These regulations seek to increase transparency in relation to retention practices, payment and performance under construction contracts, thereby incentivising larger businesses to improve retention payment practices. This will provide small business suppliers with better information so that they can make informed decisions about who to trade with, negotiate fairer terms and challenge late retention payments.
Before I outline key elements of the statutory instrument, it may be helpful to explain the legal context. The Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance Regulations 2017 and the Limited Liability Partnerships (Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance) Regulations 2017 were introduced to bring transparency around the payment practices of large businesses. These regulations require businesses above certain size, turnover and balance sheet thresholds to publish information twice yearly on certain statistics, including their average payment times and the percentage of payments not made within the payment period, and information on their standard payment terms. The increased transparency has helped small businesses to make informed decisions before entering contracts with their large suppliers, while the extra scrutiny has helped to reduce payment times.
Build UK, a representative organisation for the construction industry, has benchmarked construction businesses on their payment performance since 2018. For its tier 1 contractors, improvements show the average time to pay an invoice has reduced from 45 days to 30 days; invoices paid within agreed terms have increased from 63% to 85%; and invoices paid within 60 days have increased from 82% to 96%.
Last April, the 2017 regulations were extended for a further seven years to 6 April 2031. Two new reporting metrics on the value of the invoices paid during the reporting period and the percentage of disputed invoices were also introduced to provide even more clarity regarding the payment performance of large businesses. Specific reporting on retentions held under construction contracts is not currently required. These regulations intend to rectify this omission.
This measure has been developed following extensive consultation with firms at all tiers of the supply chain, as well as with construction clients. A clear majority of the firms which responded to the public consultation in 2023—around three-quarters of the 120 respondents—favoured the introduction of a reporting requirement on retentions. Firms within the supply chain have told us they face challenges in understanding policies on the withholding of retentions and what the mechanisms are to secure their release. Many feel that they cannot ask for this information, in case it jeopardises their commercial relationships. This measure will bring greater transparency to the retention policies, practices and performance of larger businesses that are party to construction contracts.
I will now outline the key elements of this statutory instrument. It amends the 2017 regulations and introduces requirements for in-scope businesses to publish certain information twice per financial year about their retention practices, policies and performance, where retention clauses are included in construction contracts. The measure will apply only to large companies and limited liability partnerships which already have a duty to report on their payment practices and performance and which use construction contracts.
In the first instance, reporting will require a statement on whether the company’s payment practices and policies include or do not include retention clauses. Where a company makes a statement that retention clauses are included in its construction contracts, further information must be submitted. Details will be required on: whether retention clauses are included in all its construction contracts; whether its standard payment terms include retention clauses or whether they are used only in specific circumstances, which it would need to describe; whether there is a contract value under which no retention clause is included, and that value; whether a standard rate of retentions is applied, and that rate; whether there is a practice of using retention clauses no more onerous than those which it is subject to; and a description of the process for the release of retentions withheld.
Two metrics will also be required: the percentage ratio of the amount of retention withheld from the company by its clients as against which the company holds on its suppliers; and the percentage ratio of the amount of retention the company withheld from gross payments made to suppliers as against the gross amount paid to suppliers during the reporting period. These metrics will help provide smaller firms with better information about a large business’s retention payment practices. It will help illustrate the company’s approach to fair payment and a sustainable supply chain and incentivise larger businesses to improve retention payment practices.
In conclusion, this measure both addresses a clear request made by the industry and has been developed in conjunction with the industry. It is robust and proportionate and will provide small firms in the construction supply chain with useful information that will enable them to take decisions about entering into contracts and to understand how to ensure that retentions owed to them are paid. It will also create a clear incentive for firms to improve their payment performance in relation to retentions. I hope the Committee can see the benefits that these regulations provide and agrees with the introduction of this affirmative statutory instrument. I beg to move.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted that this second set of amendments to these important reporting requirements—I am trying to prevent my teeth from chattering in the cold—focuses on the damaging issue of cash retentions in the construction sector, which was not covered by the first set of amendments that we debated on 26 February last year. Could the Minister, whom I welcome to her post, confirm that that first set of amendments has now come into effect from 1 January this year? I am delighted that the new amendments will take effect from St David’s Day, 1 March. I also welcome the fact that the reporting will take place via an online service so that the information will be available to suppliers on the website as soon as business is publishing.
As we have heard from the Minister, resolving issues such as late payment and cash retentions is vital for smaller construction firms, particularly as the Government are seeking to build 150,000 homes a year while insolvencies among construction businesses continue to be higher than in most or all other sectors. The failure of major players such as ISG can have a devastating impact on small businesses in their supply chains.
The Government’s commitment to support SMEs, including through the reporting measures such as those that we are considering today, as well as the new Fair Payment Code and the promise of a small business strategy to be published this year, is much needed and very welcome. The regulations will provide transparent data about the practice of retentions and the level of late payment for this aspect of construction contracts. Having consistent comparative data concerning retentions will represent significant progress towards increasing the accountability of larger construction companies that subcontract work to smaller firms in the sector. Those subcontractors will be able to gain an understanding of the payment practices of larger companies to help them decide whether or not to do business with them.
I will not comment on the detail of the requirements which the Minister has outlined but I welcome the requirement for a named director to confirm approval of the figures reported, so that it is clear where the responsibility lies. However, that raises the question of the enforcement of these regulations. Will the Minister say something about how robust the data provided will be, given that the requirement is for self-reporting, and whether there will be any process for fact checking the data reported? What mechanisms might be put in place to ensure that the reporting requirements are met and what penalties might there be for not reporting as required or misreporting? Most importantly, can she say anything about what plans there may be in her department to end the damage caused by retentions altogether, either by banning them outright or by ensuring that funds withheld are ring-fenced in a way that protects small firms from never receiving the sums owed to them at all—or receiving a reduced amount or late amounts?
These regulations are a welcome step forward but I hope to hear more from the Minister about what further steps the Government will take to tackle the obstacles preventing small construction firms from contributing as fully as they could and should to the Government’s construction and house-building goals, and especially whether, how and when they might finally take action to bring to an end the pernicious practice of retentions.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak from the Back Benches and welcome the Minister to her seat. I was also once a Business Minister and, in my second coming, a Cabinet Office Minister, and I was very much involved in trying to get rid of the curse of late payment. That included the changes to the Procurement Act requiring public sector suppliers to pay their own suppliers on time. That was meant to complement the timely payment by government procurers, which was one of the few positive legacies of Covid. The Government are pretty good at paying on time, although you have to keep departments up to scratch. I am disappointed only that the Government chose to delay the implementation of the Procurement Act and to downplay in the draft guidance note the role of small business, which noble Lords will know that I championed from the Back Benches and later when, surprisingly, I returned to the Front Bench as a Minister.
I rise today to support the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, on cash retentions—an issue that he has campaigned on for many years. I associate myself with his good questions on transparency, enforcement and, perhaps more importantly, the Government’s intentions on the broader issue of cash retentions. That has been an abiding problem in the sector for many years. I remember that I promised a review, but I left government too soon to be able to carry through the consequentials. I hope the Minister will take his comments seriously.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it is useful to have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, as they have made it their business to address this issue over a number of years. I am pleased that they view this instrument with some positivity and I am happy to concur.
For too long, we have seen large companies use the cash flow of small companies to bolster their own cash flow. This happens not just in the construction sector, but it has been particularly apparent there. Of course, in some famous cases, such as Carillion and others, it became an industry unto itself and the core purpose of the organisations seemed to be to run cash flow on other people’s profit and loss accounts.
We have moved on some way, but I call into question the Minister’s comment—I also welcome her to her place—that it enables companies to make informed decisions about whom to trade with. In many cases, these companies already know what treatment they will get from those they trade with. They do not have a choice about with whom they trade, if they wish to continue in business. Sanctions and whistleblowing on those companies becomes an issue, as they dare not call foul because they will not get contracts in the future. That is the nature of the relationship: it is an abusive relationship, almost literally, between the contractor and the lead company. We need to understand the nature of that relationship to put into context some of the things we are talking about here.
Without wishing to sound nerdy, the average payment time can hide an awful lot of sins. Standard deviation could be more useful—as the noble Baroness will understand—because companies can be played against others.
I also wonder, rather suspiciously, whether retention becomes something else. It would be easy to look at this from the other end of the telescope, call it a completion bonus and retain that instead. We have to be a bit careful about naming things rather than describing them.
I was happy to be reminded of those halcyon days when we were working on the Procurement Act and of the mercurial rise of the noble Baroness from critical Back-Bencher to Front-Bench proponent. I ask a simple question: would it be legal, under current procurement regulations, for me as a local authority to refuse to take on a contractor which was in all other factors equal to a competitor bidder but had reported poor retention and payment numbers? Is it legal for me to turn it down on those terms?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the Minister to her place. The construction sector in the UK is not only one of the largest but one of the most vital industries underpinning our economy, as both noble Lords noted. In 2022, the sector achieved a turnover of £487 billion and employed over 3 million individuals, representing about 8% of the UK workforce. Its contributions are therefore fundamental in driving economic growth, fostering innovation and advancing development throughout the nation.
However, the sector is also characterised by considerable fragmentation. There are over 444,000 businesses engaged in a broad spectrum of work, ranging from contracting and product supply to associated professional services. The fragmentation is compounded by complex, multi-tiered supply chains, as major projects often involve 50 or more firms working collaboratively.
This brings us to the topic of retention sums, which are a long-standing practice in the construction sector. Retention—as it is still called for now—sums serve as a financial safeguard and ensure that work meets the required standards. Typically, half of the retention is released upon project completion while the remaining portion is withheld until the expiration of the defect’s liability period, proving additional assurance that all specifications are met. That, at least, is the dictionary definition of retention.
Given the current practices within the sector, we need to focus on the amendment introduced by these regulations. They all come into force on 1 March 2025 and apply to the financial year starting on or after 1 April 2025. The changes impose specific reporting requirements for qualifying companies and limited liability partnerships operating within the sector. The amendment extends existing reporting regulations and requires qualifying companies to disclose detailed information about their payment practices, policies and performance in relation to retention clauses in construction contracts.
Companies will be required to report on whether retention clauses are included in their contracts, the percentage of retention withheld and the procedures followed for releasing these sums. Additionally, businesses will be asked to disclose the contract value thresholds under which no retention clause applies and outline the standard rate of retention typically applied in their agreements. By 1 March 2025, qualifying businesses will be obliged to publicly report on their payment practices, specifically concerning retention clauses in construction contracts.
It is important that this amendment acknowledges the significant challenges caused by fragmentation within the construction sector, which of course affects businesses of all sizes. We understand that the aim of these regulations, as the Minister noted, is to enhance transparency by requiring businesses to report not only the inclusion of retention clauses but whether their retention practices align with industry standards or are more onerous than typical practices. Furthermore, companies will be required to provide clear descriptions of the processes that they follow to release retention sums, which is intended to ensure greater clarity and fairness for all parties involved. However, there are several important points on which further clarification is needed.
These amendments are said to provide increased transparency, fairness and clarity within the construction sector, but can the Government explain the mechanisms by which the regulations themselves will be enforced? How will compliance be monitored and what penalties will be applied to businesses found to be in breach of the new requirements? Additionally, while the new regulations seek to promote fairer payment practices, can the Government elaborate on how they plan to ensure that large companies are not able to exploit their market position, despite the new transparency measures? Will there be any safeguards in place to prevent larger firms imposing even more burdensome retention clauses on SMEs?
The regulations are presented as a solution to the ongoing issue of delayed payments, which have long caused a financial strain on SMEs, yet how will the Government measure the effectiveness of these changes? What evidence is there to suggest that requiring businesses to disclose their retention practices will have a significant impact on the cash-flow issues faced by smaller companies? As an aside, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has raised an important point about how we will judge these companies in future, based on these particular metrics. These are not, of course, the only things by which one should judge a company or its potential to complete a project successfully and efficiently, so will there be some way of measuring that as well? If that has not been considered, it is something that should be.
While these measures are presented as steps towards promoting better cash-flow management and financial security for smaller businesses, we would urge the Government to further clarify how the regulations will be implemented and monitored to ensure that they achieve their intended outcomes. Will there be a review process to assess whether these regulations are having the desired effect on industry practices and the broader economy?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the support for these regulations from across the Committee. I thank the noble Lords and noble Baronesses present for their constructive comments on this measure. Allow me to try to address each of the questions that they asked in order.
First, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. He asked a number of questions, the first of which was: have the previous regulations come into effect yet? The answer is yes; they came into effect and required a report as of 1 January 2025.
The noble Lord’s second question was about how the regulations will be enforced and how the accuracy of the data will be monitored. For that, the Department for Business and Trade will implement a more visible compliance and enforcement approach with non-compliant businesses going forward. Businesses that do not take action to meet their reporting obligations will be prosecuted.
We had a question, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, about why we would not just abolish retention payments altogether—that is, why are we taking this measure forward and not abolishing it in its entirety? The Government are aware of the impact that retentions have on the supply chain. We are very committed to going further to tackle poor payment practices: in September 2024, we announced our plans to consult on new legislative measures. Now, as part of that consultation, we intend to consult on measures that will address poor payment practices.
Moving on, I refer to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Fox: does defining retention create a potential loophole for companies? Will they suddenly be redefined as completion bonuses? This is one of the arguments in favour of taking this sort of measured, proportionate approach, because we will be able to identify any unintended consequences of some of this legislation, but a key aspect of addressing the naming convention is that it is very clearly defined in a schedule not by what it is called but by the behaviours that it exhibits. Of course, we will monitor this and make sure that, if it requires an update, we will do so accordingly.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked what the penalties are for failure to comply. The penalty for a breach of the 2017 regulations is an unlimited fine where a company fails to report or makes a false report.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about sanctions, whistleblowing and the imbalance of power in the supply chain. I say in response that the imbalance of power in the construction supply chain is an ongoing challenge; that is widely understood and acknowledged. However, through the introduction of payment reporting measures for retentions and the enforcement of them, we will be able to create an incentive for firms to improve their payment practices in relation to retentions, as has happened following the introduction of the payment reporting regulations. As I talked about in my introduction to this instrument, we have seen the number of businesses paying within 60 days improve from 82% to 96%, so we should be encouraged that we are supporting correct behaviours with regard to policy.
This Government are committed to making sure that we tackle late and long payments. We want the UK to be the best place in the world for both large and small businesses to thrive. This work on retention payments aligns closely with the department’s wider policy on late payments and will strengthen the existing payment reporting regulations. It will provide for enhanced transparency in relation to the practice of withholding retentions—a practice that, as we have heard, is all too often unfair to small businesses and can, of course, be subject to abuse. It will also provide information to small firms and the construction supply chain about the policies and performance of firms that they are considering working for, enabling them to make better-informed decisions and to secure the payment of moneys due.
Lord Fox (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, I asked a very specific question around public procurement. I ask it again: if I am a public procurer and two bidders are more or less the same—or exactly the same—in their bid, but one of them has late payment, am I legally allowed to use late payment as the reason for not accepting that bid? Secondly, developing that question, if the late payer has the cheapest bid, can I also use late payment and retention payments as a reason for not awarding to that bid?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I apologise for not addressing that specifically. My understanding is that this information will help support a party in a commercial negotiation and will, ultimately, form part of its decision-making. As regards the technicality of whether one could legally use that as a way in or out of a contract, I will make sure that we write to the noble Lord on the specifics of that.
Lord Fox (LD)
It is really important because we are seeing, not necessarily under the Procurement Act but under the NHS, major legal tussles over the misapplication of the assumed rules of contract awards—not least in clinical waste disposal, where another six or seven health authorities are being taken to court. This is expensive; it will cost the public and the Exchequer. So it is important that we and public procurers understand from the outset whether this is window dressing or material to the procurement process.
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I acknowledge that. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord about the importance of getting that clarification; we will be sure to write to him in that regard.
Free-Range Egg Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2024
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Free-Range Egg Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 21 November 2024. This instrument has been laid to amend existing legislation governing egg marketing standards to enable free-range eggs to be marketed as such for the duration of mandatory housing measures, which restrict the access of laying hens to open-air runs.
Currently, when free-range hens are placed under mandatory housing measures due to disease outbreaks such as avian influenza, the egg marketing regulations allow their eggs to continue to be labelled as free-range for 16 weeks only; this is known as the 16-week derogation period. If the mandatory housing measure lasts for longer than 16 weeks, eggs from those hens must be labelled and sold as barn eggs. The requirement for egg producers and packers to relabel free-range eggs as barn eggs once the 16-week derogation period is exceeded is difficult to implement in modern automated packhouses. This adds significant logistical and packing costs to the industry.
This SI aims to remove the 16-week derogation period so that free-range egg producers and packers can label and market eggs as free-range for the duration of a mandatory housing measure, however long that may last. During mandatory housing measures, egg producers still have the higher operating costs of maintaining their free-range egg system, with the additional cost of having to ensure that hens are also temporarily housed indoors. The normal laying period of a productive free-range laying hen in the UK is around 90 weeks. This SI will remove the derogation, which affects only a small part of a laying hen’s productive life, with all the other free-range criteria still needing to be met—except access to open-air runs.
In 2024, Defra held a joint consultation on these proposed changes with the Scottish Government. Some 70% of respondents supported the removal of the derogation. The removal of the 16-week derogation period has already come into force in Scotland. Following their own consultation exercise, the Welsh Government have also announced that they will introduce legislation to remove the derogation.
In 2023, the EU amended its egg marketing standards regulations to remove the 16-week derogation period, which, through the Windsor Framework, applies also to free-range eggs produced in Northern Ireland. Without this SI, the introduction of any mandatory housing measures that last longer than 16 weeks—during, for example, an avian influenza outbreak—could be detrimental for English free-range egg producers and result in an increase in free-range eggs being imported from the EU and Northern Ireland. This could have a significant negative long-term impact on the English free-range egg industry. This SI restores alignment with the EU and Northern Ireland.
It will also ensure that free-range egg producers and packers do not incur additional costs for adhering to government-imposed housing requirements. Outbreaks of avian influenza usually occur during the winter months—as was the case in 2021-22 and 2022-23, resulting in the introduction of housing measures for poultry that, in both cases, lasted longer than the 16-week labelling derogation period: for an additional six weeks in 2021-22, and for an additional seven weeks in 2022-23. So it is imperative that this SI is in place for the rest of the winter period and beyond.
We continue to uphold the high standards expected by UK consumers and businesses. The change contained in this statutory instrument will safeguard our Great British egg industry. I beg to move.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this fairly straightforward SI, which allows, during an outbreak of avian flu, for poultry that are normally free-range with access to open-air runs to be kept in barns for an additional period of time. The current derogation’s continuous limit of time during which birds can be kept in barns and still be labelled as free-range is 16 weeks, as the Minister said. During the avian flu outbreak in 2021-22, the period was extended from 16 weeks to 22 weeks. During the 2022-23 outbreak, it was again extended—on this occasion, to 23 weeks.
The UK is 90% self-sufficient in egg production. As markets for eggs need to be strictly in alignment with the EU’s for the purposes of trade, it is important that UK regulations closely match those in operation in the EU. As 94% of UK egg exports go to the EU, it is important that our egg producers are not at a disadvantage during outbreaks of avian flu. Removing the 16-week derogation limit will ensure that UK producers have parity with the EU; I fully support this move.
However, as the UK seems to be affected by avian flu on a fairly regular basis during the winter months, I wonder whether there is likely to be a maximum number of weeks when birds need to be kept in barns and still be labelled as free-range. Six or seven weeks is a short period by which to extend the derogation but the effect of increasing the derogation, as happened in 2022 and 2023, meant that it was for nearly 50% of the year. Can the Minister give reassurance that this derogation will not be extended any further? I note that she said that the Government will extend it for “however long” is necessary. It is difficult to see how the consumer is likely to be persuaded that eggs that have been barn raised for30 weeks of the year, say, can still be labelled as free-range. As we all know, free-range eggs attract a premium on the price the consumer pays.
I turn briefly to the subject of the consultation that took place between 9 January and 5 March 2024. Eighty egg producers, 20 egg packers and 49 members of the public responded. The response from the public is amazingly small, which raises questions. How was the consultation conducted? Where was it advertised? Given that consumers are very exercised about the conditions in which poultry are kept, and that many choose free-range eggs over barn eggs because they believe the birds have a better quality of life in the open air, I am surprised that more did not respond to the consultation. Perhaps the Minister can give details of how engagement with the public on the consultation was conducted.
Despite that query and concern about the derogation limit being extended to beyond 50% of the year, I support the SI but feel that avian flu is not going away, and egg producers need a way of dealing with the effects that it has on their business, as well as consumers needing reassurance that they are getting what they pay for in buying free-range eggs.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, on Thursday this week the Minister and I will be discussing how we save the planet, so this important subject is good practice for that mega-issue.
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out simply the unfortunate need for these amendment regulations. The Official Opposition support them. As she has pointed out, under the current regulations, eggs can be marketed as free range for a maximum of only 16 weeks if the hens are shut inside; after that, they are to be called barn eggs. However, as we have seen in recent years, housing restrictions for free-range hens due to Chinese avian influenza outbreaks have often exceeded the 16-week limit. Within 2021-22 and 2022-23 the outbreaks required measures for 22 and 23 weeks respectively. That has caused significant logistical and financial challenges for the egg industry, and the amendment rightly seeks to address those issues.
The amendment is essential, as the Minister has said, because the EU has removed its 16-week limit and, unless we do likewise, our producers will be at a huge disadvantage. We would be importing eggs from the EU labelled “free range” while ours had to be downgraded to barn eggs. As long as there is a trading market in eggs in Europe, we need to stay consistent.
On consistency, I was going to ask the Minister about Wales because, when I drafted my speech last week, I was under the impression that Wales was possibly going to stick with the 16-week rule, but I am delighted that it seems all four countries of the union will now be at the same level of derogation.
I want to ask about enforcement. Producers in areas where there is a danger of Chinese avian flu will benefit from this amendment, but can the Minister assure us that it will not be possible for these measures to be abused, so that free-range eggs will be permitted to be advertised as such only when hen housing has been mandatorily restricted, not for any other reason?
While this amendment is necessary at the moment, what if anything has the Chief Veterinary Officer said to Defra about how long these lockdowns may be necessary? I appreciate that that is a difficult question to answer and some of it is guesswork, but I hope that Dr Middlemiss will be able to remove the restrictions as soon as she thinks it is safe to do so. We, the Government and the industry must not get into the cosy rut of maintaining these lockdowns unnecessarily. We have already had a six-month one and if we have lockdowns that last a lot longer, as long as may be necessary, we will need to take a serious look at the definition of “free range”.
I understand that in the consultation 66% of respondents felt that the proposal would cause little or no confusion among consumers. Of course not, since how are consumers to know how long the hens have been shut inside in the first place while the eggs are still labelled free range? I am not worried about consumers being confused but I am worried about misrepresentation.
That brings me to my last point. As the Minister knows, the definition of “free range” is a bit farcical in any case—or perhaps it would be safer to say not what most people would think free range actually is. I recall in 1990, as a junior Minister in MAFF, three different supermarket directors marching into the ministry to demand that we adopt their own various definitions of free-range eggs, when we entered into negotiations in the EEC later that year. They varied from chickens getting a sniff of fresh air occasionally for a few minutes each day, to their being let out on a tiny patch of grass, to roughly the current definition that henhouses have little pop-out holes where the chickens could theoretically go out if they wanted to but, in many cases, the majority do not. No matter how unfree the range is, that is the current definition in Europe and we cannot get out of step with it. I suspect that there is no mood in Europe to change that definition and I hope that we in the UK will not take unilateral action to tighten it further, even if some animal welfare groups may demand it.
As the noble Baroness said—I believe this too—if hens are confined inside for six months, nine months or even more, consumers have a right to know that their eggs are not really free-range. On how we address that, I am glad that the Minister is in charge and that it is not me back in MAFF, as it was in the old days, having to tackle this problem. Nevertheless, we are where we are; I support the amendment and what the Government intend to do here.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank noble Lords who took part in this short but important debate. As someone who keeps free-range hens—only a small number of them—I am very pleased that noble Lords have supported this SI because it is extremely important to have clarity for the industry on this matter. I thank noble Lords for their pertinent and helpful questions; I will do my best to respond to them all in turn.
On Wales, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, the Welsh Government have now indicated that later this month they will lay an SI to remove the 16-week derogation period. Subject to the Senedd’s approval, we expect the regulations to come into force in February this year.
On enforcement, the Animal and Plant Health Agency’s egg marketing inspectors conduct risk-based and random checks on domestic and imported eggs at farms, wholesalers, distribution centres and packing centres. Local authorities also conduct checks at retailer level. The inspections ensure that only free-range eggs are labelled “free-range” during mandatory housing measures.
As to the necessity of mandatory housing measures, I receive regular updates and advice from the Chief Veterinary Officer about all decisions on when to introduce, amend or lift regional or national avian influenza prevention zones, which mandate enhanced biosecurity, and on when to extend them to include housing measures. In fact, I am meeting the Chief Veterinary Officer tomorrow to discuss a number of issues, including this one. Such decisions are always based on risk assessments containing the latest scientific and ornithological evidence and veterinary advice. Restrictions will therefore apply only while the risk remains.
In recent years, as I said earlier, the longest periods of mandatory housing measures being in place were in 2021-22, when it was for 22 weeks, and in 2022-23, when it was for 23 weeks. As I mentioned in my opening speech, the normal laying period of a productive free-range hen in the UK is around 90 weeks, so 23 weeks—the longest period— is actually a short period in that laying hen’s productive life.
Both noble Lords asked about the length of mandatory housing and its impact on the meaning of “free-range”. I fully understand why that question is being asked, but we do not have any intention of reviewing the definition of “free-range”. If we decide to do so, we will need to assess how amending our regulations would affect the UK internal market, our industry and our trade with the EU as our biggest export market.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked specifically about consultation. Defra ran a joint consultation with the Scottish Government. It was open between 9 January and 5 March 2024. This eight-week consultation was held to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the views of the industry and the general public on the intended purpose of the removal of the 16-week derogation period. It was an open consultation run on Citizen Space, and it was published and advertised through a press release and by contacting key stakeholders.
A question was also asked about reducing the risk of confusing or misleading consumers. We are encouraging retailers to place signage where eggs are displayed for sale that informs consumers of the imposition of mandatory housing measures, the impact that this will have on marketing free-range eggs and, notably, that the rest of the free-range criteria continue to be met, except for access to open-air runs. We believe that that kind of transparency will benefit consumers and is in the best interests of producers and retailers. The important thing is to have transparency, so that everybody understands the situation and can make purchasing decisions bearing it in mind.
In conclusion, I hope noble Lords fully understand the need for this instrument. Again, I thank them for their support. We need to enable free-range eggs to be marketed throughout the duration of any government-imposed mandatory housing measure to allow for trade to continue. The removal of this derogation will reduce additional logistical and financial pressure for egg producers, in the event of a mandatory housing measure.
Aligning with the devolved Governments and the EU also ensures that English producers are not put at a disadvantage if mandatory housing measures come into force. When they are put into place, we of course take the welfare of the hens into consideration. As I said before, it affects only a small part of laying hens’ productive life, so we are confident that animal welfare standards will be maintained and that consumers will be assured that the welfare of the laying hens is still a key priority during any mandatory housing measures.
We also must do our part to support our great British egg industry by ensuring that it has a level playing field with trading partners such as those in the EU, which have adopted similar provisions for their free-range egg producers. I hope that I have answered all the questions but will check Hansard to make sure. If I have missed anything, I will respond in writing.
Combined Authorities (Borrowing) and East Midlands Combined County Authority (Borrowing and Functions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Combined Authorities (Borrowing) and East Midlands Combined County Authority (Borrowing and Functions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before this House on 19 November 2024. The other place debated them on 8 January 2025. The regulations relate to the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, the East Midlands Combined County Authority and the North East Mayoral Combined Authority. Via Section 1 of the Local Government Act 2003, they will enable these authorities to borrow money for use against their relevant functions.
Presently, the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority and the North East Mayoral Combined Authority are already able to borrow against their transport functions, and the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority is able to borrow against its police and fire authority functions. The East Midlands, as a combined county authority, is unable to borrow against any of its functions.
The regulations before us will enable the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, the North East Mayoral Combined Authority and the East Midlands Combined County Authority to make use of borrowing powers for purposes relevant to their current and future functions. This will bring all three authorities in line with existing combined authorities and fulfil commitments made in their original devolution agreements.
On consent, I bring it to the Committee’s attention that all three authorities and their respective constituent councils have given consent to the conferral of borrowing powers. Similarly, the three authorities have agreed their respective debt caps with HM Treasury for 2024-25.
The regulations will also confer the East Midlands Combined County Authority’s constituent councils’ general power of competence for economic development and regeneration upon the combined county authority. The power will be held concurrently with the East Midlands constituent councils; the East Midlands Combined County Authority will be able to exercise the general power of competence only in relation to economic development and regeneration. The conferral of this power will fulfil the East Midlands’ original devolution agreement and enable the combined county authority to support local businesses and charities, as well as strengthening the area’s visitor economy.
As the conferral of the general power of competence for economic development and regeneration upon the East Midlands constitutes a new power, Section 48 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 applies. I can confirm that the requirements under Section 48 have been met, and that the East Midlands Combined County Authority and its constituent councils have consented to this conferral.
I come to the final part of these regulations, which will make amendments to the East Midlands Combined County Authority Regulations. Specifically, these are by: first, amending a typographical error so that the combined county authority is the local housing authority for housing needs, laundry facilities, shops, recreation grounds and housing purposes, and with respect to buildings acquired for housing purposes; secondly, enabling the mayor of the combined county authority to arrange for a committee of the combined county authority to exercise mayoral functions; thirdly, allowing non-constituent members of the combined county authority to have voting rights in an authority committee; and, finally, clarifying the voting arrangements for the combined county authority, including the requirement for a two-thirds majority to pass its mayoral budget. These amendments have been discussed with the East Midlands and its constituent members, with the councils and the combined county authority consenting to the amendments being made.
These regulations, which are supported by the authorities and their constituent councils, are a necessary step in fulfilling the original devolution agreements that had been reached. Devolution across England is fundamental to achieving the change that the public expect and deserve: growth; the more joined-up delivery of public services; and policies being done with communities, not to them. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, these are important changes to the devolution in the three mayoral authorities referenced by the Minister. In general, I and my party support devolution, of course, but we remain concerned about the mayoral system being adopted across England because of the way in which it concentrates too much authority and decision-making in the hands of one person. So, it is a “yes” to devolution, but mayoral authority may need some adjustment to make it more democratic, particularly as it is happening in this statutory instrument, with more powers being extended to mayoral authorities—hence budgets becoming enlarged, sometimes substantially. It seems to me that, if there is more capital borrowing, there will be a requirement to fund that borrowing, and there will therefore be an increase in the mayoral precept. My first question for the Minister is this: will there be a cap on either capital borrowing or mayoral precepts so that we understand the extent of the borrowing and the cost to the taxpayer?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this SI is a key step in advancing the devolution agenda, continuing the work set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 under the previous Conservative Government. As we have heard, it extends the borrowing power to the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, the North East Mayoral Combined Authority and the East Midlands Combined County Authority, empowering them to invest in critical areas, such as housing, regeneration, transport, education and health. This is part of a broader effort to decentralise power from Westminster and empower local authorities to shape their own futures, which His Majesty’s Official Opposition support.
In terms of economic development and regeneration, the regulations grant the EMCCA the general power of competence to support local businesses, tourism and other sectors. This is a notable shift, allowing the EMCCA and its constituent councils to carry out more comprehensive projects, including potentially accessing grants from central government, but we must ensure that, while these powers enable growth and development, there is robust accountability in place to ensure that resources are used effectively and in the best interests of those local communities.
A public consultation was conducted regarding the proposed changes, particularly focusing on the economic development and regeneration powers of the EMCCA. While the feedback was largely positive, with no significant objections, it is important to note that support for these new powers was not overwhelming. The absence of major concerns from stakeholders, including the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, suggests broad acceptance, although this should not be construed as unanimous approval.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. While the regulations aim to empower local authorities, several questions need to be answered to ensure these powers are used effectively and responsibly. On effective devolution, the work of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act promoted decentralisation, but how much autonomy will local authorities truly have under these regulations and at what point will central government oversight become excessive? On oversight, without a statutory review clause noted, how will the Government ensure accountability for these new borrowing powers? Are there safeguards in place to ensure that borrowing is managed prudently? Finally, on regional equity, could the new powers create disparities in regional development, potentially leaving smaller regions behind? How will the Government ensure that these powers, to be granted to certain areas, do not exclude or disproportionately benefit specific regions at the expense of others?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses for their participation and broad support for this SI. I will address some of the questions raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about the powers of mayors; I simply point to the success of existing mayoralties, delivering real things for their communities that have made a huge difference—in transport, skills and, in some places, health economies—in the areas where people live. Of course, you can only really do that if you are part of the community that you are representing, and the Government’s push for devolution is to help those local areas with skin in the game to have the powers and funding they need to drive their areas forward, particularly for growth but also for the conditions for the people in their areas.
We now have the Council of the Nations and Regions, which is a very important body for driving forward growth in our regions and nations. It is very important that every part of the UK has a seat around that table. That was the thinking behind the English devolution White Paper—it is still out for consultation, so we will see what comes back from that.
On capital borrowing, it will be the responsibility of mayors to drive growth in their areas, but I realise that borrowing will have to be paid back. Debt caps have been agreed with the Treasury. There has been an extensive process to agree them, and it has been done on the basis of what is affordable for those areas within their current envelopes.
The noble Baroness spoke about powers in relation to housing and planning. The English devolution White Paper set out strategic and investment powers, and possibly development corporations that mayors will have powers over. Planning powers on a day-to-day basis will stay with the constituent local authorities, which is right and proper because they are the people on the ground.
The noble Baroness also spoke about local government funding. The last person in the world who would underestimate issues in local government funding is me. I lived with them on a daily basis for many years. There have been substantial steps forward in funding for local government. In spite of a very difficult financial settlement this year, our Secretary of State has achieved significant additional funding for local government. Off the top of my head, I think the figure is £3.7 billion altogether for local government, and I am sure that officials will wave at me if I am wrong. We know that will not solve all the problems. We have to increase growth in the country to improve that situation more substantially. I have just been given a great big written note which I am supposed to read, while I talk at the same time, but that is not possible, so I will answer off the top of my head and, if I do not answer all noble Lords’ questions, I will respond later in writing.
On the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act and non-constituent members, the noble Baroness is quite right that we had substantial debates about them during the passage of the Bill. For one type of authority, there are not voting rights, but for the other type of authority, there are voting rights. As we move into the full picture of devolution, there will be further consideration of that. It is right that in mayoral combined authorities the upper tiers will take the decisions. How they decide to involve their constituent members will be broadly up to them. I have heard some really creative ideas, such as having key committees chaired by the constituent councils. As we move into a picture where we have all unitary authorities, I think we will continue to look at that and review it.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. The three of us are part of the LURB club who sat through many hours debating the Bill. I agree with her about what a key step this is and that the East Midlands Combined County Authority will need to undertake the more comprehensive projects that were set out in its devolution agreement, and it needs these powers to do that. Of course we need robust accountability for all of them.
There was some consideration of consultation, but extensive consultation had already taken place on this so, having looked extensively at what had been done before, it was felt that there was no need for further consultation. I take the noble Baroness’s point that support was not overwhelming, but there was enough support for us to feel comfortable that we could go ahead.
The question about autonomy is important. The way that we have set out the picture in the English devolution White Paper is that, the more established an authority becomes, the more autonomy it will have. It is perhaps the opposite way from what the noble Baroness suggested. Central government oversight will not overwhelm those authorities once they are established. Look at some of our more established mayoral authorities: Greater Manchester is always the standard example and it has extensive powers and funding to lead the way for growth, transport, skills and so on. We want to see that with the more established authorities. The more established they are, the more they prove themselves in terms of accountability of all kinds, especially financial, and the more powers they will get.
On accountability and safeguards for borrowing, that is why debt caps have been set with the Treasury. They have been looked at very carefully. The White Paper also sets out a wider process of accountability which may, depending on what comes back from the consultation, include something like local public accounts committees to have oversight at local level of what is going on within mayoral combined authorities.
I hope that answers all the questions but, if not, I will go through Hansard and make sure that we respond.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I asked how we would ensure regional equity.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness and apologise for missing that. She will have seen that one of the adjustments we have made to the local government finance settlement that came out just before Christmas was to slightly reshape the spending to meet need. There will be more news on that and more discussion about it as we go into the spending review in the spring.
That is an important point because having a champion for a local area on its own will not be enough. We need to make sure that we are addressing the key disparities, and there are some enormous disparities that we heard much about during the passage of the levelling up Bill in health, employment, standards of living, housing, and so on. The devolution aspect of this project means that local areas have far more autonomy to make the changes that will make a difference to them. The spending review will take all that into account and, I hope, reshape the way that the distribution of finance is done so that we make it more equitable generally. If there are further contributions to the spending review as we go through it, I will be pleased to hear them.
These regulations deliver on the commitment made in the devolution deals agreed with York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, the East Midlands Combined County Authority and the North East Mayoral Combined Authority to provide them with borrowing powers against their functions. The conferral of borrowing powers will provide all three authorities with the opportunity to further invest in their services and functions to the benefit of those who live and work across their geographies. In short, I believe the regulations and the powers that it confers will make a significant contribution to the future economic development and regeneration of York and North Yorkshire, the east Midlands and the north-east by providing those three authorities and all the people who look after them with the tools to shape their futures, driving growth and higher living standards across their geographies. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
House of Lords
Immigration: Human Rights
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chakrabarti
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to give greater priority to those with well-founded human rights claims in the immigration system.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
Any foreign national in the United Kingdom can make an asylum or human rights claim should they be unable to return to their country of origin. The UK has a proud history of protecting vulnerable people. All claims are decided on individual merits. Protection status is granted to those in need.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that clear Answer. Does he further agree with me that rather than demonising refugees while simultaneously increasing economic migration, including to very low-skilled employment, as the last Government did, His Majesty’s Government should prioritise those in genuine need of humanitarian protection or family reunification, including via safe legal routes to the UK?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. The UK has a proud history of providing protection to those who need it, in accordance with our international obligations under the refugee convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. She will know that we are proposing an immigration White Paper shortly, which will look at some of the issues she has mentioned. She will also know that the Government are extremely keen to ensure that we crack down on illegal migration and on those individuals who are brought to this country to undercut the working conditions, pay and other benefits of individuals who are here with asylum and refugee status, and who are approved and working, and also the population of the United Kingdom as a whole. She makes a very important point.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, in hearing claims, one of the biggest problems in the past has been the number of claims that go to appeal, therefore making the system much lengthier than it needs to be. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that, when an asylum case is heard, they get it right the first time rather than having to go further on in an appeal? I draw attention to my interests; I am supported by the RAMP project.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an extremely important point. It is not the Government’s intention to drag out the appeals procedure, or indeed the claims procedure. We have been trying since July to speed up the consideration of asylum claims. We have put additional staff in to do that. We want to get the decisions right first time, obviously, and that is an important part of the Government’s proposals to reduce both the asylum backlog and the dependency on hotels, which reached record levels under the previous Government.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in developing the helpful answer he just gave, can the Minister tell us what is the backlog of the outstanding number of cases? How long does it take to clear them on average? Rather than expecting people to subsist on around £7 a day, should we not look again at the opportunity to work while those claims are being considered?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The total number of asylum claims waiting for an initial decision has fallen by 22%, from 125,173 at the end of September 2023 to 97,170 at the end of September last year. That figure of 97,170 cases, which relate to approximately 133,000 people waiting for an initial decision, is down 22% on the previous year but is 13% higher than in the previous quarter. We are trying to get the number down for the very reason mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord German: that a large number of those cases will potentially go to appeal. That number includes individuals in hotels. The problem is that the previous Government put a moratorium on dealing with those issues. We are now trying to clear that backlog and give people a decision. Whether it is to stay or go, a decision is needed.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
Can the Minister reassure the House that any increased prioritisation of human rights claims will be accompanied by rigorous checks to ensure that individuals who pose a risk to national security are not admitted under such provisions? Furthermore, what steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to ensure that prioritising certain asylum claims does not place undue strain on local communities, public services or housing availability?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government want to secure a decision on asylum claims. In doing that, we also want to ensure that the security of the United Kingdom is paramount. Therefore, security checks will take place. It might be of interest to the noble Lord to know that 16,400 people have been removed from the United Kingdom since July of last year. That figure is up by 24% over the previous quarter, when he had stewardship of this office in his Government. We will ensure that, as he says, we look at the issues that successful asylum claimants and refugees experience in relation to work and employment. As my noble friend mentioned, it is important that, when those individuals are successful, they can get into work and contribute to some of the jobs required to be filled by people in this country today.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, there are likely to be more refugees because of climate change—people who are fleeing drought and floods. Do this Government see that, as a massive consumer still driving climate change, we have a duty to those refugees, as well as to refugees from war zones?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness that climate change is a potential driver. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has mentioned this on a number of occasions as well, and we agree that those issues drive asylum and refugee claims. She might be interested to know that the highest numbers of people claiming asylum last year were from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran. However, I accept her point; we need to address the wider climate change issue in relation to those who claim asylum or refugee status in this country
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I have been waiting 14 years to say to a Home Office Minister, “I like his answers”. The Minister mentioned a forthcoming White Paper on asylum and refugees. Can he use his influence to ensure that the rights of children who are asylum seekers to join their families here will be high up on the list?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am really pleased that the noble Lord likes the answers—we have been waiting 14 years to give them, and it is a great pleasure to be here. We are progressing on the matter of child migrants; there are specific issues that we will look at on that. The number of unaccompanied child migrants is currently approximately 4,000, which is still too high. We need to look at the points that the noble Lord has mentioned. I hope that I will be able to give him some satisfactory answers in the future.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, about eight years ago, we had a crisis in Syria. Some 3,000 unaccompanied children were refused admission into the UK, even though some of us had worked hard to try to get them homes. Can the Minister tell us whether there is any information whatever about what happened to those kids? We would all be happy to know that.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for that question. He will know from previous discussions and debates on the issue of unaccompanied children that we have identified that around 90 children have gone missing. It is the priority of the Government to find out where they are. The prime responsibility for their safeguarding initially fell on Kent County Council. It is an important issue and one we need to address. As part of future considerations, we will continue to do that.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
When looking at refugees, could the Minister include victims of modern slavery with positive decisions and those who are victims of forced marriage? I declare an interest in the register.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble and learned Baroness makes an extremely important point. Victims of modern slavery should be central to any policy determination. This Government will support the efforts of the previous Government and the previous Home Secretary—who is now a Member of this House, the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead—who introduced what is now the Modern Slavery Act. We will ensure that those rights are upheld and that victims of modern slavery have that aspect of their lives taken into consideration when their asylum or refugee status is considered.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, in view of the increasing threats to journalists in different parts of the world, are the Government contemplating action to give effect to the recommendation of the Media Freedom Coalition, of which the UK was a founding member, that an emergency visa scheme should be introduced for journalists and other defenders of human rights at serious risk of harm?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I understand the point the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, makes. As I said, the Government will prioritise and look at the most urgent cases first. If there are urgent reasons why a journalist’s case needs to be examined over and above anybody else’s, they will be considered. The issue of priority is there for the Government to consider.
Driving Tests: Secondary Market
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to ban the secondary market in driving tests.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency has announced measures to review the driving test booking system. It launched a call for evidence on 18 December seeking views on the current rules to book tests. This will lead to consultation on improving processes with potential future legislative changes. On 6 January, the same organisation also introduced tougher terms and conditions for driving instructors booking and managing car driving tests for their pupils.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I am grateful for that Answer, but I think the answer to my Question is no—although it was very skilfully camouflaged. This is a racket. Middlemen are hoovering up slots on the DVSA website and then charging learner drivers a premium to access them. I googled this morning “Book your driving test earlier”. I got eight hits on the first page, with lots of inducements: “You can receive a test a month earlier than you would usually find on the DVSA website” and “Get your driving licence faster with early test bookings”. Another one said, “Book a driving test quicker with our booking system”. Trustpilot reveals that some of those are scams, with people paying £90 and not getting a test. Last month, the previous Secretary of State said:
“we will review and improve the rules around booking tests, including”,
as the Minister has just said,
measures to ban the resale of driving test appointments”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/12/24; col. 52WS.]
Why do the Government not just get on with it and ban this racket?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his research. He is right that there are some people making money out of this and they should not do it. My Answer was not just no; one of the considerations in working through what needs to be done is that we do not inadvertently make it more difficult for legitimate people looking for tests to book them. Less than one-quarter of total test bookings in September last year had been swapped from one licence to another, which means that swapping affects only a minority of tests.
The real answer is to reduce the length of time it takes to get a test. Currently in England, it is nearly 21 weeks. The Government have a target to reduce that to seven weeks by the end of December this year. For this purpose, we are recruiting 450 extra driving examiners on top of the 1,456 full-time equivalents there already are. That will make a very substantial difference, with the aim of obviating any activity as he describes and getting people tests when they can take them.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, given the disparities in driving test availability that the Minister has just mentioned, will he consider incentivising local authorities to help address these shortages by supporting additional mobile driving-test centres in areas with high demand or limited access?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. The issue with the availability of tests is very substantially related to the availability of driving examiners, rather than the locations in which they are conducted. As I said, the additional 33% increase on top of the current number of full-time equivalent driving examiners is the thing that will make a real difference.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, the current situation is grossly unsatisfactory for learner drivers. The noble Lord who asked the Question referred to a cost of £99; I have knowledge of someone who paid £400 simply to get a local, quick driving test. Many people are suffering because they need that. Can the Minister tell us, as well as recruitment, what his department is doing to ensure that industrial relations are better between driving examiners and the department, in order to get us back to the situation—which we have never got back to—as it was pre-Covid?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
One consideration in improving the relationship between driving examiners and the DVSA is to have enough of them to conduct tests on a basis where people do not feel excluded or significantly delayed. It is not the only action the Government are taking: my honourable friend the Future of Roads Minister made a Statement in the other place on 18 December with a seven-point plan, all of which is designed both to help people get tests when they need them and to reduce the amount of time it takes between applying for a test and actually taking one.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend who, after a lifetime of bicycling, offers greater advocacy for learner drivers than the Government appear interested in doing—possibly he is looking for a driving test himself at this late stage. During the previous Government, in the last 18 months, the DVSA issued 283 warnings and 746 suspensions, and closed 689 alleged businesses all over this scam. None of this enforcement activity has been mentioned by the Minister. Has it been dropped? Has the DVSA gone slack under a Labour Administration, while they are focusing on consultations and reworkings of processes?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
As a matter of fact, the statistics I can quote back to him are that 344 warnings and 791 suspensions have been issued, and 811 business accounts have been closed since the new Government took office. I think that comprehensively demonstrates that there has been no such slackening off and that the DVSA is on top of this. The real answer, however, is to reduce the amount of time it takes to get the test in the first place so that people do not feel very early in their learning journey that they have to book a test long in advance of it taking place. The Government’s aim is to get that down to seven weeks by recruiting a large quantity of driving examiners, to whom I previously referred.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, does the Minister recall that there was a civil servant who drove all the way to Barnard Castle to test his eyesight for driving? Can the Minister take time out from his very busy schedule to advise Mr Dominic Cummings that he should stick to driving and improving his driving, rather than trying to undermine the elected Government of this country in association with Elon Musk?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I have no need to do that; my noble friend has just done it for me.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has just said that 25% of tests appear to go through some of these third-party sites. My noble friend has also said that some of these sites are genuine scams. Why is it that any driving test can be booked anywhere except on the official DVSA website? Why can he not just sort that?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
One of my colleagues said, sotto voce, “For the same reason that you did not”, which is perhaps not an unreasonable point.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
This system has to allow people to book tests at the time that they need them. I did not say that 25% had been through one of these websites; I said that a quarter of total test bookings had been swapped from one licence to another. Of course, the reason why you would go to a driving instructor who has a number of pupils is that a driving instructor can apply for a test for one pupil and then transfer it to another if the second pupil is making faster progress than the first. That is how it should be. The number of people going through these agencies is clearly more than zero and, since it is, we should do something about it. But we have to do that in a way that does not prevent driving instructors from running decent businesses and also allows people to change their bookings when they need to. That is what takes time and care, and that is what the DVSA is working on.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, would it not be possible just to allow driving instructors to book on behalf of someone else and make it illegal for anyone else to do it?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. Many tests are booked by the applicants themselves, and there cannot be any reason why you could not be able to do that, as a potential holder of a driving licence. Equally, driving instructors have to be able to run a business, and one of the benefits of going to a registered driving instructor is that they have some flexibility in tests for their pupils.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, secondary markets almost always develop as a consequence of state failure, and this is no exception. We all know people affected—I have two children who have been. The state failure, and the explosion in these websites, began with lockdown. Is not the ultimate answer to get these and indeed other government employees to come back to the office?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The one thing that driving examiners cannot do is work in an office.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
That must be self-evident. The real answer to this whole issue is to reduce the amount of time it takes from an application to the test occurring. If, as we expect, we can reduce that with the recruitment of 450 driving examiners, the first of which are about to start doing driving tests—and if we can reduce it from the current 21 weeks in England to seven weeks by December—we will have obviated the problem.
National Insurance: Charity Sector
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sater
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the increase in National Insurance contributions on the charity sector.
Baroness Sater (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer your Lordships to my registered interests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
The Government highly value the charity sector and its positive contribution across society. However, as noble Lords are aware, we have had to take a number of difficult decisions on tax, welfare and spending to fix the public finances, fund public services and restore economic stability. The Government publish tax information and impact notes for tax policy changes, which give a clear explanation of the policy objectives and an assessment of the impacts. This was published on 13 November 2024.
Baroness Sater (Con)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. In an open letter to the Chancellor, co-signed by 7,361 charities, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations gave as its initial estimate of the impact of the proposed increase in the employer national insurance contribution on charities an additional annual bill of £1.4 billion. This will have a devastating impact on the sector and the services it provides. Does the Minister agree that we have to protect our valuable charity sector by exempting it from this damaging national insurance increase in the same way that the Government are protecting the public sector from the impact of these increases?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I have not seen the workings out where the sector arrived at the figure, but I am not trying to play down its concerns about the NICs increase. It is a usual approach for the Government to support the public sector with additional employer NICs costs, as was the case with the previous Government’s health and social care levy. The Government have committed to provide support for departments and other public sector employers only. I know that Ministers have met voluntary sector representatives and are aware of the sector’s concerns. There are other measures within the suite of the tax regime—including exemptions from business rates, for example—that are among the most generous of anywhere in the world.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister explain why this Government have decided to tax charities through national insurance contributions and yet to persist at the same time with the Conservative Government’s unfair tax relief to banks, using Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt’s cuts in bank surcharges—an estimated £4 billion a year in effect given away due to cuts in the bank levy since 2016? Why not return those taxes to 2016 levels, stop this tax rise on charities and tax the banks instead?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Without wanting to repeat what my noble friend Lord Livermore would have said had he been here, we inherited a £22 billion black hole. I appreciate the sector’s concern, but, regrettably, as part of the Autumn Budget, the Government had to take a number of difficult decisions on tax and welfare spending. I know the Chancellor highlighted this decision as one of the hardest she had to make in respect of the Autumn Budget.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the impact of national insurance contributions on the charity sector can be alleviated by levying national insurance on capital gains and dividends?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
That is a matter for the Chancellor, and I will pass on my noble friend’s suggestion.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, the state contracts out important family services work in prisons to charities, as they are more trusted by families and by the prisoners they are visiting. However, these contracts are so skimpily financed that increased, unbudgeted NI costs will likely mean many charities are forced to hand them back to the Government. Will additional funds be made available to bridge that shortfall so that agreed work can be delivered without risking charities’ financial integrity?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord gives a powerful example of the valuable work that charities undertake. It is hugely difficult for this Government to find ways of filling the £22 billion black hole. The Charities Minister has met representatives and we are keen to work with and hear from individual charities where they have concerns, so if the noble Lord has specific examples that he would like to share with me, I ask him to get in touch.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, has the Minister received an apology from the Opposition for crashing the economy, driving public services to the worst state they have ever been in and for not coming forward with any solutions as to how we can address these problems? They left us to make difficult decisions that we do not want to make, but it is their mess.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point. I have not personally received an apology. I would not necessarily expect such an apology to come to me; I would expect it to be made to the nation.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, in the middle of this political shenanigans going on, the average hospice in this country will be hit by a £200,000 funding gap based on the Government’s national insurance contribution rise. What advice would the Minister give to managers of hospices who are now looking at either laying off staff or reducing services?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord will be well aware of the Secretary of State for Health’s commitment to hospices, including supporting the hospice sector with a £100 million boost for adult and children’s hospices to ensure they have the best physical environment for care and £26 million to support children and young people’s hospices. I am not playing down how hard it is going to be for organisations to find the additional revenue, but not all organisations will find that their NICs bill increases.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register as a trustee of several charities. Can the Minister say what discussions she has had with her Secretary of State about the presumed job losses there will be in the sector and the lack of delivery caused by this increase in national insurance contributions?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I think we need not to talk ourselves into a corner on this, where we assume that things are going to be as dire as they might be. In response to the question put to my noble friend Lady Taylor, who is here today, let me say that we would not have made the choice unless we had to, but there is a need to protect small businesses and charities, which is why we have more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500 and extended it to all eligible employers. The OBR expects about 250,000 employers to gain from the changes and a considerable number to see no change at all, so more than half of all businesses, including charities, will not see the rise that the noble Lord suggests will happen.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, having worked with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux some years ago, I am very conscious that most bureaux operate on an absolute shoestring. Will the Government consider exempting these small bureaux and other small charitable organisations from the national insurance rise? Many of them simply will not be able to deal with it and they will go out of business.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I hope it is reassuring to the noble Baroness that the smallest charities and organisations should not see a rise in their national insurance contributions. If she has examples of citizens advice bureaux where they think this is not the case, I ask her to let me know. I am hugely aware of and in awe of the work that the citizens advice bureaux do in supporting some of our most vulnerable citizens.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the increase in NICs is highly regressive and the very general impact note does not make that clear. It disproportionately affects charities employing those on lower incomes or working part-time and, unfortunately, the employment allowance barely scratches the surface of the problem that has been created. Does the Minister think it is right to target the lower-paid in this way through the NICs changes?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My understanding of the NICs change is that it is about employer increases. This Government have not increased the tax paid by workers, including national insurance.
Adult Social Care: Long-term Workforce Plan
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pitkeathley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to develop a long-term workforce plan for adult social care, similar to the NHS workforce plan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, as the social care system in this country is failing, we are therefore launching an independent commission into social care to gain cross-party consensus and lay the foundations for a national care service. The commission will look at how we recruit, retain and recognise the workforce, building on work that is already under way to provide a career structure, to give care professionals greater skills and to legislate for the first ever fair pay agreements.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that response and remind her that, when it comes to social care, time really is of the essence. Does she agree that one of the real problems we face is the great difference in status between those who are employed in the NHS and those who are employed in social care? Could next steps, therefore, including the work of the commission, include looking towards developing a workforce that is much more flexible, so that it can actually work across both disciplines—for example, working with a patient in hospital and following them when they are discharged into social care—for the benefit of patients, users and their families?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend is right that it is important that we have a workforce built around the needs of patients, rather than patients having to be worked around the needs of the workforce. I certainly hope and intend that, as we go forward, we will see much more of this flexibility. I share her view that time is of the essence and I also know that my noble friend and your Lordships’ House also understand that it is very important that we get this right.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the turnaround rate for social care staff was about 30% last year, so retention is clearly an important issue. However, the Government have not helped the situation since July by cutting £115 million from the adult social care training budget. What will the Government do to mitigate this cut and try to help retention within such a vital service?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Retention is absolutely crucial. I was looking—as I know the noble Lord also does—at the vacancy rates and they are currently running at some 131,000. However, I was interested to note that they are not actually the best measure of capacity, or lack of it, because those vacancies can reflect new roles and short-term vacancies because of anticipated staff turnover. So I have had to rein myself in when looking at the relevance of vacancy rates.
On retention, there is a whole range of factors. In the immediate, I say to the noble Lord that we are professionalising the workforce by expanding the national career structure and have developed and launched a level 2 adult social care certificate qualification.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, as the Government and the NHS introduce new workforce patterns to take account of changes, surely they should also take account of advances in technology. Recent years have seen the successful testing of virtual wards in the NHS to treat and monitor patients who can be discharged from hospital but who require further care. They can be monitored in their home, freeing up capacity in hospitals. Given this, what are the Government and NHS doing to extend virtual social care to monitor care for social care patients? It would allow them to remain in their home for longer, where they are more comfortable, and it could be one of the many ways to alleviate workforce shortages in the social care sector.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I myself have seen some tremendous examples of the use of technology in allowing people to be in the right environment for themselves and their situation. I assure the noble Lord that we are continuing to work to develop medical technology, not just getting it rolled out and applicable but developing new medtech where necessary.
Perhaps I could use this opportunity to make an allied point. We have also published new guidance on safe delegation to care staff, which I hope will also help professionalise the workforce. We are working to support that across the country. That includes, for example, having care staff taking blood pressure. These are simple but obvious measures that I think work for everybody.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will realise that the workforce in social care is not as varied as in the National Health Service. However, that is not to underestimate the fact that there are staff working in clients’ homes, day centres, residential units and office-based organisations. Will she ensure that, when the workforce is being considered in social care, it will be considered in the round and not just in a narrow way?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I can give that assurance to the noble Lord, and I am glad he has identified to your Lordships’ House the wide range of circumstances in which the workforce might be. For the benefit of your Lordships’ House, I should add that, in their manifesto, the Government made a commitment to
“ensure the publication of regular, independent workforce planning, across health and social care”.
We are currently developing advice on the options about how to fulfil this commitment for adult social care, which will take account of the point the noble Lord made.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, one of the major problems is that most care workers are employed by privately owned care homes, both large and small. Many of these employees are on zero-hour contracts—it is a mess. How does one ensure that we have a national workforce plan if we have all these workers in various organisations? We must bring them all together and have a centrally regulated qualification that is nationally recognised. I hope I am not boring my noble friend by asking the same question: when are we going to get a nationally recognised qualification and registration?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend is never boring and certainly does not bore this Minister. I very much take the point about the difference between the social care workforce and the NHS workforce, because the majority of the jobs in social care, as my noble friend says, are in the independent sector and the Department of Health and Social Care does not have the levers to ensure a development pipeline. However, this is a challenge for us to meet, not something to turn away from: it is a matter of working across the whole of the workforce, no matter where they are from.
On professionalisation, I agree that we need to enhance skills, because care needs to be of the right quality. I mentioned earlier the development of the care workforce pathway, which is a new career structure, and also that the level 2 adult social care certificate qualification has been confirmed.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, will the long-term workforce plan include the voluntary sector and the army of unpaid carers, such as family, friends and neighbours—in other words, care in the community rather than in care homes?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The workforce plan will be about employed members of staff. On unpaid carers, I am glad to remind your Lordships’ House that, from April, we will be increasing the carer’s allowance weekly earnings limit from £151 to £196, which is the largest increase in the earnings limit since the carer’s allowance was introduced in 1976. I hope that gives some indication of the mode of direction of this Government in respect of unpaid carers.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, was the Minister listening to the answers to the previous question on the problems with the charity sector? Does she believe that the restrictions on revenue in the charity sector will have an effect on her department as well?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I was indeed listening very closely to the questions put to my noble friend, and have been asked them myself on a number of occasions in this House. On national insurance contributions, the Chancellor did take that into account when deciding the funding for the Department of Health and Social Care, and made available up to £3.7 billion of additional funding for social care authorities in 2025-26. In addition to other further uplifts, I want to identify the £86 million uplift in disabled facility grants that will promote independence and allow some 7,800 adaptations to be made to homes in the very near future.
Great British Energy Bill
Monday 13th January 2025
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Great British Energy Bill 2024-26 View all Great British Energy Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 43-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (9 Jan 2025)
22:08 - Division on Baroness Williams of Trafford’s Motion - Ayes: 122 / Noes: 120 - Motion agreed.
Lord Offord of Garvel
“(1A) The Secretary of State must give a specific direction to Great British Energy that it must report to the Secretary of State on the progress made by Great British Energy towards the strategic priority of reducing household energy bills by £300 in real terms by 1 January 2030. (1B) A report under subsection (1A) must include a projection of how Great British Energy’s activities are likely to affect consumer energy bills over the following five years. (1C) A report under subsection (1A) must be made within two years of the day on which this Act is passed, and annually thereafter.(1D) The Secretary of State must lay a report made under subsection (1A) before Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require an annual report to be laid before Parliament on how Great British Energy’s activities are contributing towards taking £300 off consumer energy bills.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 59 and to speak to Amendments 60, 61, 63, 65, 69, 70, 72 and 76 in my name.
Amendment 59 requires an annual report on how Great British Energy’s activities are contributing to reducing consumer household energy bills by £300. This frequently repeated claim, that the purpose of Great British Energy is to save each household £300 on their energy bills, seems conspicuously absent from the legislation, which states that the “objects” of Great British Energy are only to facilitate, encourage and participate in the production of energy,
“the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions … improvements”
in
“energy efficiency, and … measures for ensuring security of … supply”.
It is imperative that the Government be held accountable for their promises. The Secretary of State has reiterated that clean energy will deliver cheaper energy, and this has been repeated in this House, in the other place, on the campaign trail, in videos and on leaflets. It is therefore important to enshrine accountability for that ambition in the Bill that creates the institution of Great British Energy. We must introduce a mechanism by which the Secretary of State and Great British Energy are accountable to households for their pledge to reduce bills through investment in renewables, and for their specific promise to reduce household bills by £300 per household.
Amendment 60 in my name also seeks to introduce a mechanism by which the Secretary of State and Great British Energy are held accountable. Amendment 60 holds the Government to their word by requiring Great British Energy to report to the Secretary of State on the progress made towards creating 650,000 new jobs—another election pledge.
Amendment 61 in my name introduces a specific strategic priority for Great British Energy to develop UK energy supply chains and requires that an annual report be produced on the progress of meeting this strategic priority. It is essential that our transition to net zero does not increase our reliance on foreign states, particularly hostile foreign states. I am sure we can all agree that we want the so-called “clean energy” transition to utilise British industry, whereby offshore wind turbines and solar panels are produced by domestic manufacturing companies and erected by British workers. It is with that in mind that I bring Amendments 61 and 76.
Amendment 61 requires a fixed percentage of materials sourced or purchased as part of any investment made by Great British Energy to be produced in the UK and supplied from UK manufacturers. The transition to net zero presents our country with a great opportunity for investment and job creation; we must ensure that it is domestic companies and the British people who benefit from the increased investment promised by Great British Energy.
We must not outsource our energy transition. Amendment 72 in my name requires Great British Energy to report on the impact it has on imported energy. The Government’s target to achieve clean energy by 2030 must not increase our reliance on imported energy, which risks jeopardising our energy security and exposing British consumers to price spikes. It is already concerning, given that the hike in the windfall tax to 78% is already cutting investment in UK natural resources and oil and gas production, and will make the UK increasingly dependent on imported supply.
The distribution and transmission of electricity is intrinsic to the production of clean energy as set out in Clause 3. It is therefore critical that Great British Energy should take all reasonable steps to ensure that access to the national grid is ready for any energy infrastructure invested in by Great British Energy, and Amendment 65 in my name works to do just that.
The “Great Grid Upgrade” is without doubt a necessary component of our journey to net zero by 2050. Currently, new energy infrastructure—new wind turbines and new solar farms—have a significant wait time for grid connection. That is why the previous Government commissioned the Winser review, setting out recommendations on how to reduce this timeframe. The previous Government accepted advice on all areas—all 43 recommendations—to ensure that we could continue the work to drive down construction and connection times.
Despite the work that we on these Benches initiated in government by accepting these recommendations, the timeframe for obtaining grid connections for a new project can be as long as 10 years. In fact, a project without grid connectivity today might not come online until the mid-2030s, well beyond the Government’s ambitious goal of grid decarbonisation by 2030. It is therefore essential that the development of the national grid coincide with the development of renewable energy production.
Amendments 69 and 70, in my name, require GBE to report to the Secretary of State on the impact of each investment on carbon emissions and on the progress made by GBE towards reducing those emissions. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Petitgas and Lord Trenchard, whose Amendment 80 would require Great British Energy to produce a quarterly unaudited and an annual audited report, including on the rate of returns for and the carbon emissions resulting from each investment. I support my noble friends’ amendment, which neatly covers both emissions resulting from, and the rate of return of, each investment. I expect that the latter will be debated thoroughly in the following group.
Supposedly, Great British Energy is to be established to drive the Government’s clean energy by 2030 goal and net-zero target, yet the Bill makes no provision for reporting on the impact of each investment on carbon emissions, which is critical if the Government are to achieve that pledge. Amendments 69 and 70 in my name, and Amendment 80 in my noble friend Lord Petitgas’s name, seek to rectify that, as does Amendment 85A in my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom’s name, which I wholeheartedly support.
Finally, I return to the strategic priorities of Great British Energy as set out under Clause 5. As I have discussed previously, it is critical that we have sufficient oversight of and reporting measures on the financial assistance provided to Great British Energy. In that vein, Amendment 63 requires Great British Energy to report on the projected cost of fulfilling all its strategic priorities.
I trust that the Minister has listened to and carefully considered the array of issues raised in the amendments in my name and in those in my noble friends’. We must not lose sight of the sweeping powers that the Bill provides to the Secretary of State in issuing Great British Energy with directions over which Parliament will have no oversight. We must give due consideration to the purpose and impact of each direction. I beg to move.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 77 in my name
“would require … 75 per cent of all materials purchased as part of an investment by Great British Energy”
to be produced in the UK. I will speak only briefly, as my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel’s Amendment 61, for which I thank him, similarly requires a fixed percentage of materials sourced or purchased as part of any investment made by Great British Energy to be produced in the UK and supplied by UK manufacturers. However, I will make some additional points.
It is essential that the race to clean energy by 2030 and net zero by 2050 benefit British industry. As my noble friend Lord Offord explained, we must not outsource our energy transition. I draw attention to the warning from the former head of MI6 that the courting of Chinese investment risks handing power to Beijing. Up to 40% of solar panels in Britain are produced by companies linked to forced Uighur labour in eastern China. Furthermore, Chinese businesses have funded or provided parts for at least 14 of the 15 offshore wind projects in, or about to be in, operation. Firms owned by the Chinese Government have large stakes in three projects, together producing the energy for 2 million homes. While the Government’s energy agenda is overly ambitious, it could benefit the domestic manufacturing industry if we look to prioritise British industry over that of foreign states.
I am sure that the Government will have no hesitation in supporting my amendment, considering that the Secretary of State has repeatedly said that Great British Energy will deliver jobs for the British people. Can the Minister tell the Committee what impact Great British Energy will have on British industry? Will he confirm that the Government’s clean energy targets will not increase our reliance on foreign supply chains?
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I declare my nuclear power-related interests, as stated in the register. I support my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel, who has moved Amendment 59 which, together with other amendments in this group, seeks to align the objectives of GBE with claims made by the Government before the general election as to what GBE would achieve for consumers.
I think it is fair to say that the pledge to cut consumers’ bills by £300 per household was a specific promise, and it was repeated often. I understand that the £300 pledge was made on the back of a report by the energy think tank Ember, but that it was based on the energy price cap that applied in 2023. Is it not also based on the less ambitious plan for transition to net zero, to which the previous Government had committed? However, the previous Government had not planned on setting up GBE. Will the Minister please explain where the savings figure of £300 came from, and whether the Government still support it? In that case, is it not right that it should be made a specific objective of GBE?
Will the Minister also tell the Committee whether my noble friend Lord Frost was correct in his warning, in his debate on 14 November, that NESO’s figures predicting the cost of electricity generated from offshore wind were rather optimistic at £44 per megawatt hour? My noble friend told your Lordships that recent payments to offshore wind farms under contracts for difference suggest that the real cost may be three times as much, at some £150 per megawatt hour. If that is so, NESO’s report on the Government’s plan to decarbonise the grid by 2030 may need some adjustment.
I still do not understand why the Government choose to subsidise only wind and solar schemes rather than nuclear. If consumers are required to subsidise only intermittent sources of energy, it follows that the total energy mix will be disproportionately dependent on intermittent sources. We need much more nuclear, which should not be seen as an add-on, to ensure that we can keep the lights on when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. It should be seen as a core and important part of our firm baseload energy system.
Indeed, we were once global leaders in nuclear power, but we now have a severe shortage of skilled workers with experience in the sector. Those we have are relatively old, and we need to train many more younger workers in nuclear technologies, and rebuild the supply chain. I am talking not just of gigawatt scale large plants like Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C, but small SMRs and AMRs which are flexible and very cost effective. That is why I have added my name to Amendment 61, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Offord. We must ensure that we benefit from the so-called clean energy transition, which is particularly relevant in the case of nuclear technologies. It is right that GBE, as a publicly owned company, should report annually to the Secretary of State on progress in re-establishing supply chains as a strategic priority.
There is not much about nuclear in the Government’s new publication Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, published on 13 December. It refers to GBE’s founding statement published in July. That document explains GBE’s five functions, of which building supply chains in “every corner of the UK” is listed fourth out of five, in two short paragraphs. “Working with GBN” is listed last, in a short single paragraph.
I have also added my name in support of Amendment 63. It is essential that GBE must understand what fulfilling its strategic priorities will cost—otherwise, how can the Secretary of State exercise his powers of direction in a responsible manner? Similarly, Amendment 65 would ensure that GBE must not waste money by investing in schemes that are too far from a grid connection or have no cost-effective access to the grid and no realistic prospect of acquiring one in a timely manner.
I have also added my name to Amendments 69 and 70 in the name of my noble friend, who has eloquently explained to your Lordships the purposes of these amendments: namely, to require GBE to consider carbon emissions from each investment and to do the same in respect of its whole investment portfolio, reporting to Parliament annually. We may not agree on the absolute prioritisation, regardless of cost and damage to our industrial base, of the elimination of all fossil fuels from our energy generation system, but we can all agree that it is a good thing that public money should be spent in such a way that increases clean power at the expense of less clean power—that is, as long as the benefits gained justify the cost. The Committee will have a chance to debate this matter in the next group.
Among the investments that GBE will make, I very much hope there will be some investments in nuclear power schemes, particularly in SMR and AMR technologies. As the Minister told your Lordships in his briefing before Second Reading, he does not expect GBE to make investments in nuclear, at least initially. I think this is because the Government think that it is not possible to deploy any of these new technologies before the 2030 target for clean power. The 13-page press release accompanying the release of the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan contains “nuclear” only once, explaining that the Government’s clean power mission is the solution to this crisis,
“by sprinting to clean, homegrown energy, including renewables and nuclear”.
But the action plan’s sparse references to nuclear comprise only a single reference to the GBN-led SMR programme, and a reference to the extension to the life of the four existing AGR reactors as a stopgap measure. I cannot find any evidence that the authors of the action plan see nuclear as playing much of a role in sprinting to clean energy.
I have also put my name to Amendment 72, which requires an annual report by GBE of its impact on the amount of imported energy. In preparing for this debate on Saturday morning, I took a look at the National Grid’s energy dashboard, which revealed at 10.15 am that we were drawing 14.7% of our electricity from imports, which is too high. Indeed, the name of the Minister’s own department emphasises the importance of energy security. The winter sun was shining brightly, but solar contributed only 4.3% and wind a mere 8.8%, less than the 11.4% generated by our existing, ageing nuclear power stations. Noble Lords will appreciate that the electricity grid accounts for around 20% of total energy consumption, which means that wind power on Saturday morning was supplying around 1.76% of the country’s total energy requirement, and solar less than 1%, even on a sunny day. Overreliance on intermittent energy sources does not help energy security—quite the reverse.
I have added my name to Amendment 80, tabled by my noble friend Lord Petitgas. Of course, it must be right that GBE should be required to produce quarterly accounts and audited accounts annually. As far as the requirements for reports on carbon emissions are concerned, the amendment duplicates Amendments 69 and 70. If the Minister can assure the Committee that the Government will bring their own amendments to satisfy these requirements, I am sure that such duplication can be avoided.
Lastly, I support Amendment 85A in the name of my noble friend Lord Hamilton, which seeks to achieve substantially the same result. Amendment 80 is also necessary to ensure proper scrutiny of GBE’s decision-making process with regard to its investments. Will the Minister explain his view on GBE’s role as a potential investor in joint public and private partnerships?
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 74 in this group is in my name. It seeks to ensure, in the creation of GB Energy and the delivery of its objectives, a specific consideration of decarbonisation challenges faced by the 1.7 million households in the UK that are not connected to the gas grid—I declare an interest in that I am one. An awful lot of other people—including many noble Lords opposite, I am sure—are not connected to gas and will have to use electric. The amendment provides for direction to be given to GB Energy to review the decarbonisation challenges that these households face but also, importantly, to consider the solutions that exist to help them do so practically and affordably. They include the value of adopting renewable liquid fuels.
Taking into account the recommendations of GB Energy, the amendment would also require the Secretary of State to implement existing measures within the Energy Act 2023 that would help off-grid households—namely, to hold a consultation on the benefits of introducing a renewable liquid heating fuel obligation or RLHFO. This measure secured all-party support in the last Parliament but has not yet been implemented. I hope that my noble friend will look at this again.
To go into a bit more detail, the challenges facing off-grid households, which are mostly in the countryside, are their existing energy efficiency, location, age and construction. As many noble Lords will understand, this means that these households will face substantial challenges to decarbonise using technology based on electrification. The research undertaken by the department and the Scottish Government shows that installing a heat pump in such a house, including full retrospective costs and the cost of servicing, will cost off-grid homes on average over £21,000, which is unaffordable for many.
I am concerned that there will also be an impact on the local grid. We tend to forget about the local grid. If everything is to be heated by electricity, placing unmanageable pressures on the grid, we need to have a good grid. In the National Grid’s Future Energy Scenarios report, the scenario “Leading the Way” has estimated that to achieve clean power by 2030, 1 million properties in the UK will require a solution other than electric heating, due to the high cost of local networks.
There are probably several solutions, but the one I want to describe briefly is that renewable liquid fuel can make decarbonisation affordable and practical for off-grid consumers, significantly reducing emissions and delivering on the carbon budget. It will help deliver clean power by 2030 and the commitment that no one who does not want to will be forced to remove a boiler.
In Cornwall, where I live, a fuel distributor has successfully created the country’s first renewable liquid fuel village, in the coastal village of Kehelland, converting homes, businesses and the local church and schools to a fuel called HVO. It has been a fantastic success in helping residents to reduce their carbon emissions and allowing them to play their part.
I appreciate that my noble friend’s ministerial colleague in the other place gave evidence on this issue the other week, but she referred to issues of supply and cost to consumers. I was concerned to hear that the department may be delaying the Energy Act consultation. I hope that is not the case, because this consultation needs to go ahead. I know that the industries that support off-grid households found that she said something rather surprising, given that there is clear evidence that should reassure my noble friend and his colleagues.
Lord Petitgas (Con)
My Lords, I rise to discuss Amendment 80. It proposes that GBE be required to produce both quarterly unaudited and annual audited reports. These should disclose the rate of returns for each investment and the carbon emissions resulting from each investment. This amendment is a matter not only of transparency but of accountability. It will ensure that taxpayers are fully informed about how their money is being spent.
Let me address first the rationale behind requiring disclosure of carbon emissions. This is standard practice. Indeed, the Secretary of State has compared GBE to Ørsted in Denmark; Octopus in the UK is another possible comparison. Both companies measure scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, following certain protocols. These align with the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures and EU taxonomy. Will the Minister confirm whether GBE will follow the same practice and taxonomy?
The principle behind the amendment in my name on financial returns is abundantly clear: if the Government are going to use public funds to invest in energy projects, they must be duty-bound to report the results of those investments. This proposal is an essential part of providing insight and knowledge of the operation of GBE. It is a principle of good governance to avoid taxpayers writing blank checks; it aligns with the notion that taxpayers should know not only how their money is being spent but how it is being invested and managed to ensure it delivers adequate returns.
I remind the Committee that GBE will be not an operating company but an investing company owning minority stakes in a large number of projects of different sizes. This will be complex, and the only way to track and measure performance will be to look at individual investment returns. I also remind the Committee that there is no investment committee yet set up and no reference—it looks as if the Secretary of State, ultimately, is in charge of making decisions on these investments. I have never seen this in an investment company. No private equity firm would be run like this.
Operating companies produce classic annual reports and accounts, but GBE will be more akin to a permanent capital venture fund. Therefore, its annual report and accounts really should be supplemented by disclosure of the rates of return on its investments.
I will address a comment made by the Secretary of State during the Bill’s Second Reading in the other place. He made an interesting argument about the potential of state-owned companies. In his own words:
“State ownership is the right idea for creating wealth for Britain”,
as GBE’s investments
“will help generate return for the taxpayer”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/9/24; col. 456.]
GBE, he argued, would not only contribute to energy security but create jobs and foster economic growth. While I am encouraged by the potential for GBE to generate wealth and drive the economic growth that we need badly, I will ask the Minister to clarify a few points in relation to this statement.
First, if GBE is indeed intended to generate returns for the taxpayer, can the Minister confirm the expected rate of return on investment for these projects? In particular, will these returns be sufficient to justify the use of £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money? To be clear, the £8.3 billion of capital for GBE will be borrowed by the Government. I do not need to tell your Lordships this as it is everywhere, but the long-term gilt yield stands now sadly at 5.5%—up more than 50 bps in the last three weeks. Infrastructure returns typically are above 10% and venture capital is above 15%. Therefore, the benchmark that GBE should be aiming at must be in the range of 10% to 15%.
We all know that we get what we measure. I worried when I read the evidence given by GBE’s chairman-elect, Jürgen Maier, in the Public Bill Committee debate in the other House on 8 October, when he said that GBE’s success will ultimately be measured by the number of projects it is able to finance and the quantum of energy it is able to deliver to the grid. So are we measuring returns or the number of projects? Therefore, it is critical that we understand the financial viability of these investments and ensure that they will not end up being a burden on the public purse.
Secondly, there is significant concern about the risk of GBE becoming a dumping ground for less profitable or riskier energy projects, especially those that private sector companies are unwilling to back. I should add that there was no shortage of capital for net zero when I was in No. 10, so I have to assume that GBE will back transactions that are perhaps less profitable. This concern was raised in Committee and by my right honourable friend Claire Coutinho, who questioned whether the Government’s aim to derisk projects could result in throwing taxpayers’ money into unprofitable ventures.
Representatives of energy trade associations such as RenewableUK and Energy UK have also raised questions. In particular, Adam Berman from Energy UK identified what he described as two competing priorities for GBE: making profitable investment and addressing problems in the energy system arising from market failures. He said that the company might struggle to resolve this potential conflict if it was not addressed in the Bill. Can the Minister provide assurances that GBE will not be disproportionately directed towards these high-risk, low-return projects, which could undermine the Government’s goal of creating wealth for Britain?
The Secretary of State and the honourable Member for Rutherglen, Michael Shanks, have cited Ørsted as a model and precedent for GBE. Ørsted is not only an operating company—it is the main energy entity in Denmark—but is 49% owned by the stock market. Its equity is researched by 20 investment banks, creating public and financial scrutiny each quarter. That is certainly a very different picture from GBE. GBE will invest in illiquid, minority positions, yet will be a large operation, at £8.3 billion of capital. Incidentally, this is about half the market value of Ørsted. This compels us to scrutinise it seriously and to ensure disciplined governance and oversight.
In summary, it is crucial for the Minister to provide further clarification on the financial viability of the investments to be made by GBE, the risks involved, and how the Government will ensure that taxpayers’ money is used wisely. Transparency and accountability, as we have discussed through Amendment 80, will be key to answering these questions and demonstrating that GBE is indeed acting in the best interests of the British taxpayer.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I support the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Offord of Garvel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, and Amendments 60 and 61, which they spoke to, particularly what the noble Lord said about reducing our dependency on foreign states. I will not repeat the remarks I made on day one in Committee, or indeed during our debate on China on 20 December, but I will add two or three germane points to what has been said to the Committee this afternoon.
Since we had our debate in Committee, I have sent the Minister a report by Ignites Asia that identifies funds run by global managers who had at least £1.4 billion linked to 14 solar and EV companies using slave labour in Xinjiang—a point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield. These amendments are primarily about accountability; Parliament has a right to understand on a regular annual basis, as the noble Lord said, precisely how what will become the Great British Energy Act is working out in practice. It has a right to know what we are doing about supply chains and around the objective to create, as Amendment 60 mentions, some 650,000 jobs. How are we getting on with those things and how are we doing on the other side of the coin?
Already we are seeing the loss of jobs—in companies such as Vauxhall, for instance—not because of fair competition or trade, which most of us in this House support, but because of unfair trade that is based on massive subsidies for companies operating in China that use slave labour. We will never be able to compete on fair terms with companies that do that, but we aid and abet those practices by simply turning a blind eye to what is happening. As well as looking at the jobs we might gain, let us look at the jobs we are likely to lose.
We should think seriously about the supply chain question. The amendment I tabled for day one did not come out of thin air. I am glad to say it had been promoted as an idea in earlier debates in another place by Sarah Champion, chair of the House of Commons International Development Select Committee. That shows that it is a bipartisan and bicameral concern. People from all parties and none have anxieties about the kind of things that can go on in our supply chains and the lack of resilience and increase in dependency implicit in this. I remind your Lordships of the excellent report produced in 2023 by the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, chaired by Sir Julian Lewis MP, which reminded us of the massive security dangers we have to address as a result of the threat that the People’s Republic of China undoubtedly poses to us.
We should learn the lessons of the pandemic. We bought billions of PPE items with millions and millions of pounds of public money—taxpayers’ money—when many of those products could have been made in this country by British workers. We have to be a lot more careful than we have been so far. The noble Lord, Lord Offord of Garvel, is right to point us in his amendment towards justifying the case made by the Government in favour of the Bill.
I tabled a Written Question to the Minister that I hope he will be able to answer, if not today during our oral exchanges then at least in writing before Report, about how many solar panels we intend to buy to fulfil the ambitions of the Bill: how many, and at what cost? What are the alternatives? Can they be made elsewhere? Only this morning I heard from a company that operates out of South Africa that says it can produce solar panels without any of the risks involved in using slave labour from Xinjiang. There must be others—we should be doing more to look for those alternatives.
We have to take the issue of genocide more seriously than we have, not least because of what we would be placing on the shoulders of those companies that will be encouraged through this legislation to buy these products. They can be prosecuted under the 2015 legislation that was promoted in an incredibly enlightened way by the then Home Secretary, the noble Baroness, Lady May, who we referred to in our Question Time exchanges earlier today. The Joint Committee on Human Rights is about to embark on a new inquiry looking at supply chain transparency and the effects on modern day slavery. I hope that the noble Baroness might be one of those who comes to give evidence.
We have to take this issue more seriously. There was a good example of pre-legislative scrutiny when both Houses looked at this, amendments were made and there was a coming together; that should happen again this time. The House of Commons declared that a genocide is under way in Xinjiang. This is the crime above all crimes. I do not need to convince the Minister of this—I know that—but it seems that I have to convince the Government. Whenever Mr Miliband is questioned on this, he simply says, “We care about human rights”. We all care about human rights, but this is the crime above all crimes. The 1948 convention on the crime of genocide requires us to prevent, to protect and to punish. We do not do any of those things very well.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton. We have to admire his doggedness in bringing up the question of slave labour in China. As we are totally dependent on so many different exports from China to this country, it is something that we have to bear in mind all the time. I wish him the best with his endeavours, although I do not hold out an awful lot of hope, as the problem is that China produces everything so much cheaper than anywhere else.
I support my noble friend Lord Petitgas in his amendment. He has outlined the real problem of investing billions—let us face it, it is billions—of pounds of taxpayers’ money in energy projects. The problem is that the only ones that will become available for the taxpayer, and for the Minister to make his decisions upon, will be projects rejected by the private sector.
The fact is that the people who invest in renewable energy are not the people who particularly believe in renewable energy; they believe in making money. The whole technique when putting up a wind farm or a wind turbine is that you test the amount of wind, look at the feed-in tariff from the consumer, do your cash-flow adjustments from there, borrow the money and put up the turbine.
My Amendment 85A is to do with the whole question of emissions, about which I am very worried. My amendment says that there should be an annual report,
“which must include information on carbon emissions resulting from each of”
Great British Energy’s
“investments in renewable energy technology”.
We have reached the point where we have to look much more closely at the whole question of renewable energy. People think that, if you put up a wind turbine and the wind blows, that is all free, and that you do not create any carbon emissions in putting up a wind turbine. I am afraid that is not true: you do. You create a tremendous carbon footprint when you create the steel. I gather we cannot make it in this country any more, so we have to import it, and there is an increase in carbon emissions when bringing it in. At the end of the day, a serious carbon imprint is involved in putting up a wind turbine. The great advantage of a wind turbine is that, once you have got it up, from thereon in the chances of creating a carbon imprint are rather less.
The same applies to solar panels. As we have discussed, solar panels are highly likely to be manufactured in China, and they have to be transported here. The Chinese are creating massive carbon emissions with their industry, which we basically exported to them. When we talk about carbon emissions, we are talking about global emissions; we are not talking about individual emissions here.
My real problem is with growing crops and trees which then get burned. Because these are a renewable resource, this is then taken as a renewable source of energy. I have a slight problem with that. Take the very extreme example of oilseed rape, which is grown in this country. When you come to think of it, you create a carbon imprint when the tractor tills the field and sows the crop. I am not an expert in the growing of oilseed rape, but I suspect it needs spraying and fertilising and so forth. All of this adds to the carbon impact. The seeds that come off oilseed rape are then compressed to produce a form of vegetable oil, which is then refined. All of this has a carbon footprint. Eventually, it is burned. I gather that it is proposed to be used for aircraft as a substitute for aviation fuel. When you burn aviation fuel, you are creating a carbon imprint.
This does not affect national Governments quite so much because the whole business of the carbon imprint of aviation is not counted against the targets for a particular country. The problem of CO2, as we know, is a global problem. If we want to clean up the planet generally, we cannot ignore aviation.
Many of us also have quite serious worries about Drax power station. For a long time, it was importing the offcuts of North America’s timber industry to burn at the power station. There is obviously a serious carbon imprint involved in cutting down trees, stripping the unwanted bits off them and loading that on to ships, which bring it over the Atlantic to this country. Have we really taken into account the CO2 emissions this whole process at Drax power station creates? It is rumoured that Drax has moved on to saying that it can take all this bark and stuff and turn it into aviation fuel. That will have the same problems as using oilseed rape. There is a massive carbon imprint all the way through.
We are trying to talk about reducing the carbon imprint, and it strikes me that with some forms of renewables we are increasing the carbon imprint unnecessarily. Surely what we should be doing is looking at hydrogen and seeing if we can get that down to a more manageable cost. That could be used in its compressed form in aircraft, heavy vehicles and so forth. The great advantage of hydrogen is that, when it is burned, it produces no carbon. I worry that, although we think we are doing something to help the planet, we are not. If we take that extreme example and go on looking for aviation fuel from oilseed rape in perpetuity, then, in the name of some renewable crop, we will be having very large carbon emissions right the way through the process, in perpetuity.
We have to look at the whole question of renewable energy and what form it takes. We need an audit which tells us how much carbon imprint is being made by producing fuel in this way, whichever fuel it is, so that we can make a more objective judgment about whether this is helping the climate and helping to meet CO2 and net-zero targets, or doing the precise opposite.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to Amendment 60, and also to Amendment 74, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Amendment 60 relates to the Government’s projection of 650,000 jobs. This is to be achieved over five years, when we achieve net zero. It is a very ambitious target. I hope it can be achieved, but there are questions related to where those jobs will come from, whether we have the skills and whether jobs will be lost in the process as well.
I make no secret of the fact that I live in the north-east of Scotland and I represented the constituency of Gordon for 32 years. I have monitored the oil and gas industry from its very early days in the North Sea right through to the present, and the massive contribution it has made to the UK economy throughout that time—not just in terms of money but in terms of technology, the balance of payments and skills. I accept that the Government have said that we will continue to operate our North Sea oil and gas fields and that we will continue to have oil and gas in the mix, to and through net zero.
My basic concern on jobs is that we do not expand jobs in renewables at the expense of the naturally declining jobs in oil and gas: that we do not accelerate that process, especially as we do not quite know how fast we can achieve this creation of jobs. We do know right now that we have at least 200,000 people employed directly in the oil and gas industry, and many more in the supply chain, which, of course, is also part of the supply chain for the renewables sector. Not all of the skills are directly transferable, but many of them are. Provided that the transition is orderly, just and sensible, it will be possible for the decline in the oil and gas industry to be orderly while we expand the renewables sector and hopefully deliver the jobs that the Government are looking for.
I was surprised that, when I suggested that we were going to have oil and gas in the mix to and through net zero—which all projections from all sources say we will—there were people who thought we should just shut down our oil and gas now. There are people who say that. When I asked, “Why would you do that?”, I was told, “Well, you can set an example to the world. Yes, we will need oil and gas, but plenty of other people produce it, so we will just import it”. So we close down our own industry and then import it from other people—further away, with a higher carbon footprint and less efficient—so undermining UK technology and expertise. So my plea is: let us have the jobs, but not at the expense of existing jobs. Let us have an orderly transition that maximises them both.
I was at an awards ceremony for the industry in Aberdeen last month, and what impressed me was the wonderful array of bright, young people engaged in the sector who were very committed to the transition to net zero. But they were equally aware that oil and gas were part of the transition and that many of the supply-chain companies were now investing in technology relevant to the industry, including subsea connections, cabling and electronics. A lot of the things that have been developed in the North Sea are transferable to oil and gas, and that is a welcome factor; but let us not accelerate the loss of jobs while we build the new ones up. That is the simple point that I wish to make.
Turning to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, I am in the same situation as him, so I declare an interest. I live in a village in Aberdeenshire where we do not have gas. In the dying days of the nationalised British Gas, I was involved in a fairly high-profile argument with the then chair of British Gas, Sir Denis Rooke, making the point that he and his company, in the run-up to privatisation, were not interested in extending the gas network. I had some success: I sort of shamed him into it and managed to get some substantial extensions in the dying days of British Gas in my own constituency. I was also right that, once British Gas was privatised, there was no more extension of the gas network beyond what already existed. Those were the days when everybody wanted gas, and gas was the option.
For many parts of the country, however, gas is not an option and the main alternative is oil. The House of Commons produced an interesting report at the end of last year, which I had a look at. I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that it says that the number of households off the gas grid is 4.5 million—a higher figure than his. I do not know which is right, but it is quite a lot.
It then did an analysis of the proportion of households that use oil for central heating. In England and Wales, it was 3.5% in total; in Scotland, it was 5.1%; and, in Northern Ireland, it was 49.5%. I suggest that that is an issue. The other point—and, again, I thank the House of Commons Library for this—is that it gave a constituency analysis. The overall figure does not quite focus on some of the communities that are much more dependent—ones that I know well—so I picked out three constituencies to give the House an example. The highest was Caithness and Sutherland, where 31% of households have oil central heating. The second-highest was my former constituency of Gordon and Buchan, at 26%, while the neighbouring constituency of West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine was 22%.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest, as in the register, in connection with energy-related companies. I will raise two questions on Amendments 59 and 65 in this bunch of amendments before the Minister starts to wind up—if that is what is coming next. I know that Amendment 59 is about household energy bills, but I start by observing that, as far as industrial energy bills are concerned, it is a disgrace—frankly, it was not much better under the previous Government—that, according to government figures, we now have some of the most expensive electricity prices in the entire world. That cannot be right. It obviously undermines our competitive power and economic growth. Obviously, therefore, it is holding back the whole investment in the energy transition and it is a classic case of shooting ourselves in both feet. That is the electricity scene.
As for household energy bills, there is an irony here, because the truth, as I shall try to demonstrate in a few words, is that the best chance of keeping down domestic energy bills, with all the other circumstances, many of which are completely unpredictable, is not through anything that Great British Energy is empowered to do at present, as the Bill stands. It lies in cutting down the colossal costs of having standby facilities in standby production from some combined cycle gas generation, but even more in having some cheaper forms of nuclear development than those we have had in the past—or indeed in the present, because all our current nuclear developments are wildly over cost.
The key lies in getting private money into shorter-term, smaller and more flexible, nuclear modules. That is what we should be doing; it is what many other countries doing, and it will be the way in which to greatly reduce the overall cost of having a reliable energy supply for a modern industrial nation, which includes facilities for 3,000 hours a year when the wind does not blow. Today is probably one of them, as my noble friend Lord Trenchard was arguing. A strong, intermittent standby system has to be there, and we know it is very expensive, by definition, if it is not being used all the time. We cannot sell electricity all the time—on the contrary, in many cases, as we can read in the newspapers today and yesterday, colossal sums of taxpayers’ and consumers’ money have to be paid in order to not produce electricity. There is a fatal difficulty here that we have to resolve.
The point is that, if we want costs to be held down, the way to do it is by making sure that private money can be mobilised, which it can for smaller nuclear reactors, whereas we all know that private money does not wish to touch with a barge pole a so-called replica of the gigantic Hinkley C EPR design, which is a difficult design and bound, although it calls itself a replica, to be miles over cost and cost-forming of the Government at Sizewell C as well. That is a way to ensure that costs and energy bills stay up, and that is the opposite of what we are trying to achieve.
The simple answer to this bit of the excellent Amendment 59, which I totally support, is that, if we can now begin to get a grip on the whole nuclear side and bring GBN together with Great British Energy and work in a serious approach to managing our, at present, wildly costly and unmanageable energy supply, we will begin to get a chance of getting that £300 off bills. Personally, I think it going to be very hard to achieve, but that is the one way it can be done—by getting private money in, because the Government have not got any money and have to go to the consumer, the taxpayer and the borough to get the money. We all know what that is costing, and all of it ends up in charges on taxpayers and working people and their hard-earned earnings.
That has to be answered, if this is going to stand. I hope that the Minister will go to his colleagues in the department, and maybe in the Treasury as well, if he can get any response from them, and point out that this just does not make sense. It does not fulfil the aims that the Government want, the Opposition want and all parties want. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others have said, this is not a bipartisan issue, at least in this House, because we all know on both sides of this House that this does not make sense—and this viewpoint should be passed on to the Secretary of State politely within the department, so he can modify his approach, particularly on the nuclear side, where I worry a great deal that we are on the wrong track. We are heading to the wrong track, while others are racing ahead. That is all I wanted to say on Amendment 59.
Amendment 65 is interesting, because it is really about the level of demand that the National Grid will be able to meet. Many people—again, bipartisan—are worried that the estimates that seem to be in the mind of the department are miles too low. The figure of 200 gigawatts is being pushed around—others say 300 gigawatts. Today, there is something more in the newspapers that should make the Government think again on this one. We are told that we are going to have colossal data centres. Indeed, it says in one newspaper that we will have one of the world’s biggest data centres to move into the age of AI, modern innovation and investment and the kind of society and industrial and consumer pattern that will have in the second half of the present century. That is what we must be doing. Bit data centres are hugely expensive in energy demand; they drink up energy in colossal volumes—and that is on top of the hope or ambition of the Government for decarbonised, clean energy by 2030, or maybe 2035. Maybe it is to be 95%; there are all sorts of modifications coming out all the time. On top of that, I think that this demand will push up any reasonable estimate from 300 gigawatts to 500 or 600 gigawatts. We are moving into a hyper-electric, super-electric age and data centres will add vast amounts of demand to the system.
There are 40 million cars and trucks in this country still running on petrol; they will need to move over to EV as well. The chances of having a National Grid system fully invested to meet that kind of demand on even the 2050 timescale, let alone 2030 or 2035, is very small indeed. Does the Minister accept that, as we move into this all-electric age, there will be considerable increases in demand and that, if there is going to be effective supply for them, we must have the conversation and, what is more, the detailed explanations implied in Amendment 65. GBE should be able to go to the National Grid and say, “Can you link us up?”. The many industrial firms thinking of going over from gas-fired furnaces to electric furnaces should be able to go to the National Grid and say, “Can you link us up?” What answer are they going to get? Are they going to be told, “Come back in 15 years”, or are they going to be told, that it is all right and that we are investing to meet these colossal demands for increased electricity from every kind of energy transition, the related digital underpinning and the necessary data centre operations, which we now know we have to have in order to compete in the 21st century? Is that realised? That is my question on Amendment 65. Many other excellent comments have been made, but those are the two on which I would greatly value an answer from the Minister.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I support the last speaker on Amendment 65. When I saw Amendment 65 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, on the readiness of the National Grid for this brave new world, I realised that this is probably the key amendment to the Bill in terms of the success of Great British Energy. I am not sure that putting it into the Bill will actually make a ha’porth of difference, but there is no doubt that the issue is going to decide whether GBE is a success or not.
We need to quadruple, if not more, the size of the National Grid network, both to get power to all those new electric cars and heat pumps, et cetera, and to take power from all those new wind farms, solar roofs, et cetera, but with all the objections to the wires and pylons, I cannot see the National Grid delivering the necessary increase in this network any time soon. So, as the amendment states, GBE can really invest only in projects that have a guaranteed connection, however worthy they may be in other aspects. If no connection is likely to be in place by the time of the completion of the project, then GBE should probably save its money.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I refer the Committee to my register of interests, including in solar and wind energy development and ownership, as well as as an investor in energy-related equities and as a farmer and lands manager.
I shall speak in particular to Amendment 80 in the name of my noble friend Lord Petitgas, but also support Amendments 85A in the name of my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom and the amendments listed in the name of my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel. These amendments put detail to the questions I posed to the Government, in my response to His Majesty’s gracious Address, regarding financial reporting and accountability.
Great British Energy is tasked with investing taxpayers’ money to allow taxpayers to benefit from the financial returns from the energy transition, as well as to accelerate and stimulate that transition. It must be right, as with any publicly listed company, that the company is accountable to its owners for its performance. That requires high-quality financial reporting. Listed companies report unaudited financials quarterly and audited annual reports—which also include carbon emissions accountability, as my noble friend Lord Petitgas pointed out. The first effect of Amendment 80 would be to bring GB Energy in line with those requirements.
The second effect would be to introduce a more granular analysis of the returns from each investment. This is usual with investment trusts and common in private equity. I see no reason why GB Energy should not report in equally great detail. Fully commercial organisations may choose not to do so to protect commercial confidentiality. However, in GB Energy’s case, it must be desirable to highlight where returns are the greatest in order to direct more private sector capital into those areas and help achieve the primary purposes.
It is also essential that GB Energy is fully accountable to Parliament on an individual investment basis, as well as holistically. This is taxpayers’ money, which could have been used to avoid destroying farmers’ and family businesses’ desire to invest and grow. That places a heavy burden of responsibility for GB Energy to perform well. The Minister may suggest that this is too expensive and cumbersome, but I point out that listed companies measured in the tens of millions of pounds are well able to comply without issue. GB Energy appears unlikely to be an operating company but more of an investment company. That should make these obligations straightforward to comply with, while ensuring that its investee companies and projects also have to keep accurate and timely books to allow GB Energy to comply.
The Minister may suggest that UK company registration requirements to lodge accounts are enough, as has been said in previous groups. Anyone familiar with those accounts will know that they tend to be published around nine months after the close of the financial year, are annual only and contain the least possible information to comply with registration requirements. There is little here that can be helpful in assessing performance.
Amendment 80 creates financial and climate reporting discipline that will then have to be extended throughout the organisation, to all of the investee companies, to everyone’s advantage. Examples of successful government investment in the private sector are hard to find. If this Government are confident that this will be the unicorn, surely the Minister will welcome the amendment, which will create many opportunities to showcase that success.
I also add my voice to Amendment 65 in the name of my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel, and I have many of the same concerns as my noble friend Lord Howell and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. While this may almost seem like stating the obvious, there are a number of issues around grid connection, and I would be most grateful if the Minister could update us with progress. The first is the issue of nameplate grid capacity. Does the National Grid’s £35 billion investment plan from 2026 to 2031 fully address this need? And, given the increase in the UK Government’s borrowing costs and likely impact on UK companies, does the Minister anticipate any refinancing requirements to build out this transition?
The second is the human capacity of distribution network operators to work through projects with developers, to plan and deliver the grid connection. I understand there is a lack of capacity in this area and it is possible that DNOs could be prioritising their own projects at the expense of third parties. They do not appear to be meeting obligations, which is costing developers millions in delays and cost increases. I understand the bottleneck is largely human capital, which exists in Europe but of which there is not enough in the UK. The Minister has discussed training in previous groups, but would it not be also wise to fast-track visa applications for skilled operatives? Is the Minister confident that his Government have a plan that can deliver beyond 2030, as anecdotally the grid queue analysis and action that has been taken appear to have sacrificed confidence in developments beyond that timeframe in order to meet 2030 commitments?
Under the national electricity system consultation, I understand developers have been given only three weeks to consult on up to 16 documents per project. These developers need to see more resources and more evidence of planning beyond that timeframe in order to keep a strong project pipeline alive. Can the Minister update the House on the impact these actions have had on the developer community? Is he satisfied that the capital and talent are still available in that sector to meet his Government’s objectives?
I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom’s comments on the sustainability of biofuels. Displacement of food production in favour of growing energy crops risks causing higher prices for everyone. I draw the Minister’s attention to the US blending mandate, which has been in place for several decades and has led to around a quarter of the US corn production going into bioethanol for blending with gasoline. This has had a structural impact on food prices around the world and simply displaces one problem into another.
I disagree with my noble friend Lord Hamilton on green hydrogen, unfortunately, as its cost simply seems to be too high for most applications. Around one-third of the energy is lost in electrolysing water into green hydrogen, and another third is lost in turning it back into electricity, giving it a structural disadvantage versus other forms of energy.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I want to offer a slightly different perspective on this group of amendments. All the amendments in this group, and indeed some later groups, involve a series of rather worthy things—for which there are to be reports or other consequences—to be achieved by giving a direction to Great British Energy. While I support the amendments on the basis that they are probing amendments, I find it difficult to support the structure of the amendments themselves.
It seems to me that, by using the power of direction in Clause 6, the amendments would undermine the nature of that power and subvert the effectiveness of the power of direction, which is a long-standing feature of the control framework for public corporations. Powers of direction for nationalised industries were commonplace when nationalisation took hold from the 1940s onward. I do not know whether they existed before that, but they certainly have a pedigree of nearly 80 years. The first one of which I am aware is in relation to the Bank of England Act 1946, which nationalised the Bank of England. They have been a feature of public body legislation ever since, except in relation to bodies which are created as regulatory bodies.
The power of direction was never conceived as a mechanism for giving routine instructions to public bodies, which is what all the amendments in this group and the subsequent groups are trying to do. In fact, throughout the history of nationalised industries, the power of direction has almost certainly not been used. In relation to the Bank of England, I asked the previous Government fairly recently whether they would like to give up the power of direction over the Bank of England and whether they had used it since 1946; the answer was that they had never used it since 1946, but they definitely wanted to keep it. The fact that a power has not been used does not necessarily have any meaning, because it is designed as a backstop power for use in extreme circumstances. The mere fact of its existence can be a powerful weapon in the hands of the Government of the day.
It should be an uncontested fact that the Government ultimately call the shots in relation to public corporations, however much operational independence they claim to be handing over to them when they set the bodies up. The board of a public body should be very wary of not following the wishes of the Government of the day, unless those wishes conflict with their legal and statutory objectives.
I will always defend the ability of the Government to give directions to a public body, because public bodies should not be above the Government of the day. I think there are far too many public bodies, but if we have to have them, we must have an effective power of telling them what to do when necessary. I would definitely not want that core power to be diluted by being cluttered up with a lot of more day-to-day matters, which is partly what the amendments in this group and subsequent amendments do.
The concerns of my noble friend on the Front Bench and indeed other noble Lords who have drafted these amendments would be better met by placing specific requirements in the Bill, rather than by cluttering up the power of direction which has a very special place in the control framework for public bodies.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I support my many noble friends in their amendments in this wide-ranging group. I declare my interest as an insurance broker in the energy industry for Marsh.
In the Labour manifesto under the section entitled “Make Britain a clean energy superpower”, its second mission to rebuild Britain, there is a plan to create 650,000 jobs by 2030. This will obviously need to include the supply chain, as the number of jobs required for running energy projects will never reach this amount.
In the Great British Energy Founding Statement, we learn:
“Backed by a capitalisation of £8.3 billion of new money over this Parliament, Great British Energy will work closely with industry, local authorities, communities and other public sector organisations to help accelerate Britain’s pathway to energy independence. That means installing thousands of clean power projects across the country, crowding in investment for next-generation technologies, and providing vital support to accelerate large-scale projects”.
For new money, we can read taxpayers’ money.
When taxpayers’ money is being spent, it simply cannot be thought of as a blank cheque, in this case with a large upper limit. It is imperative that there are checks and balances in the system to ensure that money is spent wisely to the benefit of the country. I suggest to the Minister that some of these measures might include the following: the need to demonstrate the benefit in each venture towards the £300 saving so heavily touted in the run-up to the general election; the need to demonstrate the benefit in each venture towards the creation of 650,000 jobs on the back of this clean energy drive and again touted in the run-up to the general election; and the need to ensure that grid connections, as have been mentioned, to connect the new generating assets are available as and when needed, something that has been very difficult to achieve in the past. That would also prevent ludicrous curtailment payments. The costs from NESO to do this are enormous—I believe I am right in saying some £40 billion a year until 2030.
The measures also need to show the net effect of carbon emissions and the reductions being made as the years progress, which is what this Bill is all about. However, it is especially important to consider not only scope 1 emissions, being direct greenhouse gas emissions that occur from sources that are controlled or owned by an organisation, and scope 2 emissions, being indirect greenhouse gas emissions associated with the purchase of electricity, steam, heat or cooling but also—and possibly most importantly—scope 3 emissions, being the greenhouse emissions resulting from activities from assets not owned or controlled by the reporting organisation but that the organisation indirectly affects in its value chain. My noble friend Lord Hamilton talked about one specific example. In my opinion, this has specific reference to solar panels, which are manufactured predominantly—some 85%—in China, and wind turbines, of which 60% are manufactured in China, which has certainly not demonstrated any restraint in curbing emissions. Then, there is the subsequent voyage to the final destination. Let us not forget what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said.
There is also the need to show a reduction in imported energy—both via electrical interconnectors and hydrocarbons as LNG or by pipe from Norway and the continent—balanced against the production of our own North Sea gas and being allowed to continue to search for more off our abundant coasts.
Further, there is the need to show that a significant percentage of the materials used in any work done is generated in the UK and the need to demonstrate that we are becoming more self-sufficient in power generation—something we have not got to yet. Finally, but of no lesser importance, there is the need to demonstrate financial return to the benefit of the taxpayer.
In a number of these amendments, various timeframes have been suggested to produce a fair audit trail for Parliament and the taxpayer. Without them, who will know the real benefits of all this expense? Does the Minister agree that measurement provides results and therefore helps to determine the way forward?
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, perhaps I may add a few words to some of the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom. He mentioned the carbon cost of steel, but there is one other element we should not forget. I understand that building pylons to take power overground is cheaper than putting it underground, but I plead with the Minister to accept that there are areas that we should try to protect. In fact, in the long term, it is probably as cheap, if not cheaper, to put power lines underground. I recognise the dilemma that the Minister is in, but we should look at the aesthetic value of what we are talking about, as well as the financial one. I believe that there are some areas of the United Kingdom that we should protect at all costs.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom on carbon accounting. He said that he does not know very much about oilseed rape, but I do. About 20 years ago, in some of the very earliest stages of emissions reduction, I was involved commercially in that.
My noble friend asked that we should have pilot plants and studies to see whether the energy balance of oilseed rape can be done, as if it has never been done before. I can tell your Lordships that pilot plants were set up on Teesside, at enormous expense, and analysed to death. Although this is not a debate on farming, I can say that, at normal yields, when all was said and done, after the ploughing, sowing, fertilising, spraying, harvesting, processing and transportation, you came ahead on a carbon basis only when or if you burned the straw that otherwise would have been left behind in the field. Of course, at low yields, you spent more carbon on growing it than you got back at the end.
I make no other comment save to say that my noble friend is correct that, often, superficially attractive green energy schemes, when you boil them down, cost more carbon than they yield. That is important to look at because, otherwise, we could sleepwalk into an enormous waste of public funds through GB Energy, chasing projects that do not hit the target—which, of course, is to allow us to be more sustainable in future.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. If I may, I will call out the elephant in the room on this Bill. We have had 10 groups of amendments turned into 18 groups on this final day in Committee—over half of the groups that we are discussing today are the result of one party degrouping amendments. We have spent over two hours speaking to the first group of amendments, and we have 18 groups to speak to today. I have heard a lot of speeches, but in the case of many, I could not tell which amendment they were even speaking to.
I will say just this: we support the Government and the Bill. This is an extremely important Bill. I am pleased to see action taken on these measures after the Conservative Party failed to do anything about it, left bill payers vulnerable to the increase in bills as a result of the war in Ukraine and ended up spending £40 billion of taxpayers’ money subsidising bill payers for no long-term benefits. In this group, we are generally supportive of Amendments 61, 65, 69, 70 and 74. For groups that we feel were unnecessarily degrouped, we will probably not make comments.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, because it seems to me that we have “enjoyed” what essentially has been a rerun of previous debates, with Second Reading-type speeches, when the key concern, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggests, is Clause 6 and the power of direction.
So I do want to come back to the intent of Clause 6. First, we want GBE to be operationally independent. A founding principle of GBE is that it should be independent as far as possible in executing its functions. The Bill is focused on making the minimum necessary provisions to establish the company. At Second Reading, some noble Lords opposite accused the Government of drafting the Bill in a way that meant we would use Clause 6 to micromanage GBE. We have always maintained, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, rightly pointed out, that this is a backstop provision, yet now noble Lords opposite seek to micromanage both the Government and GBE by these various amendments, most of the issues in which we have already debated.
Secondly, we have set up GBE as a company for long-term success and as an enduring institution. Some of the amendments, which include short-term targets, would be wholly inappropriate in legislation. Indeed, it would be more appropriate for the Secretary of State to set priorities via the statement of strategic priorities in Clause 5, of course within the framework of Clause 3.
My third point is the intended use of the power in Clause 6. Let me make it absolutely clear, as I have done in the past, that the power to give directions to GBE is intended only for urgent or unforeseen circumstances. These amendments would widen the intention unnecessarily. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is right about the relationship between government and such organisations. She and I have both had experience in relation to the NHS; it is a slightly different set-up, but we are talking about the relationship between a government department, the Secretary of State and public bodies. She will know that there the Secretary of State has always had a power of direction, but I think it has had to be used only a handful of times. The reason of course is that chief execs of NHS bodies understand that the Secretary of State is able to set the overall direction of the National Health Service without having to call on what is essentially a backstop power.
My fourth point on a number of the amendments is that the existing reporting requirements are set out in the Bill, which makes provision for GBE to produce and publish an annual report and accounts. They will undergo external audit; they will contain information on the activity of the company over the year; and they will also include reporting in line with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures. GBE may also make information available through reporting, such as when projects or investments are announced. We think that that is sufficient accountability.
On some points raised by noble Lords on Amendment 59, we believe that in an unstable world, the only way to guarantee our energy security and protect bill payers permanently is to speed up the transition from fossil fuels to home-grown clean energy. This is consistent with advice from the Climate Change Committee and it is why we have set an ambitious target to reach clean power by 2030, which the independent NESO considers achievable. We believe that the key role of BGE is focused on driving forward deployment.
I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that I agree with them on the importance of nuclear power. But I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that this is the second time he has tried to divert the Government from supporting Sizewell C. I say to him that this is a massive development and we are moving to final investment decisions over the next few months. It will produce 3.2 gigawatts, it is a replica of Hinkley Point C, 80% above ground, and we have the regulated asset-based approach which will bring in private sector expertise and disciplines. So, in agreeing with him on the importance of small modular reactors and advanced nuclear reactors, we should not underestimate the potential of Sizewell C—and indeed Hinkley Point C when it comes on line, I hope at the end of this decade.
Of course I take the points that data centres will need a lot of electricity, that grid capacity issues are vital and that we need more investment in the grid. I also take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, about the beauty, or not, of pylons. I of course accept the point he makes, but we are going to have to have more pylons. None the less, they will have to go through vigorous planning and meet environmental protection requirements.
On jobs and Amendment 60, GBE aims to revitalise the UK’s industrial areas and we think that, by situating its headquarters in Aberdeenshire—which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will welcome—it will be able to leverage the skilled workforce available there and throughout Scotland. More broadly, we have set up the Office for Clean Energy Jobs to promote clean energy employment and focus on skills development and training in the core energy and net-zero sectors.
Amendments 61 and 76 concern supply chains, which are of course very important indeed. GBE’s founding statement has already made it clear that my department expects the company to prioritise the development of supply chains and to report to government on progress. To come to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, of course we have debated these matters over the years and I absolutely understand where he is coming from. But it will be for GBE as an operationally independent company to determine the projects and technologies it chooses to invest in, in accordance with its objectives. It will be expected to respect human rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 and it will be subject to the provisions on forced labour and supply chains, both under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Procurement Act 2023.
We recently set out our Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, which requires significant deployment of solar electricity—noble Lords are right on that. Developing sustainable, diverse and resilient solar supply chains, free from forced labour, is important for the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, knows, we also have the Solar Taskforce, which will be looking at these matters.
On Amendment 63 on the cost of fulfilling the company’s strategic objectives, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Petitgas, that the Secretary of State will set ambitious but achievable objectives for Great British Energy that can be achieved through the funding envelope. GBE will be backed, as noble Lords will know, by a capitalisation of £8.3 billion over this Parliament, and its objective is to crowd in additional private sector investment. However, it will be subject to HM Treasury’s value-for-money guidelines and, like existing publicly financed institutions, its investments will be subject to safeguards and risk assessments.
On Amendments 69, 70 and 85A, on the impact on carbon emissions of GBE’s investments, the company is committed to advancing the deployment of clean energy to aid the Government’s goal of decarbonising our electricity system by 2030. The amendments would require a report to be produced for every investment made by Great British Energy, which seems neither proportionate nor effective. On importing energy into the UK, we acknowledge that reliance on imported fossil fuels presents economic and security risks, as evidenced by the situation following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The best response is to increase domestic power generation through renewable energy sources and nuclear power, while simultaneously transitioning to more sustainable methods for heating homes, fuelling vehicles and powering industry. These can substantially mitigate our exposure to volatile international markets and energy price fluctuations. We see GBE as being at the heart of those efforts.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Does the Minister accept, however, that converting oilseed rape into aviation fuel does not produce clean energy?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, we rely on agreed definitions as to whether an energy is clean. The noble Lord mentioned biomass and Drax. He will know that the Government’s view, which his party also took when in government, is that the carbon absorbed by the forestry that replaces what has been transported to Drax more than covers the carbon expended in the process of bringing it to Drax, including the use of shipping. For 14 years, the party opposite accepted that this was an appropriate definition.
I turn to my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s amendment, on the risk to off-grid households and the value of renewable liquid fuels to these households. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, also covered that point, and I listened with great care to what both had to say. Clearly, we want fuel-poor and off-gas-grid homes to benefit from the transition to net zero. The current energy company obligation includes incentives to deliver measures such as low-carbon heating to off-gas-grid rural homes in Scotland and Wales. Phase 2 of the home upgrade grant provides energy efficiency upgrades and low-carbon heating measures to low-income households living in the worst performing off-gas-grid homes in England in order to tackle fuel poverty.
We recognise that renewable liquid fuels could play a role in decarbonising heat off the gas grid. We therefore expect to prioritise the use of renewable liquid fuels for the small number of homes that are not readily suitable for electrification, as these have the fewest options to decarbonise through alternative low-carbon technologies. My noble friend Lord Berkeley suggested a meeting on this; I am very happy to engage with him and, indeed, with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce.
Amendment 76, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Offord, and Amendment 77, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, relate to sourcing materials for GBE projects from the domestic supply chain. Adding the proposed detail to the Bill would too narrowly restrict the company in carrying out its activities, halting the potential feasibility of projects where UK sourcing is not currently possible.
On jobs, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, concerning the importance of the UK continental shelf and the need for an orderly transition. My daughter supported her career as a wireline engineer in the oil and gas industry working out of Aberdeen, and I am well aware of the importance of the sector, what it has contributed to the UK economy and the skills and dedication of the people working there. As we have described, we want an orderly and just transition.
GB Energy will be committed to helping drive the growth of supply chains in the UK to accelerate the deployment of key UK energy projects. It is important, however, that we comply with the international trading rules that the UK is bound by, such as prohibitions on requiring local content contained under various agreements under the WTO.
Amendment 80, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Petitgas, requires the Secretary
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I wonder if I can press him further on the issue of jobs and the impact on our own economy when countries run, in their own jurisdictions, the kind of slave labour arrangements that I and others referred to earlier. He will have seen the information about the loss of electric vehicle-related jobs because of the flooding of the market—we do not have any tariffs on those vehicles, whereas every other G7 country does. He will know that, in the last quarter, the trade deficit with China was some £32 billion but at no time since 1995 has there ever been surplus on our side of the equation. How can we justify, therefore, pouring more money into the economy of a country that relies on slave labour? It cannot just be left to companies, even Great British Energy, to identify whether a country is using slave labour or not; surely that is a matter for the Government, too.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
The noble Lord raises matters of great geopolitical importance and importance to the UK’s economy. He will have seen that my right honourable friend the Chancellor has been in China in the last few days, seeking to engage that country in relation to economic co-operation and development, within appropriate security safeguards. We want to see jobs in the energy sector developed as much as possible in the United Kingdom, but equally, we are operating in a global economy. For very good reasons, we are concerned about the introduction of tariffs which may inhibit international trade, and we must also be mindful of the economic value-for-money issues that clearly have to come into play in this area.
Let me return to the Bill and what is appropriate for us to include in it. We believe that this issue is a matter for GBE, working within the constraints set through the statement of priorities and through Clause 3, and also in relation to the further work we are going to do. We have mentioned solar, and noble Lords are right that much of the raw material for solar panels comes from China, although it is British companies working in the United Kingdom that benefit more from the value of the work on solar installations.
Turning to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Petitgas, as a publicly owned company, GBE will be held accountable through regular reporting to my department. It will be subject to HM Treasury’s value-for-money guidelines, its investments will be subject to safeguards and risk assessments, and it will invest in the private sector to share risk and reward.
On green taxonomy, a decision about how a potential UK green taxonomy could be used or applied has not yet been finalised. The Government have launched a consultation to gather views on the value of the case for a UK green taxonomy, and it will close on 6 February.
We need to come back to what Clause 6 is for as a whole. It is a backstop which one hopes would never have to be used; it is not a way to encourage the Secretary of State to micromanage a company that we very much want to be operationally independent.
Lord Petitgas (Con)
I want to go back to the point about the company acting independently. There is little bit of confusion about this company being an energy company, as opposed to an investment company. There will be myriad small investments. If it acts independently, which is fine, it needs an investment committee, and I have not read anywhere that there will be one. The chairman-elect is Jürgen Maier. He may know the sector but he is not an investor. So, effectively, taxpayers will be limited partners in an investment company without an investment committee and with a chair who is not an investor, so it is not unreasonable to ask for information about rates of return and to understand exactly how it will be done. If the answer is, “Don’t worry, it’s an independent company but value for money will be done by the Treasury with DESNZ”, that is a different governance process, but the governance of investment and selection to me remains relatively obscure.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I do not really think I can go any further than the remarks I have made this afternoon. It will ultimately be for GBE’s board to decide how it will arrange its board committees. I have noted what the noble Lord said about an investment committee. I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of Jürgen Maier, who may not be an investment expert, as the noble Lord suggests, but my goodness me he has a lot of experience in this sector.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, in bringing the debate on these amendments to a close, I can deal head-on with the Minister’s comments and those of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the time given to the Bill. We have so far had one and a half days in Committee and we have one further day allocated, which will be only two and a half days on a Bill that spends £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money, has no detail on how that money will be spent and gives endless power to the Secretary of State for Energy. It is entirely reasonable that we scrutinise it. The weekend’s press was full of the energy crisis that we face, with the shortage, storage and national grid issues.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, with the greatest respect, there is no energy crisis.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
As I said, the point of government is to ensure that there is no energy crisis and at the weekend we had reports of there being gas supplies for less than one week, which is concerning to the public. Therefore, it is only fair and reasonable that Parliament debates that in some detail.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, what we had was one company looking for government subsidies using the opportunity to make alarmist headlines.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
The point is that this is a topical debate that the whole of the public are interested in. They understand energy prices like nothing else now. They understand that, in terms of their household budgets, this is a major part of their cost of living and it is only reasonable that we get to debate this.
The amendments in this group are straightforward and simple. They are nothing to do with micromanagement; they are only to do with the accountability and transparency of this new company, which, as my noble friend Lord Petitgas pointed out, is not an operating company. The public think this is a company that makes cheap energy. It is an investment company sitting on one floor of a building in Aberdeen making investment decisions, and we have no idea how it will do that.
At the last election, the Government made promises to working people on this topic: to reduce energy costs, create jobs and drive forward our energy transition. Therefore, taking my noble friend Lady Noakes’s constructive point, we can argue about how we deliver the substance of these amendments, but we should not ignore the substance. Is it not fair and reasonable that we have in the Bill some consideration of government promises made to the public about the cost of energy—£300 in savings, which, incidentally, is £8 billion, the same amount as is being invested in 28 million households at £300—or the fact that 650,000 jobs are to be created? Is it not reasonable that the Bill somewhere talks about the fact that we want a strategic priority for the UK to develop its own energy supply chain? Is it not unreasonable that we have amendments that deal with how we make sure that the supply chain is fair? We have talked about a fair transition: well, where is the fair transition, to pick up what the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Alton, said, when we destroy our own highly skilled jobs in the north-east or end up using products made under dubious circumstances in overseas territories?
I would argue that all these amendments need to be considered. There is consensus in this House that we need energy security and that we need to get to 2050. The question is: why is this being speeded up artificially when we and the technology are not ready? Why are we doing this artificially?
My final point has been mentioned by many noble Lords so far: none of this works without the plumbing working. The national grid needs a serious upgrade and comprehensive investment to deliver this. If in these straitened times—we are continually reminded by the Government Benches that there is no money—there is a spare £8 billion, should it not be better used by being put into the national grid once and for all? In the meantime, given that we are where we are in Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Offord of Garvel
“(1A) The Secretary of State must give a specific direction to Great British Energy that it must report to the Secretary of State within three months of each investment it makes on the impact that the relevant investment is projected to have on wholesale electricity prices over the following ten years.(1B) The Secretary of State must lay a report made under subsection (1A) before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would introduce a requirement that Great British Energy reports to the Secretary of State (and subsequently Parliament) on the projected impact that each of its investments would have on wholesale electricity prices over the following ten years.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 62 and to speak to my Amendments 64, 68, 71 and 75. Aside from the promises to cut consumer energy bills and create 650,000 new jobs made by the Government throughout the election campaign, the British public were assured that GBE would turn a profit for the taxpayer. Yet there is nothing in the Bill that elucidates an investment profile or targeted rate of return. Why not? The British taxpayer must be able to see what the Secretary of State is doing with £8.3 billion of public money.
With that said, Amendment 64 requires GBE to provide an annual report to Parliament on its annual rate of return on investment and a projection of the following year’s expected rate of return on investment. That point was picked by my noble friend Lord Petitgas in the previous group. The company intends to invest in and de-risk projects in new clean energy technologies and it would be useful to see the return on investment of these projects. The point was well made in the last group and this amendment continues to hammer that point home.
During the last election, the Government made countless promises on bills and energy costs—again, a point we heard in the last group—that were rehearsed, debated and put out by the Prime Minister, Chancellor and various Cabinet Ministers, who gave the figure of £300. Once again, it is only fair that we have amendments that hold the Government to account on these promises made to the British people. It is widely understood that the cost of electricity is a matter of serious concern and, again, as has been indicated, it is now the major part of any household’s weekly costs. Therefore, it is deeply worrying that the Government are voting against enshrining these promises in law when they made them so directly to the British public.
The Government have said that GBE is part of their plans to ramp up renewables, which they say will result in cheaper energy. But, again, we do not have the background and analysis. The only analysis we have had so far, from Cornwall Insight, found that in the last contracts for difference, the Secretary of State, on these assumptions, will potentially increase people’s energy bills by £5. So, again, we have conflicting reports from different experts in this space. The Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that removal taxes will increase by 23% by 2030, again highlighting the cost of this transition to the ordinary consumer. It is with that in mind that I bring forward Amendment 71, which requires GBE to produce and report
“a cost benefit analysis of the price of electricity produced from renewable energy technologies compared to that produced from gas”,
which plays a critical role in energy generation.
I return again to the Government’s promises of 650,000 jobs with no detail as to how that will be deployed, other than the fact that we know there may be 100 or so in the Aberdeen headquarters. I believe that the Government’s punitive attack on the North Sea oil and gas industry will actually cost jobs, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, already mentioned in the last group—some 200,000 highly paid, highly technical jobs in the North Sea, which are critical to the transition to the new green energy world for which we all wish.
Finally, Amendment 75 would require GBE to carry out an environmental impact assessment on each investment it makes. The Secretary of State and GBE should give due regard to their role in maintaining the protection of our environment while ensuring that they deliver healthy returns on investment.
I am pleased to speak to this group. I look forward to the corresponding debate. The function of GBE as a type of investment body is central to its operation as a company. It is therefore essential that the Bill makes provision to report on the success and impact of each investment it makes, backed by £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money. I beg to move.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his clear and well-argued introduction of his amendments in this group, to most of which I have added my name. As he said, the taxpayer must be able to see what the Secretary of State is doing with £8.3 billion of his money. State-owned companies do not have a great track record in realising a strong, positive return on their invested assets.
Unless GBE does that, it is likely to have a negative, rather than a positive, effect on wholesale electricity prices. Amendment 62 will ensure transparency on that. GBE intends to invest in and de-risk projects involving new clean energy technologies. It is clearly necessary to have full transparency as to the rate of return on each of the investments that GBE achieves. The amendment would require GBE to consider every single investment it makes in terms of the impact that it will have on electricity prices in the future. Does the Minister not agree that this would be a good discipline for GBE? Amendment 64 would ensure that we have such transparency on the whole portfolio of GBE’s investments across the board.
Amendment 71 contains a requirement for a cost-benefit analysis of the price of electricity generated by each of its investments compared with that of electricity generated by gas. We certainly need to know that. Many of us think that we are already saddling the consumer and industry with unnecessarily expensive electricity. The grid is always bound to draw electricity from renewable sources when they are available, in priority to gas. This means that gas power stations are constantly being fired up and down, and are seldom operated at full capacity. This distorts the price of gas, which in turn distorts the price of electricity because gas power stations produce much cheaper electricity when operated consistently at or near full capacity than they do under the current modus operandi. The price of gas used in the cost-benefit analysis required by this amendment ought to be the price achievable from constant operation rather than the distorted price resulting from prioritisation of renewable sources.
I also refer briefly to Amendment 75. It is clear that the main purpose of GBE’s collaboration with the Crown Estate is to build a large number of offshore wind farms in coastal waters. This amendment will require GBE to consider carefully the environmental impact of its activities on marine life and inshore fisheries, among others.
The Government have made much of their determination to cut energy bills. Their refusal to accept Amendment 71 and other amendments would show that they are less than certain that their plans will result in lower energy prices. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I was speaking to the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, the other day. This was when he was chasing around after the chancellorship of Oxford University. I said to him that I thought he would serve his country much better in Washington than in Oxford. I congratulate him on becoming our ambassador in Washington. I think he will do a very good job.
I mention the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, because a quote attributed to him is that, “When politicians try to pick winners, the losers invariably find the politicians”. People should recognise that the track record of politicians in trying to pick winners is absolutely abysmal. Invariably, political considerations and jobs come into it; profitability is the last thing that is ever considered.
Therefore, it is essential that we support these amendments. They are asking for some degree of accountability for Great British Energy, which will have billions of taxpayers’ money. If we are not very careful, it will go to all the projects that have been rejected by the private sector as not being viable and will invariably lose money. That should be of great concern to us all because it discredits government and wastes taxpayers’ money.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, can I make a comment on that? I am a trustee of the green share in the Green Investment Bank, which was privatised by the Tories after it was set up by the coalition Government. It was a very profitable operation, although it was fully publicly owned. The issue was that it was almost too conservative in terms of making money under Treasury rules, so it did not make as much of a difference—it did make a difference—as it should have done. One of the risks is that GB Energy could be too conservative because the Treasury is too close to it and will not let it do the innovation that needs to happen for decarbonisation to take place by 2030.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I want to make just two points. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made a very interesting and wise contribution. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, that of course I have heard the expression that Governments are not very good at picking winners. That is why we have set up GBE. We will have a company with people with expertise to enable investments to take place within the context we set under Clause 3 and Clause 5 as strategic priorities. None the less, it will have operational independence.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is right; noble Lords in their various amendments are seeking to pin down GBE through excessive reporting requirements. The risk is that GBE, far from being allowed to flourish and develop, will be inhibited and micromanaged. That is why these amendments are wholly inappropriate in relation to Clause 6. The power of direction is not to be used in the way that noble Lords are suggesting; it is a backstop power. What is the point of setting up GBE if we are to undermine its independence in the way these amendments suggest?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, as in the previous group, these amendments are not designed in any way to micromanage. There is very little in the Bill that gives us any indication of how this company will operate. As indicated by my noble friend Lord Petitgas, it is an investment company without an investment committee or any investment directors. All that is being sought by these amendments is some level of accountability and scrutiny.
Once again, I say that when promises are made to the public that the Bill will address their concerns, it is not unreasonable that we ask for amendments to be made accordingly. For example, looking at employment in Amendment 68, we are simply asking for a report—as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said—on the impact these investments make on employment and bills. Why is that an unreasonable thing to say? We have 200,000 people in highly skilled jobs in the North Sea. They are worried that they are about to be phased out unilaterally and prematurely. Why is it unreasonable to have somewhere in the Bill a requirement that GBE comes to Parliament and explains what it is doing in relation to employment in this key sector?
As we have said before, the Bill has failed to substantiate the promises made. The job of the Opposition is to highlight that and to make it clear that this needs to be debated and scrutinised. That is what we will continue to do. In light of that, for now I will withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell
“(1A) The Secretary of State may not give specific or general directions to Great British Energy unless they have delivered an oral statement setting out those directions before Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent the SoS from directing GBE unless they have delivered an oral statement to Parliament.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I rise to open this group of amendments, all on consultation and oversight, and to move my Amendment 66 in this group. Amendment 66 seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from directing GB Energy unless they have previously delivered an Oral Statement to both Houses of Parliament. Our view is that this is a reasonable check and balance on the use of these powers. My amendment does not stop the Secretary of State from giving strategic directions; it simply requires that, before doing so, the Secretary of State must have previously given this Oral Statement to both Houses.
We recognise that, for the Government, this is a reserve power that would be used only in emergencies. We also recognise that the Bill as written requires the Secretary of State to have previously consulted with GB Energy and any other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and that the directions must be laid before Parliament. Our concern is that these are both very powerful controls given to the Secretary of State and, even with the condition to lay the direction before Parliament, that is done only after the direction is given. There is no opportunity for Parliament to discuss in any form the direction given or the reasons for it, or to have any opportunity to amend it before the direction is given to GB Energy. Parliament also has no say or chance to contribute to the form the direction should take. There is no way that Parliament can change the shape of it or amend it. These powers are absolute: GB Energy is directed in statute that it must comply with the directions given under this part of the Bill.
I draw the Committee’s attention to the fourth report of the 2024-25 Session of the House of Lords Constitution Committee, published on 28 November, which says of these provisions that,
“we are concerned that clauses 5 and 6 amount to ‘disguised legislation’. … This is of constitutional concern because there is no parliamentary oversight over the making of the statement of strategic priorities or the directions to Great British Energy”.
I must admit that I have to agree with that assessment. Our view is that, if there is a level of need such that directions from the Secretary of State are required, then there is also a level of concern such that a Statement should be provided to both Houses of Parliament.
When matters have gone this badly wrong, it is also important that Parliament should be given the opportunity to scrutinise what went wrong and why and what proposals the Secretary of State is bringing to make them right again. It is important that Parliament is given the right to look at how the new plans might work in practice and to be able to advise and raise objections with and suggest improvements to the Secretary of State. The Minister may come back on this amendment and may speak of this being a reserve power. He may say that these will be used rarely, if they are ever used at all; but when they will be needed, they will be needed urgently. The Minister may also argue that the Secretary of State would have previously consulted with GB Energy and others as the Secretary of State saw fit. This is all correct, but consultation in private could amount to no more than delivering the unhappiness on behalf of the Government and instructing the direction to GB Energy. These meetings happen in private, and Parliament is not privy to any of this information or the outcomes.
The Minister may also argue that these powers have been used in—and, indeed, directly copied from—the nuclear energy Bill. To that, I might kindly argue that nuclear accidents and nuclear emergencies are of a different order of magnitude to our renewable sector, although I do recognise the need for urgency when it comes to our energy supply and energy security. I also recognise that GB Energy will have a role in the nuclear sector—although that is to be strictly defined as yet—and, if the Minister wishes, a government amendment to my amendment could call for an exemption for either a nuclear accident or a national energy security emergency. I would be interested in the Minister’s response to my amendment, and I would be happy to discuss this with the Minister prior to Report.
For all other cases, my view is that an urgent Statement can be tabled in both Houses in a matter of mere days, and this can run concurrently while the Minister fulfils his other obligations in respect of consulting with GB Energy and others. Our view is that this is a carefully crafted amendment which seeks to balance the need to address emergency issues against the need for proper and full parliamentary scrutiny to take place. These may be reserve powers, but they are absolute powers, and they are under the sole control of the Secretary of State. They are enacted after consultations and are merely reported to Parliament after they have been enacted.
I ask the Government to think carefully. I know that they might feel that these powers are safe in their hands, but how would the Minister feel if, for example, Labour were to lose the next general election and these powers were in the hands of another Administration? I think it is in that light that the Government should reflect on whether there is a need for a further check and balance on these powers.
Turning to the other amendments in this group, Amendment 87, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, goes further than my amendment. It says:
“A Minister must table a motion for resolution in each House of Parliament on any directions given to Great British Energy under this section before the directions are adopted”.
I am generally supportive of this amendment, but I have two concerns about it. First, holding a vote will take more time. Secondly, if Parliament, for whatever reason, decided not to approve the directions, I wonder what the consequence would be, because these directions are only given in emergency situations. That is an unlikely consequence, but I do not necessarily agree that having a vote actually helps in this case. What I am interested in is parliamentary scrutiny and conversation, not Parliament having the right to have a vote on this issue.
Finally, Amendment 86, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, amends Clause 6 by adding that consultation should take place with the National Energy System Operator, the Climate Change Committee and the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority. This amendment is helpful, but to my mind it does not resolve the issue; the issue is one of parliamentary scrutiny, and Amendment 86 does not provide further parliamentary scrutiny. The heart of this, for me, is simply having greater opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny while not delaying emergency actions. That is what I am trying to balance. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 86 in my name is, as noble Lords will realise, very similar to Amendment 56 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, which was spoken to last month by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. The point is that we all have concerns about the overwhelming statutory powers of the Secretary of State to control, and give random formal directions to, GBE. As I said at Second Reading, we are worried that modern politicians are no longer likely to have had experience of running a business, particularly an investment business, which is what this is. On the whole, the same applies to civil servants who might be advising the Secretary of State. They also usually have little experience of the nitty-gritty of day-to-day private sector business and its associated hour-by-hour assessment of risk and, more to the point, when to take that risk. In other words, you cannot always be totally safety conscious.
Probably the key person with whom the Secretary of State should be consulting is a private sector investment analyst, or even a team of private sector investment analysts, as the noble Lord, Lord Petitgas, was saying early on in the previous discussions. That might be hard to spell out on the face of the Bill, so I will leave that one hanging. As noble Lords can sense, however, I am not at all happy that a politics-orientated—maybe even a party- politics-orientated—Secretary of State of either party should be able to give any direction at all on the issue of practical investment to a hopefully business-orientated board of GBE. I support Amendment 68 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
The next thing to say is that Clause 6(3)(b) is superfluous. It states that the Secretary of State should consult
“such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.
It is legally meaningless. The Secretary of State could take it or leave it. If he consults with no one, he can claim he did not consider anyone appropriate, so he is under no obligation to consult anyone, apart from Great British Energy, as it stands in Clause 6(3)(a). We therefore need some more specific recommendations.
It is of course right that the Secretary of State should have to consult GBE—after all, it will implement whatever direction he or she gives it—but the Secretary of State should also consult NESO. After all, it is responsible for driving the delivery of our power through the national grid and other transmission companies—we discussed this on another group—so, clearly, it needs to be consulted.
Then there is the Climate Change Committee, which is in very close touch with the state of play of the progress to net zero. It is also in touch with the latest science and knows the priorities of what is most needed to get us to net zero. It will have a view on what could or should be the essential focus of GBE, so it should also be consulted.
Then of course there is Ofgem, which represents the consumers and is their voice, so it seems only right that it should also be consulted on any formal direction from the Secretary of State to GBE. There may be others, and I take the point from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the fact that my list is of consultants, rather than Parliament, which might be able to influence the direction of the Secretary of State in a more formal way—although I hope that a consultation exercise would also influence his decision-making process.
In his response to Amendment 56 last month, the Minister seemed to say that the amendment was unnecessary because the Secretary of State would be in permanent consultation with all the organisations involved anyway, but he was at that time talking about the consultation on the strategic priorities in Clause 5 and here we are talking about later specific directions given by the Secretary of State to GBE. After all, the Government themselves put Clause 6(3) in the Bill, so they must have thought that highlighting the importance of consultation, and whom it is with, was important and necessary. In my view, they did not make it specific enough, or possibly wide enough, so I hope they can accept that they should enlarge their constituency of consultees.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I rise first to propose my Amendment 86A as an amendment to Amendment 86, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, has just spoken. The purpose of my amendment is similar to that of Amendment 56A, which was debated in an earlier group. I agree with the noble Lord that the Secretary of State’s considerable powers to give directions to GBE should be subject to oversight. The Bill already requires any directions to be published and laid before Parliament, and it requires him to consult GBE and any other person he considers appropriate before giving any direction. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, rightly proposes that NESO, the Climate Change Committee and the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority should also be consulted. He rightly did not add Natural England and the Environment Agency to the list—I guess because they are not qualified to have authority over the Secretary of State’s directions on energy projects to GBE.
However, both Great British Nuclear—GBN—and the National Wealth Fund should be consulted, because their objectives are associated specifically with the delivery of new energy schemes. In particular, it would have made more sense to have created GBE as a body incorporating GBN from the beginning, which would have provided for more joined-up thinking. It is seriously distortive to the market that GBE is well capitalised, with £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money, and GBN has no such funding. That is why we do not have anywhere near enough UK-based nuclear companies and consortia going through the GDA process at present. At the very least, GBE should be required to work closely with GBN. The Minister should surely accept that GBN should be able to propose nuclear schemes, which may compete well with renewable schemes. A requirement to consult would make it more likely that that would happen.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 87 in my name and to take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Trenchard for lending his most welcome support to the amendment and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for introducing this little group so eloquently and strategically. He is absolutely right to point out that the difference between his amendment and the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Trenchard is the difference between an Oral Statement which can just be debated and, in our case, the need for a Motion of resolution in each House of Parliament. To put his mind at rest, I cannot believe that that would need to delay the process at all. It could be called in exactly the same amount of time—probably half a day, an Oral Statement possibly taking an hour, or 30 minutes in each House.
The Minister, who I do not think is replying to this group, said in response to the first group that he believes and hopes that Clause 6 will never be used. But the very fact that it is in the Bill means that it is there to be used should the circumstances arise and I believe that the magnitude is such that it is important to debate it and to carry each House with the Government. I cannot believe that that would be a delaying tactic; I think it is absolutely essential. The noble Lord also, in reference to the question of giving directions, equated the situation to that of the National Health Service. It is clear to me that, were such a direction to be given to the National Health Service, that would be debated in each House of Parliament as well, particularly in the circumstances that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, related of a potentially dangerous one-off situation which we understand Clause 6 envisages.
Words were said earlier about Drax and I do not wish to dwell on that, but Drax is a major contributor to the whole of the Yorkshire and Humberside regional economy. I believe that we should go back to growing the fast-growing willow coppice and—a name I can never pronounce—miscanthus, as that would help Drax to have a local source of produce on which to rely. It would also help the farmers at this very difficult time for them.
On the question of directions and consultation raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and others such as my noble friend Lord Trenchard, it is important for it to be in the Bill that, before giving a direction, the Secretary of State must consult. Clause 6(3)(b) simply says
“such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.
Well, it would be helpful, if there were a situation of some danger, for local authorities to be consulted, because they are the first responders in many cases. I am slightly baffled that they have not been mentioned so far. Do the Government intend to consult them? In previous debates it was also raised by the Association of British Insurers that, in these circumstances, potential and actual investors may need to be consulted if such an emergency were to arise. I do not think they have been mentioned so far. Again, is that something the Government have in mind?
I want to sound fairly relaxed about this, but I do believe that the amendment in the names of myself and my noble friend Lord Trenchard is preferable to the wording of the noble Earl’s Amendment 66 and I hope that the Government will respond favourably to our very modest request that a resolution should be debated in each House of Parliament and potentially voted on before the directions are adopted. I hope the Minister will also respond to my queries about who is to be consulted and why there are not more of them listed in the Bill. With those few remarks, I commend my amendment.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, it must be maddening for the Minister that a Bill specifically designed to exclude investment in the nuclear sector keeps on dragging back to the nuclear sector. This is for the obvious reason that these issues are completely and utterly inseparable. Investment in the energy sector generally has got to take account of all the different aspects, and nuclear is obviously one of them.
The Minister raised the question yet again of Sizewell C being a replica, and obviously he thinks I am being very boring on this, but can I plead with him to go back to his department and point out the obvious fallacies in the whole replica concept? If Sizewell C were to go ahead, it would be being constructed in the late 2020s and the early 2030s, probably for completion and producing kilowatts in the late 2030s or later. That will be approximately 25 years beyond the original design of Hinkley C, which was originally conceived under the Blair/Brown Government in the late 2010s.
Everyone in the civil nuclear sector knows that this is a highly fluid situation in which technology is rapidly developing and is going to create, along with the arrival of new things such as AI, a completely new set of designs, which will mean that by the late 2020s the Hinkley design will be frankly out of date. The idea that something that is 20 years old should be replicated is absurd in any advanced technology, and particularly absurd when it comes to electricity generation and civil nuclear power. If one just thinks about it for a moment, one will realise the replica argument carries absolutely no weight at all. I very much hope that any new nuclear installations—whether 300, 500 or gigawatt size—are definitely not going to be a replica of what has occurred at Hinkley C.
This is a view that is held very widely in France, where they say this design is unbuildable and should never be repeated, and it is the view of many other technicians involved in new nuclear development, which I strongly welcome in all sorts of shapes and sizes, but the idea that we should build a replica 20 years after the last one is frankly absurd. Please would the Minister go back to his department and point this out?
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendments in this group. It is clear from this and other groups that the mood of the Committee is in favour of fuller accountability to this House of the activities of GB Energy. This is not micromanaging; it is simply accountability and transparency. How the actions that are taken by GB Energy are directed, as is addressed by Amendment 66 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and addressed more fully in Amendment 87 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, is an essential part of that.
Financial markets have periods of irrational exuberance where greed triumphs over caution and experience. Most recently, we have seen the ill-fated wave of SPACs: special purpose acquisition companies. They are generally launched with great excitement and fanfare and with very loose objectives and end in disappointment. GB Energy is clearly a serious undertaking and its chances of success will be greatly aided by rigorous discipline and concentration of force. Applying strong parliamentary oversight of its directions can only aid that.
Amendment 86 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and Amendment 86A in the name of my noble friend Lord Trenchard, will help in the rigour of those directions. The clause as drafted is simply too vague, as has been pointed out by other noble Lords. There is great and relevant knowledge in the five bodies nominated between these two amendments. It would seem essential for all directions that the Secretary of State should access this knowledge to ensure that these directions are as beneficial as possible.
I ask the Minister: how specific do his Government intend those directions to be? Will they prioritise jobs, bills, net zero or the commerciality of GB Energy itself? Having such directions is vital to ensure that GB Energy does not drift off course and stays aligned with the Government’s will. But the risk of conflicting objectives is confusion and muddle.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I do not support Amendments 66 and 87 in this group, for similar reasons to those that I gave on the first group that we debated today, in that they would weaken the role of the power of direction. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the fourth report of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee. I am not sure that that report stands up to close scrutiny. It is a very brief report with relatively little argumentation, and it is difficult to understand what the underlying logic really was. I suspect that the committee did not fully take account of the historical role of powers of direction in relation to public corporations, and it may well have reached a conclusion on the basis of a partial understanding of the role of public corporation powers of direction as they are designed.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and my noble friends Lord Roborough, Lord Howell, Lord Trenchard, Lady McIntosh and Lady Noakes for their contributions on this group. The debate raised critical issues regarding the sweeping powers, as we highlighted, given to the Secretary of State. Why is it that any and all directions that the Secretary of State gives to GBE are hidden from the eyes of the public and lack parliamentary scrutiny? Considering once again that GBE is funded by £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money, is subject to an unlimited cap on financial assistance and will not cut the British consumer’s energy bills, this is deeply concerning.
Let me turn to the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Amendment 66 would ensure that the Secretary of State does not give any direction to GBE without first delivering an oral Statement before Parliament setting out those directions. I am acutely aware of the lack of detail in this legislation, and it is crucial that we have proper oversight of the wider activities of GBE as ordered by the Secretary of State. It is not only I who thinks this: the Government have agreed. In fact, in Committee in the other place, the honourable Member for Rutherglen, Michael Shanks, said that the Government want Great British Energy to be
“accountable, transparent and clear about how it is delivering on its objectives”.—[Official Report, Commons, Great British Energy Bill Committee, 15/10/24; col. 168.]
I therefore see no reason why the Minister should not support amendments that seek to improve accountability and reporting measures in the Bill and ensure sufficient oversight of the objectives, directions and activities of GBE. If the Prime Minister stands by his statement that he would not make a single promise that he was not confident he could deliver, the Minister ought to support these amendments, which would ensure that GBE was indeed “accountable, transparent and clear about how it is delivering on its objectives”.
The UK Infrastructure Bank, referenced by my noble friend Lord Trenchard, was set up with the explicit purpose of financing projects to drive our energy transition, and it already includes rigorous safeguards to ensure that taxpayer money is spent effectively. Governed by strict rules and subject to detailed annual reporting, it provides the public with comprehensive information on its performance and investments. Given that these robust mechanisms are already in place for the Infrastructure Bank, is it not fair—indeed, essential—that GBE undergoes the same level of scrutiny and oversight? If we are truly committed to safeguarding public funds, surely the same level of accountability should applie to all publicly funded energy initiatives.
Amendment 87 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh would require a Minister to table a motion for resolution in each House of Parliament on any directions that are given by the Secretary of State to GBE before the directions are adopted. In a similar fashion, Amendment 66 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would prevent the Secretary of State from directing GBE unless they have delivered an oral Statement to Parliament. I am grateful to both noble Lords for bringing these amendments, which will undoubtedly improve the levels of scrutiny and oversight to which the directions which are given to Great British Energy will be subject.
The only details included under Clause 6 are that
“Great British Energy must comply with the directions”
and that:
“The Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament any directions given to Great British Energy”.
This is simply not good enough. It is the bare minimum to allow Parliament to have sight of the directions issued to Great British Energy before they are acted on. In fact, it would be negligible to allow Great British Energy to be directed without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. I therefore trust that the Minister has listened carefully to the concerns raised by Amendments 66 and 87.
Amendment 86, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, seeks to ensure that, before giving any direction to Great British Energy, the Secretary of State must consult
“the National Energy System Operator”—
known as NESO—
“the Climate Change Committee and the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority”.
I discussed in detail the importance of consultation in our debate on Amendments 56 and 116. As I said, engagement and consultation with the relevant parties is crucial if GBE is to be a success. The Secretary of State must not act in isolation. It is crucial that he or she consults with the relevant stakeholders. I therefore welcome the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh. I look forward to the Minister’s response on the concerns raised by noble Lords in the debate on this group.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Cryer) (Lab)
My Lords, I now turn, as you would expect, to Amendments 66, 86, 86A and 87, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. As I have said, and as my noble friend has said previously, Clause 6 sets out that the Secretary of State will be able to give directions to Great British Energy, and that Great British Energy must comply with those directions.
As Great British Energy will be operationally independent, the intention is that the power will be used only when it is really needed. This will ensure that GBE has the space it requires to fulfil its role and deliver its strategic priorities. I draw the House’s attention to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in this context.
The purpose of the clause is to ensure that there is a mechanism in place should any urgent or unforeseen circumstances arise. For example, it could be used if the Secretary of State considers that they need to give GBE a direction that is in the interest of national security or otherwise in the public interest. The amendments before us would risk delaying the Secretary of State’s ability to give Great British Energy that direction, potentially compromising national security under certain circumstances.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised the perfectly reasonable points of accountability and scrutiny. I am not impugning his motives—or the motives of anybody else who has tabled amendments—but if there was an issue of national security that perhaps took place at the start of a recess, it would seriously hamper the Secretary of State’s ability to act.
The noble Earl also raised, interestingly, the possibility of Labour losing the next election. It may come as a shock, but we are not actually planning to lose the next election. However, the mechanism of accountability and the decisions of this Government and future Governments are subject to the views of voters. That is part of the democratic process. We might not like a future Government exercising the directions we have put on the statute book, but that probably applies to past Governments as well. It is part of the democratic process and the process of accountability and scrutiny.
The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would take this point further by requiring the resolution of each House, which I genuinely do not think is practicable. However, to ensure transparency and accountability, any directions given to Great British Energy will be published and laid before Parliament before they are given.
Further, Clause 6 requires that the Secretary of State must consult GBE and other persons considered appropriate, before giving directions to GBE. This means that GBE’s management and its board—yet to be appointed—will have the opportunity to express any reservations they have about the direction to Ministers before any such direction is made. If appropriate, this could include the National Energy System Operator, the Climate Change Committee—which has been consulted by successive Governments—the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, Great British Nuclear and the National Wealth Fund, as well as groups not referenced in Amendment 86.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, mentioned at least two of the organisations on that list; he mentioned others too, as I think did the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. We could end up with a list as long as your arm of bodies that have to be consulted, which would seriously hamper the Secretary of State’s room for manoeuvre.
Finally, it is not unusual for a Secretary of State to be able to direct an arm’s-length body and such powers are found in several pieces of legislation—again referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. In the specific context of government-owned companies, such powers are, for example, included in the Energy Act 2023, which created Great British Nuclear, where named stakeholders are also not included in the directions clause.
For these reasons, I hope the noble Earl recognises that adding this detail would not be beneficial and will withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell (LD)
In my speech, I recognised the needs of national emergencies or an energy emergency. One of the options I offered the Government was to allow them to amend my amendment to exempt those situations from the need to give an Oral Statement. Will the Minister respond to that specific point, please?
Lord Cryer (Lab)
The noble Earl makes a fair comment. However, what he is putting forward is far too prescriptive. There are plenty of precedents for Secretaries of State being able to operate in this way.
I am starting to sound like the secretary of the Baroness Noakes fan club, but the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, pointed out that there is the ability to summon the Secretary of State before a Select Committee. There are various Select Committees which have the ability to summon Secretaries of State after the fact. Ministers of all Governments might not be that keen on appearing before Select Committees, but they do not have a lot of choice in the matter. In the vast majority of cases when they are summoned, they appear before the Select Committee and give an account of their actions.
Earl Russell (LD)
I thank the Minister for responding, and I thank everybody who spoke in the debate: the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
These are important issues; they are absolute powers. I recognise the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that there are other ways of summoning Ministers and that the whole idea of ministerial accountability is that Parliament afterwards can question Ministers. I think that is a bit of a second-tier kind of accountability, but I recognise that there may be situations where the Government need to act with urgency and even the act of giving a Statement could impede the Government from doing that, whether it relates to nuclear energy, energy security or foreign interference in our energy security. I did, therefore, offer the Government the possibility of amending my amendment.
It is important that we have discussed these issues. They are important powers, and it is important we debate them. I do not think we found an answer or a way forward, but the debate itself has been interesting. I thank the Government.
Lord Fuller
“(1A) The Secretary of State must give a specific direction to Great British Energy that it must not facilitate, encourage or participate in the development of renewable energy technologies on agricultural land classified as grade 1, 2 or 3.” Member’s explanatory statement
This would restrict the types of land on which renewable energy technologies can be developed under Great British Energy’s activities, to protect the most productive and versatile land for food production.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 67, 73, 104 and 105 on the Marshalled List stand in my name. This is the first set of amendments I have brought to your Lordships’ House and, on that basis, if I make some small procedural missteps, I ask the Committee to treat me gently.
The purpose of this set of amendments is to protect the best and most versatile land for food production. That is not to say that solar or renewables are intrinsically bad. It is just that solar and renewable energy should be focused on the poorer land and food production on the best. Having needed to dig for victory within living memory, we cannot afford to forget that having food in your belly ranks above having a roof over your head in the hierarchy of the most basic needs. I am not seeking to be obstructionist, but we have to recognise that we are a crowded island and we all have to eat—and you cannot eat a solar panel.
There are plenty of calls on land use, for housing, for water management and drainage, for amenity and the environment, for factories and transport uses and, of course, for food production. My amendment seeks to balance the tension between energy and food production. It cannot be left to an operationally independent private company—GB Energy—and the directors who have no concern for food to get carried away and undermine the food security of our nation.
It is because of these tensions that the last Government proposed a land use framework, so we can strike the right balance as a nation between these competing land uses. I note we are still waiting for that to be published by this Government, who have exhibited quite a cavalier disregard for anything that happens in the sticks, unless they can cover it with concrete or carpet it with panels.
At this stage I should declare my interests as a director of companies involved in the agricultural supply and farming industries. But this is not about my personal interests. Protecting the best and most valuable land is in the national interest. I am not alone in stating this. The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, talks about food security being national security, and I agree.
Put simply, the UK is not self-sufficient in food and continues to rely on the kindness of strangers to feed it. It is important, because last November I asked a Written Question about how many hectares of solar farms were currently being considered under the NSIP regime. The answer came back that there were about two farms covering 1,400 hectares under consideration. Now, I know in Norfolk alone there are 7,000 hectares and five schemes. It is the same elsewhere. The Government have simply lost control of the numbers on renewables. They are unsighted on the stampede to take our best land out of production and lock it away for a generation. There is an unthinking dash for renewables overlaid by a reckless indifference about one of our largest industries: the food industry, the backbone of private enterprise on our shores. GB Energy has no concern for any of this, but it should. That gets to the heart of why these amendments are needed to the Bill. We cannot afford to be careless with our food supply.
Last year national wheat yield was down 25%, from over 14 million tonnes to about 11 million. It is partly explained by bad weather, but also by so much productive land being temporarily placed in environmental schemes— there was a herd effect. I am pleased to say that plantings have bounced back this season; but that 25% reduction should serve as a warning about the fragility of our food supply.
A casual approach to land use materially affected our ability to feed ourselves before anyone even realised. As I say, the cultivated land has bounced back this year and the damage has been repaired, but when land is converted to solar it is locked away not for one season but for 30 years—a whole generation. That is consequential; we cannot accidentally sleepwalk into locking away our best land. It needs a more planned approach and that is why we need directions.
I am grateful to your Lordships’ Library for providing me with a best estimate of the different types of farmed land here in the UK. In essence, Natural England estimates that, under the classification system established in 1966, about 21% of the land under cultivation and grazing is grade 1 or 2, and 21% is the upper end of good grade 3—the best and most versatile land. If we make an allowance for the lower end of grade 3, I suggest that about half the 8.9 million hectares of farmed land in England could be classified as the most productive and worthy of protection. This is the land that is the subject of these amendments.
I am not going to dwell on the difficulties the Library tells me it had in collating this information, but if we just accept—and be gentle with me—that about half the land is grade 1, 2 or 3, which is the best land, that would still earmark about 4.5 million hectares for non-food uses, including renewables. I am going to refrain from describing this vast area—4.5 million hectares—in the traditional unit of measure, which is probably football pitches. I venture to say that 4.5 million hectares is about two Waleses, or nine Norfolks. I have heard it said that the amount of land that could be devoted to solar, even in the most adventurous scenario, is probably no larger than the area devoted to the UK’s golf courses, but that is to miss the point. If indeed the coverage is much less than 1%, there is nothing to fear from protecting the best land. In other words, if my amendment is accepted, there will still be plenty of the worst land for renewables, just not in the places where the best land feeds us.
Let us move on to the economics. Thanks to this Government, the public now start to realise how farmers work in difficult conditions to eke out a precarious existence in a risky enterprise buffeted by weather and global trade issues. The reward for this all effort is about £200 per acre, often having invested millions in productive plant and equipment such as sprayers, tractors and combines. These farmers are being offered about £900 per acre to sit on the beach, with no-risk, index-linked income streams for 40 years, by giving up farming and installing panels on their land. There are whispers that, should they do this, after a passage of time that land would then be zoned as previously developed land, rather than farmland, and be worth considerably more as a result. You cannot blame landowners for seeking to covert to solar—except that some landowners want to turf off their tenants, and that is no good. It is a completely rational thing to accept, and completely in their private interest to do so. This amendment recognises that, while it may be in their private interest, it is not in the national interest. We cannot have a situation where it is open season for renewables regardless of the wider consequences.
The state exists to arbitrate between the private and public interest, and I say that we cannot be cavalier or careless with our food supply, however much we crave clean energy. We need to strike the balance between eating and heating. That means ensuring that food is preferentially produced on the grades 1 and 2 land, while accepting that grades 4 and 5 can contribute in other ways—that is the way forward. That said, even where grades 4 and 5 land could be contemplated for renewable energy, it is often the case that while some of this is impaired in agricultural terms, it has other values. Some of those values may include amenity value, outstanding landscape value or contribution to a wider social benefit, perhaps in an area of natural beauty. It is for this reason that, even in cases where land may be at the poorer end of production, changes in use to solar or renewables should be consulted on by residents within a 20-mile buffer of the widest proposed land extent. My amendment 104 provides for this stipulation.
Taken together, my amendments seek to establish and enforce the balance and tension between the private and public interests. That is what the state is for: to protect us from the herd effect that can stampede a whole industry in a particular direction before it can be appreciated what is happening, as we saw last spring.
I want to talk about why it is important that GB Energy is constrained by these amendments to the Bill. It is partly because no one in the countryside is prepared to take anything on trust from this Government going forward. Labour does not really understand the countryside—but I tell you, the countryside understands Labour.
Great British Energy is a company. There is to be a fiduciary board, and there are duties under the Companies Act 2006 to promote its self-interest—the private interest. The Secretary of State will be empowered by the Bill to make certain directions, but we would not need these amendments if the nature of those directions were already in the Bill. We should not be surprised if, left uncontrolled, GB Energy acts as company law requires: in the best private interests of the company, not the public interest of the country. It is not scaremongering; it is what we have just seen, having spent hours and hours debating the Water Bill, so there is precedent for wanting these sorts of controls.
My amendments would require the Secretary of State to ensure that GB Energy focuses its activities in such a way that it does not undermine our food security—our national security—and that it acts in the wider national interest and does not pursue its own private interest. There is no such requirement, so it falls to us to ensure that there is.
My amendments are important for another reason, and I want to dwell on an economic reason why they are is so important. I referred to the nature of the contracts being offered to farmers to incentivise them to give up food production and sit on the beach: long-term, state-backed, secure income streams that are index-linked, underpinned by a physical asset in a country with strong property and commercial rights. These are the sorts of investments that pension funds around the world seek out. The parcelling, packaging and collateralising of such assets into derivatives is what Wall Street thrives on. If we do not apply limits, we risk the perverse incentive that would convert much more than 1% of the British countryside—a huge amount of land—into nothing more than a global energy play, with the benefits transferred to offshore territories, controlled from who knows where. The countryside is not there to be collateralised, so GB Energy should be directed to give preference to the hard-grafting and toiling farmers of the best lands, who feed us, rather than driving the countryside in the direction of providing passive income for global investors elsewhere.
Failure to accept these amendments would be a policy designed to kill the family farm even faster than the Government are planning to do so already, transferring control of much of the countryside to Wall Street, while British jobs—proper jobs—and real family businesses are greenwashed out of existence. Rural Britain will be rinsed unless we get a grip here, with its landscape and environment impaired.
To summarise, the stampede for solar is economically rational for individual farmers, but economically illiterate for the countryside and our environment. It is not a matter of food security versus energy security: I know we need to keep the lights on, but we have all got to eat. Food security and energy security can and should be bedfellows, and this amendment provides a sensible framework whereby they can live alongside each other, in the national interest, and with the consent of those most directly affected by the installations.
In essence, GB Energy should be required by statute to prevent a repeat of—a modern version of—the Highland clearances on the lowlands, in an unthinking and unconscious dash for renewables on our best land. GB Energy cannot have operational independence over our food supply without limit or regard to consequence. Can the Minister tell us why the Government would be against this when, under my proposal, we could still have nine Norfolks-worth or two Wales-worth of land to work with, but at least with the security of food in our bellies? I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I sympathise with the amendments on land use put down by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. He wishes to ensure that in this very densely populated country of England we use our limited available land wisely. England—not the UK—is, I think, the fifth or sixth most densely populated country in the world. That includes countries such as Singapore, which are, in essence, city states. So, it is right that we use our land wisely: per head of population, we do not have much of it. Furthermore, as I have said on several occasions, it is the primary duty of any Government to ensure that they can feed their subjects. I believe that the food agenda comes as high as—if not higher—than the defence agenda, although they are clearly very closely interlinked.
However—I am sure noble Lords could all sense a “but” coming down the line, though I shall try to be gentle with the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, as he requested—I am not certain that this is the right way to approach this issue. Land use must be planned in the round. We all need to step back and examine our needs from land as a whole, which include food, biodiversity, flood relief, forestry, access for leisure and health, much-needed housing and of course energy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others, including me, have been banging on about this for several years now. We need a land use framework in the round. I am afraid that a uni-purpose focus such as found in the noble Lord’s amendments, however sensible it may seem in today’s circumstances and business, can only limit our ability to sensibly plan a wider, step-back, more holistic strategy.
For a start, circumstances may change. I see our land use framework as a constant work in progress as the world changes around us. Such changes may include the way our food is produced, the latest imminent threats from foreign countries or the importance of energy to our economy—thus, in this context, the ever-changing balance between food security and energy security.
While today the priority of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is clearly food security over energy, it may be that in the future grade 3 land, for instance, is superfluous to our food security and better off focused on biodiversity or energy. I am afraid that I am not able to support these amendments, however much as a retired farmer I sympathise with their very good intentions.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Fuller’s Amendments 67, 73, 104 and 105, which I have also signed. I first congratulate him on a polished and passionate introduction to his first amendments.
Amendments 67 and 104 would prevent GB Energy supporting renewable energy projects on, or owning, land that is grade 1, 2 or 3 to prevent the loss of good agricultural land. Amendments 73 and 105 would encourage GB Energy to pursue developments on land that has designations of grade 4 or 5 or on non-agricultural land.
The nationally significant infrastructure projects that have been signed by our Secretary of State have already had a detrimental impact on our best and most versatile farmland. In answer to my Written Question on 2 December about the agricultural impact of the Cottam, Mallard Pass and Gate Burton solar farms, the Minister—who is sitting in his place and is also doing such an able job of shepherding this Bill through this House and Committee—stated:
“For each of these cases, the Examining Authorities’ Reports have been published alongside the Secretary of State’s Decision Letters”,
so I had to find the answers myself. The examining authorities are clear that best and most versatile land, including grade 2, is being lost to existing solar developments. It seems hasty that some of the largest and most controversial solar developments appear to be being signed off with little or no weighting given to the quality of the land or food security. The justification seems to be that the land will be returned to agriculture after 30 or so years, as my noble friend pointed out. Unfortunately, we need to eat for those 30 years.
At Cottam, 5% of the area was best and most versatile land. The report said
“according to the ExA, the Proposed Development would not meet the requirements of the NPPF in this regard and subsequently accorded this a negative weighting”.
At Mallard Pass, 40.7% of this project was best and most versatile land, with the remaining 56% grade 3b —so captured by this amendment but not by “best and most versatile”. The report said
“the ExA acknowledges that there is a corresponding degree of conflict with the Government’s Food Strategy aim of broadly maintaining domestic production at current level, and that there is a potential higher agricultural yield and associated economic benefit from the farming of BMV land that would be lost”.
In answer to my Oral Question prior to Christmas, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, conceded that the Sunnica project had a negative albeit slight impact on farming. In answer to an Oral Question from my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, the noble Baroness stated that grades 1 and 2 farmland were not being developed for solar. As my research has demonstrated, this is not entirely true for important grade 2 farmland nor for grade 3a.
It is clear from these examples that the Government’s goal of energy security from renewable energy trumps food security every time. I ask the Minister two questions: with so much land of grade 4 and below in the UK, including in areas with strong solar radiation, why is the Secretary of State so eager to approve sites which undermine our food security? Why are the Government not being straight that this is happening? I had to dig for some time to answer these questions after the replies I was given. Are the Government seeking to hide the embarrassing details of these actions? Research from SolarQ demonstrates that solar development is falling disproportionately on grades 1, 2 and 3 land, and underproportionately on weaker grades. Why is this?
The proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework would remove the protection for agricultural land for food production, simply requiring that poorer land be preferred. Given that the current NPPF is already undermining best and most versatile land use, weakening its protection makes a bad situation worse and makes my noble friend Lord Fuller’s amendments even more important.
At present, it seems that this Government will approve any renewable energy project development that anyone cares to put forward, without an overall strategy for where those projects are best placed. Our Government began development of a land use framework that would help inform and clarify this decision-making. The current Government have committed to continuing this work and publishing that framework in the not-too-distant future; I believe consultation is expected to begin at the end of this month. That would allow for an open discussion about our priorities and a rational process for determining where we want our solar and wind energy infrastructure to make sure that each of our limited and precious acres is put to its best use.
It is clear that our best farmland is not being treasured or protected by the Government and it is critical that we use every opportunity to protect it. In the Great British Energy Bill, we have the chance with these amendments to prevent at least part of the industry pursuing damaging developments that are not in our national interest.
I hope the Minister will see the wisdom of putting these protections in the Bill. Would he be willing in his department’s involvement in the land use frame-work also to ensure that renewable energy project development happens on our least agriculturally productive land?
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments pick up the right issue but produce the wrong solution. There is no doubt about it: we need the land use framework to come forward very swiftly to avoid the sort of piecemeal decision-making that we are hearing about, not only on food security and energy but on all sorts of other issues.
To try to task GB Energy with this role is entirely the wrong approach, because the reality is that GB Energy is simply a medium-sized company aimed at investing in a comparatively small number of projects, and again would be a very partial solution to these big dilemmas about how we use the very scarce land we have at our disposition in this country. I want the Minister to press his colleagues in other government departments, because we require a multi-department land use framework that will take a multifunctional look at how we use land. We need not just to look at the strategic spatial energy plan, which will also talk about locational issues and land use in respect of energy; that spatial plan must be nested within the land use framework, and it is increasingly pressing that it comes forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, asked us to be gentle with him. I will say very gently that in this House we do not talk for 12 minutes on an amendment.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Fuller, who put forward a very convincing argument, supported by my noble friend Lord Roborough.
I will make three very brief points. First, surely one of the key lessons of the Ukraine crisis concerns food security. That means taking very seriously our attitude to grade 1 agricultural land. I do not agree with the noble Baroness that this is not the right mechanism for trying to entrench the value of that land. This is a narrow amendment that seeks to put the responsibility on Great British Energy, which is, after all, being created by statute. I can think of no better way of trying to curtail the use of this land in ways that undermine food security.
Secondly, I hope the Minister will find time to comment on the point that my noble friend made on tenant farmers. If a landowner, large or small, decides to embark on a solar project, that is something that he has the right to apply for: it is his land and, arguably, farmers are being encouraged to diversify. If there is a tenant on that land—for example, a family who might well have an expectation to go on farming that land for at least one more generation, maybe for 40 or 50 years—under the 1948 Act, the farmer in question cannot be kicked out if the landowner wants the land for farming. However, if the land will be allocated for other uses and permission is given for a solar array on that land, the tenant has no choice but to vacate his farming operation.
Of course, there will be issues with compensation, but we are talking about a situation that could be incredibly damaging and unfair to a group of farmers in this country. It is a large group of farmers, who are already under a lot of pressure because of other government policies. I urge the Minister to look specifically at that point. If he cannot respond to it today, could he ensure that he writes to Ministers in other departments to clarify it?
Finally, the Government have been quite cavalier in appreciating and valuing local opinion. I will give an example from Norfolk. I declare my interest as a landowner in Norfolk, although what I will discuss is nowhere near where I live. There is a group of solar array applications east of Swaffham on the A47. I think there are five sites—my noble friend Lord Fuller will correct me if I am wrong—amounting to 6,000 acres and straddling about four villages east of Swaffham. There is a huge amount of local opposition. Does the Minister think it right that these people should be ignored? Would it not be far better if the applications went through a local planning process? Indeed, there would be an appeal—but, if so, the local residents would obviously have the chance to put their point of view. Currently, there is a feeling that, in the interests of trying to get these key infrastructure projects through, local people are being ignored and cast to one side.
With those few remarks, I support my noble friends Lord Fuller and Lord Roborough, and wish them well with their amendments.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, first, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that I will not speak for 12 and a half minutes.
As I have established, I know a little about agriculture but not an awful lot. Something that occurred to me was that if you want to put up a massive solar plant covering a large area of agricultural land, you want low, sloping, south-facing land. That strikes me as precisely the same as the thing you want to grow crops on, so there is a direct conflict here between food production and solar panels. I point that out to the Committee because this is a vexed problem to which there is no easy solution.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I lend my support to my noble friend and congratulate him on moving his first amendment. As in Norfolk, there is a huge problem across North and East Yorkshire, where tenant farmers face being bounced off the land that they currently farm for solar panels. I hope that the Minister responding to this little group of amendments will use their good offices to ensure that solar panels are best built in more appropriate places. I say that as honorary president of the UK Warehousing Association, which has a campaign—of which the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is aware and, I hope, supportive—to ensure that we can get solar panels off the ground, particularly in productive grade 1, 2 and 3 agricultural land, while also helping warehouses to create more of their own energy.
I believe this is a debate to be had. I support those who say that it is perhaps not the role of Great British Energy to do this, but we have to raise this at every turn. If we run out of productive farmland on which to grow food—and to allow tenant farmers of every generation, including new entrants, to enter the market—it would be a very sorry state indeed.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to respond to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. We congratulate him on moving his first amendment—indeed, he got his own group of amendments together, which is to be welcomed. I am afraid that, on these Benches, we cannot support what he is doing; this is just not the right Bill to do it. Even if his amendments were successful, all they would do is limit the powers of Great British Energy to do this stuff; they do not limit any other organisation or body from doing it.
It is very important that the Government come forward with the land use framework as quickly as possible—these are important issues. My understanding is that that Bill should come through in April or around then. These are complicated issues; we are a small island and there is lots of competition on our land use.
Labour also promised us a rooftop solar revolution. We strongly support that and encourage the Government to continue to work on its delivery. France, for example, gets 5% of its electricity from solar panels on car parks. I would like to see this Government replicating that. We have heard about warehouses, but many are constructed to a standard that cannot take solar panels, because the roofs are not strong enough. We must do more to get solar panels into commercial spaces and housing.
I also encourage the Government to do more on the future homes standard. There is uncertainty about whether it will have proper, fit and strong purposes and standards for new-build houses. Then there is the issue of retrofitting existing houses and how we get more energy-efficient measures into them.
I will point out something to the Conservative Benches. The idea that we can either eat or have solar panels is a false dichotomy. I note that, while Amendment 67 applies to agricultural land of grades 1, 2 or 3, Amendment 73 applies to agricultural land of grades 4 and 5, so the Conservatives are covering quite a lot of grades with their amendments. I argue that climate change itself is the biggest issue for us in terms of food security, not solar panels that cover far less than 1% of our land. We have just had the worst harvest since 1988—if not ever, as some people say—and that was because of a continuous wet climate. We have had the failure of the last autumn and winter crops. It is climate change itself that is causing us to have problems with food security—and that is causing massive problems for our farmers.
I welcome the amendments but they are not ones that we can support.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for missing the first bit of my noble friend’s introduction to his amendments. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether he could update the Committee on where we are with the land use strategy. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, I, too, have been banging that drum for some time.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, gently chided my noble friend for the length of his introduction, I say to her that he is perfectly entitled to speak for 12 and a half minutes when introducing an amendment. That would not be the case if he were just one of the rest of us.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Fuller’s group of amendments. Significant construction projects inevitably bring competing interests. In this case, the clash is between renewable energy development and agriculture, as well as other environmental considerations beyond decarbonisation. Land use, particularly on a densely populated island, must be approached with great care. Currently, we import approximately 40% of our food. While today’s discussions may focus on volatile oil and gas prices, tomorrow’s may shift to the cost and availability of food. This creates a fundamental dilemma. What should take precedence: food or energy?
Food security highlights the need to prioritise high-grade land for agriculture. However, the Government’s plan to build 1.5 million homes—typically on the edge of towns and villages—threatens this priority. Settlements have historically been sited on fertile land, and expanding housing developments will inevitably consume some of it. Essential services such as schools and shops will require further land use, compounding the problem.
Designating renewable energy as part of the nationally significant infrastructure plan risks bypassing legislation designed to protect communities and high-grade land. Restricting onshore renewable projects to grade 4 and 5 land would safeguard high-quality agricultural land and reduce the impact on the more heavily populated areas. According to Solar Energy UK, currently solar installations take almost 20 times the amount of grade 1 land available as opposed to grade 5. I seriously question whether this is the right ratio and ask the Minister whether he believes that it is.
With the Government’s ambitious housing targets, should it not be mandated that all new building, including homes and commercial premises, be fitted with solar panels, as mentioned partially by the noble Earl, Lord Russell? This would make better use of land already out of agricultural use and reduce the pressure while advancing renewable energy goals.
Great British Energy should refrain from developing high-grade agricultural land, nor is there any justification for it to acquire such land unless Amendment 104 is adhered to. Once agricultural land is repurposed for construction, it is rarely restored. At the end of their operational life, renewable projects will leave behind brownfield sites that will probably be redeveloped, permanently altering the land’s use, leading to unintended consequences for the environment.
I draw attention to the potential conflicts between decarbonisation and other environmental concerns—for example, the low-level but persistent noise from onshore wind and solar farms, generated by inverters and transformers, which can disturb rural communities. Biodiversity loss is another critical concern, also highlighted by my noble friend Lord Fuller.
I strongly support the amendments and urge the Committee to carefully balance food security, environmental protection and renewable energy expansion.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I remind the Committee of my interests in that I own a farm in Devon.
My noble friend Lord Fuller has done the Committee a service by raising the issues of planning and land resource allocation more generally in the context of the Bill. I listened carefully to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and I think she is right: this is a very much broader issue than this relatively narrow Bill. None the less, this is an important moment to raise such issues. I very much hope that we will get a substantive response from the Minister when he addresses these considerations.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I was promised by the Conservative Government a land use framework by Christmas 2022; I did not get it. I was promised it by Christmas 2023; I did not get it. I would like it now from a Labour Government.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, knowing that the noble Baroness has waited so long puts my noble friend’s 12 and a half minutes into perspective. I dare say the Minister will ride to her rescue very shortly.
This is an important issue. We have had a number of agricultural debates over recent weeks, and one of the key themes has been the need to put food production at the very centre of agricultural policy. The view of the farming community is that that really is not the case at the moment. Farmers need clarity around the policy framework in the context of this Bill and, indeed, more broadly.
I listened carefully to the remarks of a number of contributors that even solar installations are long-cycle, high-capital-intensity investment decisions. There is an issue around whether land taken for solar would ever, in reality, be repurposed for agriculture.
I recognise that this is a broader issue in many respects than the narrow confines of the Bill but it is important for the Government to give us the context.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, onshore wind has a remarkably small footprint in terms of its use of the land, which seems to get forgotten. I can see 30 wind turbines from my bedroom window; the nearest is about 1 kilometre away. They are excellent: they show that renewable energy is working. We should have more of them, and I hope that the Government will continue to make it easier for these developments to take place towards our 2030 objective of decarbonised electricity.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Fuller and Lord Roborough—Amendments 67, 73, 104 and 105. In bringing forward these amendments, my noble friends raise the matter of great importance that is the agricultural industry, which has been subject to punitive measures by the Government in the form of the family farms tax raid.
Amendments 67 and 104 prevent Great British Energy from supporting projects on or owning land that is grade 1, 2 or 3 to prevent the loss of good and high-quality agricultural land. Alternatively, Amendments 73 and 105 encourage GBE to pursue developments on land that is designated grade 4 or 5 —essentially, the worst agricultural land. It appears obvious that the Secretary of State, who directs Great British Energy, will support an approach that balances the need for renewable energy with the need to preserve our nation’s food security.
As explained by my noble friend Lord Fuller within his allotted time, the purpose of this group of amendments is to protect the best and most versatile land for food production. I echo the concerns of my noble friend Lord Roborough that some of the largest and most significant solar developments seem to be approved without due consideration given to the quality of the land which is being sacrificed in the process. It is an undeniable fact that grade 2, the best and most versatile agricultural land, is being lost to existing solar developments. That is not merely a matter of farming but of our country’s food security. As my noble friend Lord Fuller so neatly put it, at best Great British Energy may help to turn our lights on and heat our homes, but there will be no food on the British people’s plates.
The question is not whether we should develop renewable energy but where we should develop it. The goal of achieving energy security should not come at the expense of food security. I ask the Minister to give us his full assurance that under no circumstances will the Secretary of State approve developments that undermine our nation’s ability to feed itself.
Recent analysis of land take by ground-mounted solar installations shows a concerning trend: solar developments are disproportionately targeting the best and most versatile land—that is, land classified under grade 1 and 2. Across England, only 17% of land is classified as grade 1, yet 19% of the land used for solar installations falls into this category. This trend violates the general recommendation to avoid productive agricultural land development. In contrast, grade 5 land, the poorest agricultural land, has been disproportionately avoided. That is exactly the type of land that solar projects should be prioritising, yet it remains underutilised. Only 0.5% of solar installations are on grade 5 land, despite such land constituting 8% of England’s agricultural landscape.
The issue is particularly pressing, given the Government’s ambitious target to triple solar power capacity to 50 gigawatts by 2030. As we expand solar energy, more and more land will be acquired. However, unless active measures are taken to ensure that the correct land is used for these installations, we will continue to see the loss of high-quality agricultural land, exacerbating concerns over our nation’s food security. Amendment 73, therefore, is vital: it seeks to ensure that renewable energy development does not come at the cost of our most productive agricultural land.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, on his first set of amendments. Of course, he is right that our food security is very important indeed to this country, just as moving as quickly as we can towards clean power is also very important, and I certainly accept that of course there is a balance to be drawn. Certainly, the importance of maintaining our natural resources to support UK agriculture, and supporting local stakeholder consultation in affairs that affect their surroundings and the quality of the environment, are values that I share with noble Lords who have spoken in the debate tonight. But I must come back to the fact that we are talking about Clause 6 and the issue of whether we should seek to amend Clause 6 in the directions that the Secretary of State can give to GBE.
I repeat what I said in the first two groups: these directions are a backstop where an intervention is needed, not a way in which to develop policy in relation to land use. In response to my noble friend Lady Young and other noble Lords, my understanding is that the Government plan to publish a 12-week consultation on land use early in this year. The consultation will inform the publication of a land use framework in England, to be published later on in this year.
I have also noted constructive comments about the need for us to develop—indeed, some noble Lords wish us to mandate—the use of solar in warehouses and in industrial and domestic properties, and these matters are under very urgent consideration at the moment. But we will always need ground-based solar, as well as onshore wind, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, suggested, which of course is why we got rid of what was in effect a ban that the last Government so grievously introduced in relation to that development.
The projects that GBE will be concerned with, that it will invest in and that it will give guidance and encouragement to—because of course that is an important part of its role, too—will be mandated. Inevitably, its job will be to consider government guidance on the most suitable land for renewable energy projects, and any project that it is involved in will be subject to the same rigorous planning processes that currently exist to protect agricultural land, minimise the impact on food security and provide ample consideration for local community interests.
The environmental impact assessment regulations of 2017 require that certain types of projects, including large-scale renewable energy developments, undergo an environmental impact assessment to assess their potential impact on the environment. Developers must also ensure that their projects comply with environmental regulations, which can include mitigating impacts on local wildlife, water resources and soil quality.
Further, the National Planning Policy Framework includes the preservation of agricultural land for food production as a key consideration in its legal framework governing renewable energy projects. It emphasises the need to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land, namely grades 1, 2 and 3a, from development that could compromise its productivity. Developers must consider the classification of the land involved in renewable energy projects and ensure that developments do not conflict with planning policies aimed at safeguarding agricultural land.
On the noble Lord’s suggestion that there is a dash for renewables, yes, there is a dash for renewables—I do not deny it. We have to have a dash for renewables. But that does not mean that existing protections are being overridden. Of course we recognise that poorly sited onshore projects can have impacts on the local area, which is why we will retain important checks and balances to protect the environment.
But, in the end, we come back to why we have Clause 6. It is a backstop power which we hope will never have to be used; it is not a way of seeking to change policy in relation to land use.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, we have had a good debate that has explored the tensions between food and energy security in the context of the national interest. It has recognised the tensions between the establishment of a private company, GB Energy, acting as it is required to do in its own narrow self-interest, and its responsibilities as a public body with a duty to set the right example.
I have taken from some of the comments that, “Lord Fuller has perhaps played the right notes but in the wrong order”. I am not Morecambe and Wise to my noble friend Lord Roborough, but I would just like to refer to some of the points that have come along.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, for his comments on the balance of land use and the importance of the “tilted balance”. Please do not misunderstand: my amendments are not saying that there should be no solar or renewables, or that we should have only food production. It is about where we put this thing in the tilted balance.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Roborough for shining a light on the fact that, notwithstanding that the Minister said, “Well, there are rules to be followed”, the rules are not being followed. That is why it is important that these amendments are made to the Bill, because we cannot really give the benefit of the doubt: if hitherto they have not been followed, why will they be followed now?
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, but even more grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for being gentle with her so I did not have to be.
The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, talked about the broad picture, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, for his point about tenants, because that has been lost as part of the social fabric in this.
I will be brief. This is such an important issue that I do not feel we can just leave it on trust that the Minister for Energy Security will necessarily dovetail in with the Minister for Food Production to get that tilted balance right. The nation cannot risk GB Energy going rogue, and there has to be a better way with that. It is hard. Energy security and food security can be bedfellows: we are not being fundamentalist about this. At heart, my amendments are about putting food production on the best land, and solar and other renewables on other land.
We have we have fleshed out quite a few details and I know we are in Committee. I hope the Minister will meet with me and colleagues before Report, so that important safeguards can be taken into account in the Bill, if not in Clause 6 then perhaps somewhere else—who knows? I also hope that we may even have the heralded land use framework which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, promised before Christmas—but there we are.
On the basis that the Minister will meet me, I am prepared to withdraw these amendments, but in so doing I signal my intention to re-present them on Report, having taken soundings from colleagues that, if we cannot make satisfactory progress towards getting an acceptable way forward, we may need to test the opinion of the House. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(1A) The Secretary of State must give a specific direction to Great British Energy that it must re-invest all profits into the company.”Member's explanatory statement
This would require Great British Energy to re-invest all profits back into the company.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 78 and speak to the other amendments in this group on Great British Energy. It is essential that we approach the future of energy in this country with the urgency that it warrants. The energy security of this nation is far too important to be left to chance. Today we have a pivotal opportunity to shape the future of Great British Energy in a way that prioritises transparency, accountability and the long-term benefit of the British people.
My Amendment 78 requires that all profits made by Great British Energy be reinvested in the company. This is a crucial provision that would seem to be self- explanatory. It is designed to ensure that Great British Energy focuses on long-term growth and the sustainable development of the UK’s energy infrastructure. It is crucial. If we are to establish a state-run energy company, it must operate with financial discipline and focus. Reinvesting profits ensures that GBE’s resources are used to strengthen its core business, to innovate and to contribute to the UK’s energy independence, rather than being diverted elsewhere. We must ask ourselves whether we want a national energy company that builds the future of Britain or one that becomes a drain on the public purse, burdened by external obligation?
I turn to Amendments 79, 81 and 82, tabled by my noble friend Lord Petitgas. Amendment 79 seeks to prevent Great British Energy from investing in projects that are reliant on government subsidies. Let it be clear. Subsidies distort markets, breed inefficiencies and create dependency. My noble friend sees this as a critical step in ensuring that Great British Energy operates as a self-sustaining entity. By preventing reliance on subsidies, we are ensuring that Great British Energy focuses on projects that stand on their own merits, fostering true innovation and competition. This is about making Great British Energy a commercially viable entity that does not lean on taxpayer funding but instead drives growth through its own strategic investments.
Amendment 81 introduces a critical measure of accountability and transparency. It requires that all investments made by Great British Energy undergo an independent third-party valuation. We cannot allow public funds to be spent without rigorous scrutiny. Independent valuations, such as the one that the UK Infrastructure Bank endured, will serve as an essential safeguard against potential mismanagement, ensuring that every investment is sound, justifiable and aligned with the long-term interests of our energy sector and taxpayers. This amendment goes beyond the traditional notion of financial oversight. It is about ensuring that every decision made by Great British Energy is transparent, free from political influence and fully accountable to the public. As we are entrusting a significant portion of taxpayers’ money to GBE, it is only right that we have an independent mechanism in place to assess whether the investments are wise and sustainable.
Amendment 82 limits Great British Energy’s investments to UK-registered companies. This is a straightforward yet powerful measure. Britain’s energy security in our national economy must be the top of this Government’s priorities when discussing this Bill. In an age when national security and economic resilience are increasingly under threat, why should we allow public money to flow into foreign companies when it can support British jobs, British innovation and British energy security? Investing in foreign registered companies undermines this goal. We must ensure that any investment of public money supports British interests first and foremost.
I now address the important amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Effingham, Amendments 83, 84 and 85, which ensure proper governance of fiscal prudence for Great British Energy. Amendment 83 refers to the cost control and prioritisation of resources. It seeks to limit the size of Great British Energy’s delegation to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, ensuring that taxpayer money is used efficiently and that the company remains focused on its primary mission rather than on unnecessary expenses for international events. Amendment 84 requires Great British Energy to publish its principles and criteria for evaluating investments. This promotes transparency and clarity for universities, companies and innovators seeking backing, while ensuring that the investment process is accessible and competitive.
Finally, Amendment 85, which my noble friend Lord Effingham tabled jointly with my noble friend Lord Trenchard, mandates that Great British Energy does not co-invest with Chinese state-owned companies without prior notice to the International Trade Committee. It requires Great British Energy to not co-invest with Chinese state-owned companies without giving prior notice to the International Trade Committee of the House of Commons. In light of ongoing concerns about foreign influence, particularly from state- controlled enterprises, this amendment would provide a necessary safeguard. It ensures that any such investments are subject to proper scrutiny, maintaining the integrity of our energy sector and the security of British taxpayers’ money.
Lord Petitgas (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in my name and those of my noble friends Lady Bloomfield, Lord Trenchard and Lord Effingham. They aim to ensure that the proposed entity, Great British Energy, operates in a manner that aligns with fiscal responsibility, transparency, accountability and the overarching national interest.
Amendment 78, tabled by my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, mandates the reinvestment of all profits back into the company. The reinvestment question is a good test of what GBE is about and its future performance. As I said, GBE is de facto a permanent capital investment vehicle that will be deploying capital in illiquid minority stakes. It is very unlikely that it will ever be able to dispose of those and realise a lot of liquidity, so at best it will deliver some dividends. If it did, it would be best for it to be reinvested, ensuring that the £8.3 billion is the maximum commitment for taxpayers.
My Amendment 79 in my name stipulates that Great British Energy must not invest in projects that are reliant on government subsidies. GBE is already structured as a crowding-in investment, which means that it is likely to take more risk and accept lower returns than the private sector. This is what the mandate of “facilitate, encourage and participate” means to me. There is nothing wrong with that, but the private sector and foreign funds should be attracted to the GB partnership for that reason. Therefore, I see no reason to pile in and give the private capital two bites of the cherry by allowing it to work with GBE with government subsidies.
I spoke enough about Amendment 80 earlier. Amendment 81 builds on it with a firm measure of accountability. By requiring independent third-party evaluations of GBE’s investments, we introduce an essential safeguard against conflict of interest and political interference. Transparency and objectivity in evaluating investments are paramount, especially when the risk of poor decision-making with public funds looms large. As your Lordships know, I am particularly concerned by the lack of detail and definition of investment process and framework within GBE, at least at this stage. I believe that the Minister has taken good note of my concern about the lack of precision on an investment committee.
Finally, Amendment 82 limits Great British Energy’s investment to UK-registered companies. The purpose of this entity, as set out by the Government, is to bolster Britain’s energy security and our national economy. Investing in foreign-registered companies undermines that goal. We must ensure that any investment of public money supports British jobs, British innovation and British interests. This amendment ensures that GBE prioritises domestic enterprises, strengthening the UK’s energy sector and reducing dependency on foreign entities.
I will remind the House of the holy grails that I think we want to achieve with GBE. Number one is energy security; number two is energy sovereignty; number three is economic growth; and number four is low costs for bills and more employment. Indeed, we do not want GBE to outsource, be it our energy security, sovereignty or supply chains. We know it is an incredibly difficult topic because, as a country, we are ahead on decarbonisation, but we are behind in terms of ownership of our own infrastructure. We are also behind in terms of supply chains and we are behind on production of cable, wind turbines and other technology. Therefore, we have a lot of work to do in this area and I think it will be an extremely difficult topic because of supply chains, China dominance and the fact that we are behind on infrastructure and technology.
All these amendments share a common theme: safeguarding taxpayer money, ensuring operational transparency and prioritising the interests of the British people. Conservatives believe in the power of the private sector and market-led solutions and, where state intervention occurs, as in this case, oversight is extremely important. We urge the Government to accept these amendments and commit to ensuring that GBE operates as a responsible, efficient and transparent entity.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the amendments I have tabled to Clause 6 of this Bill, along with the contributions from the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. These amendments reflect three core principles of fiscal restraint, operational transparency and the safeguarding of national interests.
Amendment 83 seeks to limit the number of Great British Energy representatives attending conferences of the parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity to no more than five. I greatly understand the importance of international collaboration on biodiversity, but we absolutely must be realistic about the need for cost control and proportional representation. These international summits are indeed vital, but we have to recognise also that very significant amounts of taxpayers’ money are spent on travel and accommodation. It is simply not appropriate for Great British Energy, funded by the public purse, to send unnecessarily large delegations. By limiting attendance, this amendment ensures that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely, without detracting from the company’s core mission, which can be accomplished with a lean and laser-focused task force.
Amendment 84 would require Great British Energy to publish its principles, policies and criteria for evaluating prospective investments. One of the most persistent criticisms of government-led initiatives is the opacity with which decisions are often made. Entrepreneurs, innovators, universities and companies across the country deserve clarity when applying for backing from Great British Energy. For example, what metrics will Great British Energy use and what constitutes a worthwhile investment? By requiring the publication of this information, we will not only promote transparency, which should be encouraged, but foster a more competitive and accessible process for any prospective partners. This is good governance in action.
Finally, Amendment 85, tabled jointly with the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, addresses the critical issue of national security and economic prudence. It would require that Great British Energy does not co-invest with Chinese state-owned companies without prior notice to the International Trade Committee of the other place. The risks associated with Chinese state-owned companies are well documented. Co-investment with such entities could compromise the integrity of Great British Energy and pose long-term risks to our national security. Furthermore, it would expose the UK to significant economic and political vulnerabilities. To be clear, this amendment does not propose an outright prohibition, but it does mandate a right and proper process of scrutiny. Requiring advanced notice to the International Trade Committee will introduce a layer of accountability which will ensure that such decisions are not made in haste or without proper oversight.
Together, these amendments reflect a responsible approach to managing Great British Energy. They ensure that the company operates in a manner that is transparent, cost-effective and aligned with the UK’s strategic interests. I urge all noble Lords to support these amendments and help guide Great British Energy to be an entity that truly serves the British people both efficiently and prudently.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Effingham in his Amendment 85, to which I have added my name. Certainly, there are good reasons to be very cautious in selecting international partners with whom we will co-invest in the energy sector. Chinese state-owned companies are managed under rather different governance systems from those which the London Stock Exchange would consider appropriate for its listed companies. I agree with my noble friend that the Secretary of State should consult the International Trade Committee of another place before considering such co-investment.
Among other amendments in this group, I also support my noble friend Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist in her Amendment 78, which would ensure that GBE will reinvest all profits into the company. I agree with what she said in her speech, especially as GBE, as a publicly owned company, will not be subject to the disciplines of the marketplace, and its shareholder will be more concerned with achieving policy objectives through GBE than with maximising its return on investments and contributing to long-term growth.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I will make a few comments on this. I am rather attracted to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield—one worries that, if this were a successful organisation, all profits would disappear back into the Treasury, which would be very unfortunate. I think that is an excellent bonus, but I suspect I probably would not put it in as an amendment to the Bill.
In terms of investment committees, I cannot believe that this organisation will not have a proper professional investment committee, which, I hope will probably have some external members as well. But this misses one of the key points—which I also would not put in the Bill, so I have not put down an amendment—which is the discipline with which the great Green Purposes Company, of which I am a trustee, keeps the feet of the Green Investment Group part of Macquarie to the fire. It is around checking and making sure through proper systems that the investments that are made are truly green and add to low carbon, rather than otherwise. There needs to be a check on that side so that the organisation itself also avoids greenwashing, which is one of the big issues that would undermine the reputation of Great British Energy if it should ever happen. Obviously, we hope that it would not, and I am sure the Secretary of State would not want it to, but there needs to be something within the organisation—an external audit would be good—that includes the impact on greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity as part of its performance.
In terms of foreign companies, again, I would not honestly see this as being part of the legislation, but I would absolutely say that Great British Energy should be involved in joint venture companies with foreign businesses. That is one of the key areas where we should be able to bring intellectual property back into this country and work together with other nations, as well as strong UK companies. Those joint ventures would be extremely important in terms of the performance of this company.
Lastly, why are we discriminating against the UN convention on biodiversity? It is an organisation that is struggling. I am not disagreeing on how many people we should or should not send to it, but why that and not the United Nations climate change committee or the COPs? I do not get that. It would be very negative for that organisation, for which we are struggling to get international consensus to tackle the real and huge biodiversity problems that we have on this planet, if it was mentioned in a Bill of the UK Parliament. That would be absolutely negative for our international reputation.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
That is one example of where, to monitor the cost, we need to keep a tight grip on the number of people we send in delegations. It does not aim at that organisation specifically; it is that plus anything else to which GBE might wish to send delegates.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I understand the issue of public expenditure, travel and all that, but the noble Earl specifically names a culprit in his amendment. That is what the Committee looks at and what it tries to get into Bills, so the amendment specifically aims at that organisation rather than the broader canvas.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I support these amendments. I have certain reservations about my noble friend Lady Bloomfield’s Amendment 78, because it assumes these investments will make money. I have a bit of a problem with that. The real difficulty, as we have discussed, is that all the low-hanging fruit when it comes to investment in renewable energy has already been picked by the private sector. It does this quite simply by calculating a return on guaranteed income. Therefore, what worries me is that Great British Energy will be left picking up the bits that other people do not want to touch. The chances of it making money are probably quite small. Of course, it will have to count off the losses against the profits, so you need to have something at the end of the day. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has achieved something little short of miraculous by investing other people’s money and actually making money, but that is an exception rather than the rule. The chances of Great British Energy squandering billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money are rather higher than it making any profits for anybody.
Clearly, accountability is very important when it comes to these sorts of sums. We should do everything we can to ensure that taxpayers’ money is looked after in the best way possible. Everybody should have great reservations about believing—to come back to the point I made earlier—that politicians are able to pick winners. The record on this has been absolutely abysmal. The chances of more money being lost than made are, I am afraid, very great indeed.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to the amendments in this group. They are designed not only to strengthen the accountability and transparency of Great British Energy but to ensure that the promises made to the British public, particularly on national security and economic prudence, are fully delivered. During the last election, the party opposite made numerous promises to the British people, including a commitment that Great British Energy would first and foremost protect and benefit the British people. At the same time, we must remember that this is not just about creating another energy company but about establishing a cornerstone of national resilience—an entity that must operate with the highest standards of responsibility, transparency and accountability to the taxpayers who are entrusting it with significant public funds.
My noble friends’ amendments reflect three core principles: fiscal restraint, operational transparency and the safeguarding of national interests. As we consider these amendments, whether on reinvesting profits into the company, ensuring strict investment criteria or introducing greater scrutiny of foreign involvement, I urge us to draw from the examples set by the erstwhile UK Infrastructure Bank. When the bank was established, it was supported by clear frameworks for accountability, transparency and rigorous oversight, ensuring that taxpayer money was spent efficiently and aligned with national priorities. Let us learn from this experience and ensure that Great British Energy, in its critical role in our national energy strategy, is similarly held to account.
We must remember that the future of energy is not just about ensuring supply but about safeguarding our economy, our security and the well-being of future generations. By taking these steps, we will ensure that Great British Energy not only is accountable to the public but operates with the highest standards of governance, efficiency and integrity. The amendments before us are crucial to delivering that vision and I commend them to your Lordships, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Viscount Trenchard
“(1A) The Secretary of State must give a specific direction to Great British Energy that it must consult with Great British Nuclear prior to investing in the production, storage and supply of nuclear energy.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would require GB Energy to consult with Great British Nuclear before it invests in nuclear energy.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, although I have already spoken extensively about the need for GBE to pay much more attention to nuclear power, I am glad that we now have a separate nuclear group of amendments. My Amendment 85B requires GBE to consult with GBN prior to investing in nuclear energy projects. A reader of the Bill and of the Explanatory Notes would probably take the view that it is not the Government’s intention that GBE should have any involvement with nuclear power. The word “nuclear” does not occur in the Bill and occurs only once in the Explanatory Notes, which inform the reader that the Secretary of State’s powers to give directions to GBE are consistent with the powers the Government have to direct comparable institutions such as GBN. Does the Minister agree that it is a bit of a stretch to argue that GBE and GBN are comparable institutions?
We have been told that GBE will be capitalised with £8.2 billion for the purposes of making investments in green energy. As I pointed out at Second Reading, a look at GBN’s accounts shows that it had only £342 million on its balance sheet at 31 March 2023. How can these two bodies be regarded as comparable?
On 17 December, the Minister told the Committee that
“we also need nuclear as an essential baseload for our energy generation, and gas as the flexible energy generation which you can turn on and off”.—[Official Report, 17/12/24; col. 177.]
I will make two observations on the Minister’s statement. First, to use gas power stations only as a balancing item for renewable energy is a very expensive way of using them, because they are constantly being fired up or down. Gas’s role in electricity pricing also distorts the price upwards, in a manner most damaging to the consumer’s interests.
I will not comment on CCUS, except to say that if only the Government would consider a funding commitment for nuclear of even one-tenth of that which they have made for CCUS—£21.7 billion—it would make an enormous difference to the prospects of British nuclear energy projects becoming viable and attracting funding from the private sector.
I was happy to hear the Minister confirm that we need nuclear as an essential baseload for our energy generation, but he has not convinced me that he recognises the urgent need to prioritise new nuclear projects now. He also said:
“Great British Energy and Great British Nuclear are already talking very closely together, and he can be assured that this will continue”.—[Official Report, 17/12/24; col. 209.]
This may be true, but the Government’s intention seems to be for GBE to concentrate initially on its clean energy superpower mission. The statement after the first energy mission board did not even mention nuclear at all. The Minister said at the Peers’ drop-in session before Second Reading that he did not expect GBE to invest in nuclear projects in its early years, and, as I mentioned in an earlier debate, he did not answer the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton, clearly when she asked him whether GBE might invest in an SMR project in South Yorkshire.
It is hard to escape the impression that, besides the two gigawatt projects at Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C, the Government see other nuclear as something that comes later—first SMRs and then later, AMRs—ignoring the important fact that some AMR technologies are more advanced than some SMR technologies. Can the Minister tell the Committee why GBN is prioritising SMRs over AMRs, which is surely an illogical approach, as some AMR technologies are more advanced than SMR technologies? Those that are ready now for commercialisation are being artificially held back.
I blame the Government for continuing the approach of the last Government in failing to recognise the potential of supporting a much quicker move to market for some AMR technologies, which are being sidelined by the limited scope and budget, and the slow pace, of the Government’s AMR research, development and demonstration programme, whose aims are merely to demonstrate high-temperature gas reactor technology by the early 2030s, in time for potential commercial AMRs to support net zero by 2050.
My Amendment 85B would ensure that GBE recognises that nuclear projects must form a part of its early investments. Amendment 85C would require GBE to monitor the impact of its nuclear investments on its ability to attract investment from the private sector in nuclear energy projects. I believe the latter could be substantial. Why does the Minister think that two important gigawatt projects initiated by Japanese companies—Toshiba’s NuGen project and Hitachi’s Horizon project—failed? Does the Minister not recognise how much better our energy security would be if either or both those projects had proceeded to successful deployment?
I have also tabled Amendment 118C, which adds a reporting requirement for GBE to undertake a review of the impact of this Act on the competitiveness of the UK nuclear industry compared to other countries. If GBE working with GBN acts as a catalyst in the adoption of new nuclear energy projects, their competitiveness will progressively increase compared with other countries. In September 2024, the International Atomic Energy Agency revised upwards its annual projections for the expansion of nuclear power for a fourth successive year. World nuclear capacity is now projected to increase by 2.5 times the current capacity by 2050, in the IAEA’s high-case scenario, including a significant contribution from small modular reactors.
The website Global Petrol Prices shows some interesting statistics. The price of electricity for businesses in the fourth quarter of 2024 in the UK was 51.7 cents per kilowatt hour, double that in Germany, where it was 23.5 cents per kilowatt hour, and three times that in France, where it was 17.4 cents per kilowatt hour. RTE, the electricity transmission network of France, showed that last Saturday nuclear accounted for 73% of French electricity generation, hydroelectric power for 12%, solar power for 7%, and wind power a mere 3%. It is very clear that the enormous cost of electricity for British businesses is now massively reducing their competitiveness compared with their French competitors. The more nuclear power we have, the more competitive it will become, and as the cost of electricity falls, the more competitive our businesses will become.
Does the Minister not agree that the economic growth that we all need so urgently can only be achieved by a radical adjustment to our energy policy? We need rapidly to commission more nuclear capacity—large, medium and small. I am not sure that all these amendments are perfect, but if he does not like my amendments as drafted, can he come back with some better ones to ensure that GBE, working with GBN, will ensure that much greater support will be given to nuclear projects so that nuclear can play its proper part—a much larger part—in our energy sector in the decades ahead? I beg to move.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, it seems quite extraordinary that no reference is made in this Bill to nuclear because, let us face it, if you want to have clean energy generation, nuclear is the only thing that is available at the moment. My noble friend Lord Trenchard must be right when he says that we should be much more seriously considering both small modular reactors and large ones for our energy supply in future, because that is going to be the only way we really get clean energy. I find it quite extraordinary that this has all been parked somewhere separately when it all should be integrated. We should certainly be looking at the potential for nuclear, because that is where the future lies.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Trenchard for tabling the amendments that we are discussing in this group. All three amendments address a matter that many in this House have questioned—that being GB Energy’s role and involvement in the production of nuclear energy and its relationship with Great British Nuclear. Amendment 85B requires GB Energy to consult with GB Nuclear before it invests in nuclear energy. Amendment 85C requires GB Energy to report on the impact of its investments in nuclear energy and private investments in the UK nuclear industry. Amendment 118C ensures that the Secretary of State reports on the impact of the Bill on the competitiveness of the UK nuclear industry.
Nuclear energy will be critical to achieve the Government’s net-zero targets. However, historically, those on Government Benches have dismissed nuclear’s role in the energy mix. Let me draw on the Government’s own nuclear record. Since the 1970s no new nuclear power stations have been built under a Labour Government. Instead, all nuclear power stations still in operation were commissioned under Conservative Governments. Labour’s longest-serving shadow Energy Minister, Alan Whitehead, even said that we do not need nuclear. I disagree, and I am sure many in this House do too and I call on the Minister to update Labour’s thinking on this matter.
If the Government, via GB Energy, recognise the importance of nuclear, it is only right that they consult with GB Nuclear before investing in nuclear technology. Can the Minister confirm exactly what relationship is envisaged between GB Energy and GB Nuclear? Have the Government already consulted with GB Nuclear on the functions of GB Energy, and if so, will they continue to do so? We urgently need the development of new nuclear sites, as energy generated from nuclear technologies is both reliable and low carbon. Therefore, it is essential that GB Energy and GB Nuclear have a more formal collaboration. Industry bodies such as the Nuclear Industry Association have called for greater clarity on the interaction and relationship between the two organisations.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it is always good to have a discussion about nuclear energy. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, is ever consistent in putting forward his views. I assure him and the Committee that the Government see nuclear power as having a vital and important part in our energy mix.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, that the fact is that no technology is mentioned in the Bill, and that is quite deliberate—so the absence of nuclear in the Bill should not be taken as an indication that we do not think that it has an important role to play. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Offord, on Labour’s record on nuclear, it was in fact a Labour Government, in 2008, who took the decision that we would go back to new nuclear. Shortly afterwards, I was appointed a Minister of State at the Department for Energy and Climate Change, and I took part in many discussions at that point about how we got the sites, developed the supply chain and attracted investment. The fact is that we were succeeded by a coalition Government, followed by a Conservative Government, and it was not until, I think, 2017 that a final investment decision was made in relation to Hinkley Point C.
I am very proud of the nuclear sector. For all the challenges that Hinkley Point C has had, the fact is that a UK supply chain has been developed. The point about replication at Sizewell C is that that supply chain can then continue to service Sizewell C. We then want to see small modular reactors and AMRs developed, because we see them as having great potential. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that he has not responded to the points raised by his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in relation to Sizewell C. I am sure he will agree with me that, if we were to pull the plug on Sizewell C at this point, it would have a devastating impact on the confidence of the nuclear sector, in this country and globally. Actually—although he is not here—the point about replication is about the derisking of Sizewell C, building on what happened at Hinkley Point C, including the design changes and all the other issues, such as the time it took to develop the supply chain and the productivity issues. The case for Sizewell C is very strong indeed, and we look forward to moving towards a final investment decision over the next few months.
On the relationship between GBN and GBE, we have decided that GBN will remain a separate legal entity. That is important, because it makes sure that we have a body that can focus completely on nuclear energy, but working very strongly together with Great British Energy. The two chairs have met and have, I believe, built a very strong relationship already. I expect them to be able to work in strong partnership in future. I do not think it is necessary to put onerous requirements in the Bill. Certainly, Clause 6 is not the way in which to do it.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, is concerned about the approach that GBN is taking to the SMR technology selection process. It was instituted by his own party in government, and I think he was critical of his own Government. Well, I am not. I think the SMR technology assessment was absolutely the right thing to do. In September 2024 it concluded the initial tender phase of the process and downselected four companies. We hope for further progress over the next few months.
I recognise the huge potential that AMRs bring, and we will respond to the alternative routes to market consultation. We are obviously very keen to do what we can to attract nuclear company developers in this country.
On the impact of competitiveness, I really do not think the Bill is an appropriate vehicle for those considerations, and nor do I see that being part of Great British Energy’s role. But of course I want there to be a thriving nuclear industry in this country. I want to see us build on the supply chain that has been built around Hinkley Point C and then on to Sizewell C, as I have said.
In conclusion, I hope the noble Viscount will recognise that while he may disagree with elements of the Government’s policy on nuclear, he should be under no misapprehension: we believe that nuclear provides an essential baseload. We will continue to support the industry in the future.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for his reply, and I thank my noble friend for his intervention. To some extent I am heartened by the Minister’s words, although I remain a little unconvinced by his assertion that he sees nuclear as being so important. There is a fundamental difference between GBE and GBN, in that GBE has £8.2 billion of capital and GBN has only a few hundred million. The two vehicles are completely different, so I would be rather more relieved if the Minister had explained that the capital made available to GBE would equally be available to nuclear projects that GBN might recommend for investment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
Can I just respond? Nothing precludes GBE from investing in a nuclear development.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
I thank the Minister again for his reply. Nevertheless, GBN does not have any money for investment, so GBN is by definition a very different kind of vehicle compared with GBE. In light of the Minister’s reply, I would like to withdraw my amendment for now.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
“(1A) The Secretary of State must give a specific direction to Great British Energy that it must invest in additional energy storage infrastructure to store excess renewable energy.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require GB Energy to invest in storage for excess renewable energy with the intention of reducing the cost of curtailment of renewable energy in instances of excess supply.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 85D and 85E in my name. I regret that I was unable to speak at Second Reading, but I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate in Committee.
My amendment seeks to address a lacuna in the Bill. As many noble Lords before me have observed, the Bill lacks a vital detail. Parliament is being asked to approve the establishment of a vehicle for the investment of £8.3 billion of taxpayer money, and yet we have no clarity on how this money will be spent. All these decisions will be for Great British Energy to make under the direction of the Secretary of State. We believe that this is a most unsatisfactory way to proceed, and my amendment seeks to probe the Government’s intention on energy storage, as well as giving the Government the opportunity to improve the Bill with a clear statutory duty to invest in energy storage.
Just last Thursday we had a debate in this House on the importance of energy storage, and I agree with the amendments that my noble friend Lord Lilley has tabled. Improvements in energy storage infrastructure will be crucial if we are to continue on our journey to greater reliance on renewable sources of energy. I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Gustafsson, has recognised the importance of energy storage as part of our path to clean energy, as she did last week when she said the 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”.—[Official Report, 9/1/25; col. 845.]
Given the importance of investing in energy storage as part of our long-term strategy, we should surely put this at the centre of this Bill. In fact, the objects of GB Energy, as outlined in Clause 3, include
“facilitating, encouraging and participating in … the … storage … of clean energy”.
It is therefore deeply concerning that the Bill makes no provisions to effect that objective.
Amendment 85E in my name complements Amendment 85D. It is a simple amendment and merely requires an annual report from Great British Energy on the overall cost to the taxpayer of curtailing the supply of renewable energy. This will principally apply to offshore wind, which frequently produces excess supply. Under the current arrangements, the taxpayer pays offshore energy producers to reduce their supply and this has been extremely costly, driving up energy prices for consumers.
In December 2023 the think tank Carbon Tracker estimated that wasted wind power would add £40 to consumer bills, and predicted that this figure would rise to £150 in 2026. Clearly, consumers have a direct interest in us getting to grips with this problem, and the Government would surely agree that the establishment of Great British Energy presents an opportunity to do this. It is therefore critical that GB Energy looks to invest in long-duration energy storage, which would mitigate the increased cost to consumers resulting from wasted energy.
With this said, can the Minister clarify whether the Government anticipate that the Secretary of State will give a direction to GB Energy to invest in energy storage, to ensure we are prepared for what the Germans call Dunkelflaute periods, such as we had just last week when several gas power stations were fired up at great expense to the taxpayer? Do the Government see a role for Great British Energy in helping to improve planning for energy supply deficits in the future? Finally, do the Government agree that improved energy storage infrastructure will reduce our reliance on gas-powered power stations in the future? I beg to move.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of these two important amendments, proposed by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. Thanks to the Library research team, I have gained greater knowledge of the size of constraint payments to the power producers for either constraining production or to rebalance the system. These payments are not insignificant, and I would like to advise them to your Lordships. The years that I am about to cite run April to March. In 2020-21, the amount was £1,070 million; in 2021-22, it was almost £1.5 billion; in 2022-23, it was £600 million; in 2023-24, it was £1.3 billion; and, in this year from April to October, it was £960 million. This gives a total of £4.78 billion. As mentioned by my noble friend, these amounts get added to the bills of consumers, businesses and households.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am very keen that my noble friend Lord Ashcombe should reintroduce the whole prospect of hydrogen, because I thought that it was rather rubbished by my noble friend Lord Roborough, who said that it was all going to be much too expensive. I think that the future lies in hydrogen, and I hope that it will be developed much more cheaply, so that it can be available for so many different uses, not only in power stations but also in aircraft, heavy vehicles and so forth. As I understood it, it was being developed and the price was coming down, but maybe I am completely wrong on that. I would be very grateful to hear from the Minister what the position of liquid hydrogen is: whether it is still prohibitively expensive and not likely to be a solution to our problems or whether the future lies in liquid hydrogen.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard throughout the debate on this Bill, as well as in the other debates in this House on the future of our energy, we know that renewable energy by its nature will always be unreliable. It is, by its nature, intermittent. Many of us have expressed concern that this undeniable fact will result in shortages. As has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Murray, last year Europe in fact experienced several episodes of Dunkelflaute. On the other hand, as has been highlighted by my noble friend Lord Ashcombe, what happens to energy supply in periods of persistent sunshine and wind?
Unfortunately, we find ourselves in a position in which the national grid is unable to cope with excess renewable energy supply. Grid capacity is a particular challenge for the offshore wind sector, because those sites are necessarily located far from sources of demand. Currently, the national grid pays renewable energy generators billions to reduce supply when there is more renewable electricity than the grid can manage. This problem will only be compounded by the Government’s ambition to build renewables faster than we can develop and connect them to the grid.
With that in mind, we should address the fact that the timeframe for obtaining grid connections for a new energy project can reach 10 years. Not only this, but a project without a grid connection today may not come online until well after the Government’s target of grid decarbonisation by 2030. There is no doubt that the renewable energy projects that will supposedly be supported by the establishment of Great British Energy will face the same connectivity difficulties.
As my noble friend Lord Ashcombe highlighted, over £1 billion was coughed up by bill payers last year to pay renewable energy generators to curtail excess supply, including £20 million in one day alone. This will only worsen under the Government’s agenda, and it will be consumers who will bear the cost via their energy bills. If renewable generation is scaled up so rapidly without the grid capacity to transmit it to the areas of high demand, those curtailment payments will only increase. We know that excessive curtailment fees are already being paid to wind farm operators who are generating more power than can be used. This is paid to get operators to switch off their wind farms and avoid overloading the grid. How ridiculous is that? We expect these curtailment costs only to rise under the new Government’s regime, and by 2030 it is possible that there will be a staggering £20 billion a year in subsidies and in maintaining back-up grid capacity. That equates to roughly £700 per household each year.
I turn to the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, which I support in their entirety. Amendment 85E requires Great British Energy to
“report annually on the impact of each investment it makes on the levels of curtailed renewable energy in the UK”.
Amendment 85D requires Great British Energy to
“invest in additional energy storage infrastructure to store excess renewable energy”,
and thereby minimise the cost of curtailing excess supply. In tabling these amendments, my noble friend has addressed many of the issues that I have discussed.
It is essential that the establishment of Great British Energy does not cost the taxpayer more than the already allocated £8.3 billion, and that it assesses the impact of its investments on the cost of wasting excess supply and prioritises the means of storing renewable energy. I hope that the Minister will agree.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for Amendments 85D and 85E, which are focused on the issue of renewable energy curtailment. I must repeat, as I said earlier, that this debate is, in essence, about technologies, rather than the appropriate use of the directions in Clause 6. However, I assure the noble Lord that we are determined to increase significantly the deployment of short-term and long-term duration electricity storage to reduce curtailment.
I, too, was present in the debate on energy storage last Thursday, which was very interesting. My noble friend Lady Gustafsson recognised then that a variety of energy storage technologies would be needed to achieve net zero. That includes technologies such as lithium batteries and pumped hydropower storage—which can deploy at different scales and provide output over different lengths of time—and it can include emerging technologies, such as liquid air energy storage and flow batteries. Low-carbon hydrogen, too, can act as a low-carbon flexible generating technology and provide very long duration energy storage.
Today, around 7 gigawatts’ worth of grid-scale electricity storage is operational in Great Britain. This is made up of 2.8 gigawatts of pumped hydrogen and 4.3 gigawatts of grid-scale lithium battery storage. I add that we have announced a long-duration energy support scheme. We will publish a technical document in February. Applications will open in the second quarter, and we hope that the first agreements under the cap and floor system will take place in early 2026. It will be technology neutral, and it will be for projects that could not be built without the cap and floor system.
There are some developments in train: SSE, for instance, is doing exploratory tunnelling in the north of Scotland for pumped-storage hydro. Highview Power has reached FID in terms of liquid air energy storage near Carrington. Points on curtailment costs are well made; we see it as a key priority to accelerate network infrastructure to increase capacity on network and reduce constraints.
I do not think there is a lacuna; the Bill is constructed in the way it is. We have Clause 3 and the strategic statement of priorities in Clause 5. I hope I have reassured the noble Lord that the substantive point he raises is important and accepted by the Government.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and am provided with some reassurance that the Government take storage seriously. However, for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Ashcombe, the cost of curtailing output is presently substantial, as the Minister conceded. As my noble friends Lord Hamilton and Lord Offord pointed out, the difficulty with the current structure of the Bill is that we are not moving fast enough to secure sufficient storage capacity such that we do not need to make such large curtailment payments.
I urge the Minister to consider inserting in the Bill, at the very least, some form of requirement for reporting in relation to curtailment payments, which would encourage the market in storage capacity. With that, I am content to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
“(1A) The Secretary of State must give a specific direction to Great British Energy that it must report annually on the impact of its investments on the levels of electricity generated from solar technologies in the UK.(1B) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report made under subsection (1A) before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would require GB Energy to report annually on the impact of its investments on the levels of electricity generated from solar energy sources in the UK.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 85F and support Amendments 85G and 85H in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller.
Many in the Committee have expressed their concern that the Bill contains no provisions to ensure sufficient accountability and reporting measures. In fact, at present, we have no means to assess the success of Great British Energy in contributing to the Government’s overly ambitious clean energy target by 2030. In previous days in Committee, it was drawn to our intention that the UK investment bank Bill, which is similar in structure to this Bill, had important accountability and report measures. Yet these are removed from this Bill—why is this? The investment bank Bill had a clear and structured framework for accountability and transparency, governed by rules that ensure that taxpayers’ money is used efficiently and subject to rigorous annual reporting, providing the public with the necessary details on its investments and performance. The Great British Energy Bill, on the other hand, lacks any reporting requirements.
This Bill grants sweeping powers to the Secretary of State, backed, as I said earlier, by £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money. Throughout the election campaign, the Government pledged that that GB Energy would be established in an effort to speed up the delivery of renewable energy. Can the Minister explain how the Government will be held accountable? It is in the public’s interest to introduce accountability mechanisms which allow for oversight of the £8.3 billion being handed over. Ultimately, we say, the Bill grants too much discretion yet lacks proper frameworks to report on the impact of GB Energy’s investments on the levels of renewable energy generated by the United Kingdom.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Fuller, who shares my concerns and addresses them in the amendments in his name. He rightly notes that a report on the levels of renewable energy generated by GB Energy and its investments will allow us to assess the potential energy deficit that must be met by sources other than renewables.
We risk jeopardising our energy security if we ramp up renewable at the pace suggested by the Government. This is a matter of paramount importance, and I urge the Minister to listen carefully and to consider the arguments on this group of amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 85G and 85H in my name.
In this week of all weeks, when temperatures have dropped to minus 20 in parts of our nation and we are down to less than a week’s-worth of gas, it is time for the rhetoric on renewables to collide with the reality of what it takes to power our economy and protect the comfort and well-being of our citizens. There could not be a better moment to have this debate, with Mother Nature dialling a wake-up call to us all.
We need to be more realistic about the practicality of heating and lighting our homes, grounded in the world as it is rather than how we want it to be. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that GB Energy takes a structured and quantitative approach to investing in energy production from renewable and wind energy assets. These investment plans would be evidence on an annualised basis, but broken down into monthly segments to reflect the seasonality that we all experience, with mandatory monitoring on a monthly basis. At its heart, my amendment seeks to force GB Energy to use a data-driven approach to address the structural energy gap we get every winter and, inter alia, to use that data to prioritise investments in energy assets that give energy security above the desirability of decarbonisation.
Energy security and decarbonisation are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but when the UK’s energy balance is published monthly, as these amendments would require, it will act as an obvious spur on investments to keep the lights on every month as a first and primary duty. These amendments do not dilute the ambition of GB Energy or abandon the obvious desirability of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. However, requiring GBE to publish its plans for renewables and to address the predictable gaps that come each year will bring some reality to the rhetoric.
This country is bumping on empty this week—it is a serious matter. We are too reliant on the kindness of strangers to heat our homes. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, head of your Lordships’ Science and Technology Committee says, the crux of the matter is the robustness of our plans for
“the doldrums of winter when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow”.
I am not rubbishing renewables but we need to be less starry-eyed about their ability to make the contribution some have thought they can, especially in winter. The amendments would therefore require GB Energy to be specific about how its investments in renewable and wind energy assets, and the planned additional investments over its existing ones, will contribute to the aggregate energy demand in monthly slices. There is a purpose to this, which is to ensure that when we flick the switch, the light comes on; when we press the button, the motor whirrs into action; and when you open the bill, you should not have to fall over in shock.
I am not interested in adding bureaucracy; NESO has a responsibility to produce these aggregate demands and I do not intend to interfere with those. But we know that there are seasonal variations in sunshine, and as with solar, also with wind; we all know the wind tends to blow harder in the winter as storms barrel across the Atlantic. My amendment will require GBE to take this predictable seasonality into account in its investment plans, to ensure that those investments in renewables can realistically contribute to meeting the energy requirement on a monthly basis, especially in winter. It is also about holding GBE accountable for the hard-nosed business of addressing these predictable structural energy gaps in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, highlighted, working hand in glove with NESO to address the market failure.
It sounds obvious that this should be the case, but my sense is that the Government are primarily focused on decarbonisation, even if it just ramps up surpluses in the summer that require these constraint payments to pay wind turbines to be switched off. If we are chasing carbon alone, we are missing the point. We need to balance renewables and wind investments in a way that also balances energy markets every month so that we do not run out of juice when it is cold.
This is important, because the total amount of standby generation capacity that we need is scaled by the months with the greatest deficit. It is on not an annual basis but a monthly basis. Because we have these predictable gaps, we pay standby gas power stations millions to keep ticking over, ready to jump into action when needed. Control rooms up and down the country are staffed by people playing patience and waiting for that call. That is expensive. It also underpins the entire speculative subculture in energy markets, in a process that the Daily Telegraph last week called the “gasino”, whereby speculators make a fortune while householders pick up the tab.
My colleagues have noted that the Guardian reported this week that two gas-fired power stations were paid £12 million for just three hours of electricity. We should not be surprised. Running a power station is expensive—there are staff, there is capital and maintenance, with people sitting around waiting for that call—and it is expensive to provide this insurance. The truth is that we are having to pay twice for much of our electricity, once for the renewable capacity, which we hope will boil that kettle, then again to have non-renewables on standby, ready to leap into action so that we can ensure that we can boil that kettle when the mercury falls. The consequence is that we are paying for some of the most expensive electricity in the world. Our costs rose 124% in five years, according to government figures. The UK’s energy price per kilowatt hour was 25.85p per kilowatt hour in 2023—significantly higher than in Germany, France and the US. We are becoming structurally uncompetitive as a result.
If enacted, my proposals would mean that the company’s objectives and functions would be forced by the market and public opinion to rank energy security above the decarbonisation function. That way, our £8 billion investment in GBE will keep the lights on. That is how we get best value from those investments, and we have energy markets that work more efficiently and at lower costs, which is a good thing. I expect the Minister to say, “Well, this is all rather burdensome”, and give ifs and buts and ask why would we need to publish this stuff. However, nobody questions when the OBR on a monthly basis publishes the forecast for the Bank of England. I do not see why, if it is good enough for the Bank of England, the GBE should not be forced to publish its investments as well.
I mentioned in the earlier debate how GB Energy is a private company, but it is established for public benefit. Publicising its plans and monitoring them is for the benefit of the public. It should not be entitled to cloak its activities in secrecy, as a private company established under the Companies Act 2006 would normally be expected to do. Mandating a monthly look at the markets, with a view to reducing the amount of back-up generation that we need, would avoid the perverse incentive to invest in renewables that make the surplus even greater. We do not want to overprovide standby back-up, so we end up paying excessive compensation payments, and we pay people more than is necessary to play solitaire in those control rooms. We do not want to underprovide, so that speculators hold us over a barrel in the short squeeze.
It follows that the requirement to publish the plan, to invest with the purpose of reducing the monthly or the predictable energy gaps, ensures that it brings a dose of reality to the complicated job of not only calculating the gap but doing something about it. That is where GB Energy can have a good, effective and ambitious role. Success looks like GBE publishing the plans and data so that we can see how effective it has been in needing fewer people in the control rooms by minding that gap, seeing fewer people falling over when they open their bill and a realistic, data-driven, balanced energy market that is not held hostage by ideology so much, so that we can move our economy forward—to keep the lights on and keep those motors whirring.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 85F, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray and Amendments 85G and 85H tabled by my noble friend Lord Fuller. As I explained in an earlier group, it is very clear that the price of electricity is presently adversely affected by the pricing mechanism applied by NESO, which is the price being determined by the last price of gas as used. If you are using gas only as a balancing item—that is, when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, you fire up a gas power station to make sure the lights do not go out—it is much more expensive. The electricity generated by that last switch on of a gas power station determines the price of electricity, and that has a huge negative effect on the consumer, obviously. That is why these amendments are so necessary.
I would like to ask the Minister if he thinks that it is right that the electricity price is determined by the last firing up of a gas power station, which is being used simply as a balancing item when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. As we have seen over the last few days, there have been many days when the proportion of our electricity generated from wind is under 10% and that generated by gas goes above 50%, which means that power stations that are used only occasionally are being fired up, and that is very expensive.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, it is worth stating what is going on out there on the national grid right now. Gas and wind are supplying between 42% and 43% each; therefore, it is the gas price that is driving the price for everything. We are in the unusual position right now where we are exporting electricity to the continent because they need it more than we do. To have 42% driven by gas, with the price at over £100 a megawatt hour at the moment, seems worrying, and what we can do to curtail that must be important; but gas is not going away any time soon, and we have to be careful about how we moderate the reduction in it.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I whole-heartedly support Amendments 85G and 85H in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, as well as Amendment 85F in the name of my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. The objects of GB Energy, as outlined in Clause 3, state that they are restricted to
“facilitating, encouraging and participating in ... the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy”.
The Minister has made a virtue in this House that the Bill does not focus on any one particular technology or solution, but would it not be correct to assume that GB Energy has actually been set up in an effort to boost the production of renewable energy in the UK? Otherwise, what is the investment of £8 billion to be spent on? The Government say that GB Energy is part of their mission to make the UK a clean energy superpower, but how can we ensure that it delivers on these promises? I have seen in both the previous days of debate in Committee that the details in this Bill are at best scarce, and the Bill makes no provisions to report on the impact of each investment that GBE makes on renewable energy production. How, again, are we supposed to measure its success in delivering for the British people, as promised throughout the election campaign?
It is in the public’s interest to disclose the impact of GBE’s energy investments and activities on the level of energy produced from renewable sources, whether that be solar, wind or hydrogen. It seems incredible that this Bill, which establishes a so-called clean energy company, does not include a means by which GB Energy is required to report on the generation of clean energy. Indeed, this is an alarming oversight.
My noble friend Lord Fuller has rightly outlined an additional reason as to why the reporting on the impact of GB Energy’s investment on the levels of renewable energy generated is so critical. As has been mentioned many times, Europe has recently experienced another dunkelflaute. Just last month, for three consecutive days, more than 60% of electricity generation in the UK had to come from gas, as wind output dropped. At the same time, our partners in Germany paid the highest average price per megawatt since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with a lack of wind being the main factor behind this escalation.
It is essential that renewable energy generation associated with GB Energy’s functions is closely monitored, if we are to maintain our energy security. The Secretary of State has said that one of the aims of GB Energy would be to improve our energy security— this, too, is mentioned in Clause 3. However, I am deeply concerned that the Government’s tunnel-visioned focus on green energy alone risks threatening our energy security. I am sure the Minister will want to see the successes, maybe even the failures, of GB Energy in helping to generate renewable energy. If this is true, he will have no problem in offering support to the amendments in my noble friends’ names. Ultimately, these amendments require the most basic and necessary levels of reporting.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 85F in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and Amendments 85G and 85H in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, would require the Secretary of State to give GBE directions to regularly report on the impact of its investments on electricity generation from solar, renewable and wind sources in the UK. We have already set out in this debate the need to avoid placing excessive reporting burdens on GBE. Nevertheless, the concerns raised remain pertinent.
It is important for GBE to maintain its operational independence and to ensure its long-term success, which these amendments would hinder. Further, the intended use of Clause 6, as has been repeated again and again, is to give directions for urgent situations only. These amendments would broaden it unnecessarily.
On renewables specifically, I assure your Lordships that GBE will focus on driving clean energy deployment. This will inevitably include a range of renewable resources, including solar and wind. GBE will be an operationally independent company and the exact mix of technologies it chooses to invest in will be determined in due course.
On accountability, which the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and others raised, let us bear in mind that the Secretary of State can be—and is—called before the energy Select Committee at any time. As far as the chief accounting officer is concerned, he or she can be called before the Public Accounts Committee, which, looking at the PAC’s track record, I would have thought is highly likely to take place. As we are all aware, the Secretary of State is also accountable to the House of Commons every few weeks. That includes—and this is pertinent—Topical Questions, which, in a fairly recent change to Question Time in the other place, are included in every Question Time, which means that things that have only just happened that do not have a relevant Question on the Order Paper can be raised by MPs of any party. Of course, annual reports will have to be submitted to Companies House in the usual way. That is set out in statute.
On that basis, I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for that response to this group. Plainly, I am also very grateful to my noble friend Lord Fuller for advancing his amendments. I suspect that, given the weather forecast, those in the control rooms will be glad to get back to patience and solitaire.
I am also grateful to my noble friends Lord Trenchard and Lord Ashcombe for their contributions. We discerned from those speeches that it is unsatisfactory that standby gas generation appears to be driving the price. I agree with my noble friend Lord Ashcombe that this is necessarily worrying, and it seems appropriate for the Bill to contain a direction that the Secretary of State can require GB Energy to provide clear transparency on what is driving the allocation of these renewable prices. It is therefore vital that a measure similar those proposed in these amendments makes its way into the Bill, and I invite the Minister to so consider. With that, I withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lilley
“(1A) The Secretary of State must give a specific direction to Great British Energy that it must carry out a review on the use of long duration energy storage by Great British Energy and its projected costs.(1B) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment made under subsection (1A) before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would require GB Energy to carry out a review on the use of long duration energy storage by Great British Energy and its projected costs.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move my Amendment 85I and to speak to Amendment 131 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Reay. Nature abhors a vacuum and Parliament abhors a blank piece of paper, which is what the Bill, in effect, creates in the way of the GBE company. It is a company that has no clear purpose, limits or functions, so it is our duty to write in some clear purpose and constraints, and that is what my amendments, like many tabled by other noble Lords, try to do.
Amendment 85I requires the Secretary of State to review
“the use of long duration energy storage by Great British Energy and its projected costs”.
Amendment 131 says the Act may come into force only when the Secretary of State has published the review.
The Science and Technology Committee of your Lordships’ House produced a report entitled Long-Duration Energy Storage: Get On With It, which we debated last Thursday. This recognised—indeed, took it as axiomatic—that, if we replace fossil fuels entirely with intermittent wind and solar, we will need storage to meet periods when demand exceeds supply. It will be absolutely essential to have that storage. It is not just short-term storage to cover daily peaks in demand, nor even for the medium-term periods the Germans call Dunkelflaute, when it is cold, windless and sunless, which it invariably is at night; there can also be whole years when supply is below average. So some storage needs to be of long duration.
As well as establishing that there will be a need for such long-duration electricity storage, the report evaluated different technologies providing that storage. It concluded that the best approach would be that, when wind and sun are generating more electricity than we need, instead of turning off the windmills, we should use the excess electricity to electrolyse water to create hydrogen that could then be stored in large salt caverns—largely under Chester, I gather—to be used when needed. The committee acknowledged that, by the time the electricity has been converted into hydrogen and then burned to generate electricity again, about 60% of the energy has been wasted—but that is better than wasting all the excess electricity that would be produced by wind.
Unfortunately, the report of the Select Committee provided only the widest possible range of estimates of the likely need for storage. It is literally almost a priceless report, in the sense that it reaches no conclusions of its own as to the likely price of storage, let alone the amount by which it will increase the price of electricity. So Great British Energy will not be able to rely on the Select Committee’s report and will need to carry out its own review, as specified in these amendments, into the amount of storage needed and its cost.
The Select Committee report does however cite a report by the Royal Society that indicates that the potential scale of costs is huge—the capital costs in particular. It says that the capital expenditure required for wind and solar to meet the increased demand when transport and heating have been electrified will be some £210 billion. On top of that, there will be additional capex for long-duration storage of some £100 billion, and investment to strengthen and extend the grid to reach the storage of an additional £100 billion. So, the cost of storage plus grid strengthening will effectively double the capital costs of a fully renewable generating system based on wind and solar. It is, incidentally, hard to see how that can reduce our electricity costs, as the Government originally proposed and claimed ahead of the election was the purpose of GBE. So I am not surprised that the Minister rejected the amendment from my noble friend Lord Offord requiring Great British Energy to set out how it would contribute to the objective of reducing costs.
Clearly, investments on the scale that the Royal Society envisages should not be undertaken lightly. It is highly unlikely that GBE, capitalised at £8.3 billion, will be remotely capable of crowding in private sector capital of £100 billion just for long-duration energy storage alone.
Indeed, witnesses to the report and noble Lords in the debate cast doubt on whether a credible way could be devised to remunerate private sector investors to make it worth their while to provide the storage capacity. The suggested scheme involves setting a floor and cap for the revenues generated by providers of stored hydrogen when they sell and buy electricity during periods when it is needed. Unfortunately, owners of storage will want to maximise their revenues by arbitrage trading as frequently as possible when electricity prices rise and fall. This may mean that they have insufficient gas when a period of shortage of renewable energy continues for a long time, which is precisely what this long-duration energy storage is intended for.
Those in the debate and, indeed, on the committee who pointed out that this problem exists tended to conclude that the logical option was that long-duration electricity storage would have to be provided and owned by the state. I am not an enthusiast for nationalisation but nor am I a doctrinaire opponent if it is indeed the least bad option, as may well be the case. If it is the case, can GBE be the vehicle that would help create such a state holding company? It scarcely seems credible given its capital base of £8.3 billion and potential investment required of £100 billion. Yet, without long-duration energy storage, it will be impossible to replace fossil fuels by renewables. So, the Government must somehow tell us how, through GBE or otherwise, they are going to finance this long-duration energy storage.
The Royal Society report on which the Select Committee relied made some heroic and barely credible assumptions. The costs and deficiencies of electrolysers and gas turbines needed to convert hydrogen back into electricity would fall dramatically, in some instances by up to 90%, over the period between now and 2050. The report that this amendment would require would also surely have to consider whether it might be more cost effective to defer investment in these technologies until those reductions in costs and efficiency improvements had materialised.
That would mean relying on gas, purely as a backup, for a few extra years, but the extra emissions would be small and negligible in the grand scheme of things. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has already reinterpreted decarbonising electricity production by 2030 to mean that, rather than reducing emissions by 100%, it will involve reducing emissions by only 95%. There is a precedent for anticipating a degree of flexibility. I hope, therefore, that any report that this amendment requires GBE to produce will consider that option.
We should remember that when Dieter Helm analysed the Government’s energy policy, he concluded that we have wasted up to £100 billion of taxpayers’ money so far by investing prematurely in immature technologies rather than waiting until they became sufficiently efficient for us to get advantage from that greater efficiency. These amendments would enable us to know the answers to some of those questions before GBE goes ahead and spends any taxpayers’ money.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, who makes some extremely good points in trying to put more meat on the bone of the Government’s proposals. It seems to me in a macro way that the Government’s energy policy is all over the place, not least their new desire to attract Chinese investment—have we not been there before? It is causing great concern, not least now to the Security Service.
That apart, whatever the Government decide to do, they will have to dramatically increase storage, as we have heard today. However, there is precious little in this Bill to tell us how that storage will be dealt with, where it will be located, or how that will be handled by planning. We have just heard that some of the storage will be below ground in Cheshire. Other storage will, of course, be above ground.
Lord Reay (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 131 tabled by my noble friend Lord Lilley, to which I have added my name. It would require GB Energy to publish a report on the projected costs of long-duration energy storage. I regret that I was unable to speak at Second Reading, for which I apologise.
This is an ambitious Bill that is part of an ambitious policy. It is a policy that is fundamental to a frighteningly large part of our lives: the availability of energy, the dependability of energy supply and the cost of energy. According to whether Governments succeed or fail in these areas, economies sink or swim, and functions slide into dreary and dangerous dysfunctionality. They bloom like an English country garden in midsummer or wither, shrivel and slumber like any garden anywhere on these islands in coldest, darkest, most forbidding winter.
Energy is a policy area to which the precautionary principle should clearly apply. It is not an area where we should make a habit of leaping about in the dark or buying pig after pig in poke after poke or moving forward, fingers crossed, on a wing and a prayer.
It is the very opposite of such an area. It is a subject on which clear-sighted, far-sighted sceptics, expert sceptics, industry sceptics, and seriously sceptical scientists and engineers with the national interest at heart deserve a hearing. The stakes are just too great—the Bill is well named—for turning a deaf ear or blind eye in their direction, as indeed we were forcibly reminded last week. Last Monday, the Secretary of State for Energy was bragging that wind power was the UK’s biggest source of electricity in 2024. He said that it was
“a huge moment on our journey away from energy insecurity”.
Less than two days later, NESO issued a warning that there was a close to 30% chance of power cuts that very evening.
Although the operator managed to eliminate this risk by sourcing back-up power, this came at vast expense, as my noble friend Lord Fuller pointed out, with prices rising to a staggering £5,500 per megawatt hour, around 80 times the average price in 2024—the highest energy prices in Europe. These are costs that the consumer and business in this country must bear, and part of the reason why our energy costs are as high as they are. Our industrial energy costs are four times those in the United States and 46% above the IEA median. The Government’s policy of net zero at any cost will serve only to make this dire situation worse.
As many of us know, the operator last week came very close to disaster, with only 580 megawatts of headroom. This is equivalent to less than a single power station cutting out and, just three hours after the peak, two power stations with a combined capacity of two gigawatts did indeed trip out, exhibiting how close we came to the lights going out. This near-miss should be a wake-up call to this Government and a signal that we need to change course. It should be, but will it be? I confess that I am not holding my breath. As things stand, the Government’s policy to pursue intermittent wind and solar and to neglect baseload power such as gas and nuclear in all likelihood will cause the country to run into severe problems in the future and, as we have seen, power cuts could happen any week.
The Government believe that long-duration energy storage will be able to balance energy supply and demand over time. This early-stage technology, driven by hydrogen, will potentially allow storage of energy from renewables over extended periods of time up to months and years. Battery storage, on the other hand, at present only has the ability to store energy in a small capacity for a mere two hours.
In a debate on the Science and Technology Committee’s report on long-duration storage, held on Thursday in this Chamber, the newly appointed Minister for Investment, the noble Baroness, Lady Gustafsson, stated that
“we are going to need colossal amounts of hydrogen storage”.—[Official Report, 9/1/25; col. 845.]
What this equates to are colossal subsidies at colossal expense to taxpayers—a cost that the Government are currently showing no sign of wishing to calculate.
In theory, wind plus green hydrogen appears to be a sensible idea that uses the output of wind farms when not required for the grid to generate green hydrogen, which then gets converted into electricity. The document that underpins the Government’s promotion of long-duration energy storage is, as my noble friend Lord Lilley pointed out, the Royal Society report produced in 2023. The report estimates that, by 2050, public and private costs required to establish long-duration energy storage in the UK will be £100 billion for actual storage, £100 billion to increase associated grid capacity and £210 billion for the wind and solar capacity required.
Unfortunately, there are multiple issues with the report in terms of its costings and assumptions. The report is based on unfeasibly low costs for hydrogen electrolysers, storage and generation. It assumes no leakage of hydrogen stored underground at high pressure for up to a decade. The return on capital assumption posits that investors will be attracted by a 5% return, but a return of two to three times that would be required in today’s marketplace to invest in a risky, early-stage technology such as this.
This is even without the recent sharp increase in gilt bond yields, with the cost of borrowing rising to the highest level for nearly 30 years, which is making every equity investment more expensive. These costings were produced before the surge of inflation a couple of years ago, which means that they are too optimistic. Even if the costs are achievable by 2050, the infrastructure will need to be built using today’s cost base, which will push up the cost base dramatically.
Substantial hydrogen electrolyser capacity will be required, which will need thousands of engineers that the UK does not possess. Perhaps the Minister could tell us where all these engineers will come from, particularly as there is strong international competition for this capacity from the EU and the US, which have significant hydrogen subsidies.
Even after the construction of a long-duration energy storage system, with its vast cost, the overall grid is likely to remain unreliable. The large storage caverns proposed by the Royal Society will take 10 years to fill and could empty in 12 months of extremely low wind. What happens if you have more than one year of very low wind over the 10-year period it takes to restock the storage caverns? Further questions surrounding the viability of this technology include the possible negative reaction of residents to having large caverns of hydrogen situated beneath their homes. The Government’s pronouncements suggest that they will plough ahead with granting subsidies to energy storage developers without having conducted adequate research on this issue.
At the same time that a calamity has narrowly been averted in the energy markets, we are experiencing a developing crisis in the financial markets. It has become apparent to market participants that the Government’s high-tax, high-borrowing Budget has markedly reduced any chance of growth. With the cost of borrowing rising dramatically, the Government’s spending plans are spreading alarm among investors, including the blank cheque written in respect of their uncosted ideological pursuit of net zero.
With expenditure on renewable subsidies now amounting to £11 billion a year, with an additional £2.5 billion for grid balancing and another £1 billion per year for the capacity market, the UK’s industrial and consumer electricity prices have become among the most expensive in the world. This will only get worse with the Government’s commitment of over £110 billion to connect remote wind farms to the grid.
Given the current economic and financial climate, it is more imperative than ever that the Government produce a report and come clean on the costs involved for the taxpayer of their plans for long-duration energy storage. We need an energy policy in which we can have confidence, and that means that, as an absolute minimum, we need more information, clarity and realism.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in support of the amendments of my noble friend Lord Lilley. It goes without saying that long-duration energy storage is essential if the Government are to achieve the clean energy targets that will ensure that fossil fuels are phased out. To replace fossil fuel-derived energy, the Government are ramping up renewables—an entirely unreliable source. It is therefore critical that we use long-duration energy storage if we are to maintain the electricity supply.
As has been referenced by my noble friends Lord Lilley and Lord Reay, the Royal Society has estimated that a substantial volume of long-duration energy storage—enough to supply roughly a third of current annual UK generation—could ultimately be needed. It found that a strategic reserve of long-duration storage will be particularly important to address supply shortfalls from renewables in periods of low wind and rain. If the Government are to achieve a fully decarbonised electricity system by 2030, they must make provisions for substantial energy storage to manage the gaps between increased supply and demand. While Britain has just 2.8 gigawatts of long-duration energy storage capacity from four pumped hydro-plants in Scotland and Wales, it is believed that terawatt hours of long-duration electricity storage will be needed to decarbonise the grid in the whole of the UK.
The storage of power increases the flexibility of the grid and minimises likelihood of wasted renewables in cases of excess supply. Therefore, if GB Energy contributes to a large-scale rollout of long-duration energy storage, it would increase the availability of renewable power and may even lower consumer energy bills. The previous Government 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. We also moved to reform energy systems, establishing the future system operator, and consulted on a long-duration energy storage business. Finally, the previous Government addressed the challenging economics of long-duration energy storage projects and activity, and they consulted on introducing a cap and floor mechanism to implement additional financial support mechanisms.
Clause 3 states that GB Energy’s objects include facilitating and participating in the storage of clean energy. I therefore ask the Minister to confirm exactly how GB Energy will be involved in the storage of electricity generated from these renewable sources. It is critical as it prioritises the storage of energy to avoid the risk of blackouts, price fluctuations and our reliance on energy imported from foreign states. We cannot afford to compromise our energy security even more by failing to do so.
In conclusion, the development of long-term energy storage technology must occur alongside that of the national grid. We cannot increase our energy storage if we have no means to transmit and distribute the electricity. We face an immense but urgent challenge in scaling up our clean energy infrastructure, whether that be storage or distribution. I look to the Minister to clarify what proportion of the allocated £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money will be invested in long-term energy storage solutions.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, first, I welcome so many Members of the Opposition to our debate and I look forward to their continuing interest in our deliberations going on this evening. I must confess to being somewhat at a loss, because all the points raised in this debate have been raised tonight in other amendments. What we are seeing is clearly a filibuster, and the degrouping of so many of these amendments on Clause 6 is the visible evidence of this. We have already had a debate on energy storage, which the noble Lord, Lord Murray, moved. We have already debated power lines and planning environmental protections, and we have discussed nuclear power, SMRs and AMRs. I simply do not understand. What is the point of having yet another debate on these issues, which amount to Second Reading discussions about the Government’s energy policy? We are debating Clause 6 directions. This is a backstop provision, normal in Bills of this sort in relation to the bodies that we are talking about, and it is quite inappropriate for us to seek to micromanage GB Energy in the way noble Lords have suggested.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his non-reply to the debate. The answer to his point about whether it is necessary is that it is impossible to overstate the importance of cheap and reliable energy to the economic growth of this country. If the only way we can have reliable energy is by having hugely costly energy, either because, as the noble Lord, Lord Reay, said, to ward off delays as we saw in recent days costs eight or 10 times what it normally costs or because to prevent that sort of risk involves spending hundreds of billions of pounds, that is hugely important. I am very sorry that the Minister, whom I normally praise for his replies, which are usually fulsome and effective and substantive, has avoided addressing those points, because they are crucially important and they have many aspects and it is important that those many aspects be investigated in the course of these debates in Committee. Obviously, I shall withdraw my amendment, but I hope that none the less that we will force the Government to think seriously about these issues before carrying us further down a route which could make our already very expensive energy even more expensive.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I cannot call Amendment 86A as Amendment 86 has not been moved.
Baroness Noakes
“(1A) The period allowed for filing the reports and accounts of Great British Energy under section 442 of The Companies Act 2006 is six months.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that Great British Energy files its reports and accounts in line with the period allowed for public companies.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, we now move to some more technical aspects of the Bill, compared to some of the really significant issues we have been debating in recent groups. I am sorry that the Minister dealt with these recent groups in such a perfunctory way. We did not get a response of substance at all to the very significant points that my noble friends have been making, and I think it is right that the Government think again about their attitude to whether or not they are prepared to accept proper legislative scrutiny in your Lordships’ House. I hope that we can move to a more constructive phase going forward.
I shall also speak to two other amendments this group. I have Amendment 92, to which the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, has added his name, and I have added my name to his Amendment 89.
Great British Energy will be a company formed under the Companies Act 2006, an Act imprinted in my memory. At the time, in 2006, it was the longest Act ever produced, and it took many months of my life. Under Section 442 of that Act, private companies are given nine months to file their accounts, while public companies have only six months. I am assuming that Great British Energy will be a private company, as there is no ability for its shares to be offered to the public; it will therefore have nine months to file its accounts, and my Amendment 88 changes that to six months, in line with public companies. GBE will be a substantial company, with upwards of £8 billion flowing through it, and it ought to be subject to the same degree of scrutiny that large public companies have.
Many public sector bodies manage to get their accounts out and laid before Parliament before the beginning of the Summer Recess, which gives them nearly four months, which should be plenty of time. Listed companies generally get their accounts out very much quicker, mainly because it makes no sense whatever to spend a long time in the new financial year looking backwards.
I would not normally have thought that an amendment like this would be necessary, but I was shocked to discover this autumn that the National Wealth Fund’s report and accounts for 2023-24 were not signed off until 21 November 2024. I was even more shocked to find that the previous year was only about four weeks better than that, with the report and accounts being signed off on 23 October 2023. I do not think we should tolerate such a laid-back approach to putting the only regular accountability document relating to Great British Energy into the public domain. If six months is good enough for plcs, it ought to be good enough for GBE and, indeed, any other public sector body.
The Government have been very unresponsive to calls in the various other amendments that we have been considering during this Committee for extra reporting going above and beyond what is included in the annual report and accounts. This underlines the need for a very timely approach to the one accountability document that the Government are prepared to concede will exist for Great British Energy—namely, its annual report and accounts.
My other amendment, Amendment 92, is more of a probing amendment. It would require the Comptroller and Auditor General to be appointed as Great British Energy’s auditor. Allowing the Comptroller and Auditor General to do company accounts was, incidentally, one of the minor achievements of the Companies Act 2006, reflecting the trend at the time for increasing use of limited liability companies to carry out public sector activities more extensively. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Comptroller and Auditor General will be appointed as Great British Energy’s auditor. He is the auditor to the National Wealth Fund, and I cannot see that there could possibly be a case for not using him.
As I said earlier, I also support Amendment 89 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. I will not steal his thunder, but I highlight the importance of proposed new paragraph (d) of his amendment, which would require Great British Energy to report on the extent to which its investments have crowded private sector money in. There will be many other measures of success for Great British Energy, but this is a key one. The Government have been very quiet about exactly how Great British Energy will work with the private sector. It is essential that there will be good public reporting to shed light on this area as Great British Energy moves into its operational phase. I beg to move.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, once again we return to the issue of accountability and transparency. I hope the Minister is starting to hear the trend. In this group we are looking at the annual reporting requirements that apply to Great British Energy, and I hope at least that the Minister will agree this time that Clause 7 is the right place to talk about reporting.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for their support on Amendment 89. First, however, I state my complete support for Amendments 88 and 92, tabled and just introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. We are talking about a company that is going to be spending £8.3 billion over the next five years, so it must be right that at least the discipline that applies to public companies should apply to GBE in terms of providing timely information and its audits.
The Minister said earlier that he thinks the Bill includes the appropriate levels of accountability and transparency. I find that quite hard to understand. As the Bill is currently drafted, the only reporting that GBE will be required to provide publicly—or to the Secretary of State—is the annual accounts and reports referred to in Clause 7, which need to comply only with Section 441 of the Companies Act 2006, as we have just heard.
The contents of such accounts are quite limited, and they do not have to include much information that will allow Parliament—or other parties—to scrutinise the performance of GBE against its objectives. Indeed, it is not impossible—depending on how the Government choose to finance GBE—that it might even be able to take advantage of small or medium-sized company exemptions to the information it must provide in its accounts, especially given the increase in the limits for those that are going to take effect this April.
The impact assessment that accompanies this Bill says:
“Future benefits will depend on GBE’s future activities and spending decisions which are not in scope of this impact assessment. Therefore, no quantification of benefits has been provided at this stage. All investment into and expenditure of GBE will be subject to future spending reviews and business cases, which will set out in detail the monetised and non-monetised impacts of GBEs activities”.
It says exactly the same in respect of the costs. My first question for the Minister is therefore simply whether, and in what form, those spending reviews and business cases that the impact assessment talks about will be published and reported on. I asked the same question at Second Reading, but I am afraid I did not receive a reply at that point.
In the absence of those spending reviews being published—which I suspect will be the case—and any reporting on actual performance against them, we need something more than the limited information that must be published in the accounts in accordance with Section 441 of the Companies Act. My Amendment 89 seeks modestly to expand those requirements for publishing information by which the success, or otherwise, of GBE can be measured.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 90A in my name. At the time that I tabled it, it was a simple little amendment at the fag end of a Bill. Instead, it is now an amendment that threatens to be hated by my own Front Bench and is obviously getting between many Members of the Opposition and whatever they have in mind before they can execute it. But I want to speak to what I think is a very sensible little amendment. Great British Energy has an important role; it has considerable public investment behind it and there is, probably across the Committee, agreement that the reporting requirement in the Bill—that GBE would be required only to submit a normal Companies House report—is simply not enough.
With the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, I tabled Amendment 116, which we discussed earlier in the course of the Bill, which gave an objective to GB Energy, as part of its strategic objectives set by Government, to help to deliver the statutory targets for both climate and biodiversity enshrined in the Climate Change Act and the Environment Act. The Minister promised to reflect further on Amendment 116 between Committee and Report—which assumes that we will eventually finish Committee, which is highly doubtful as we are progressing at the moment.
As a minimum, the Bill should require Great British Energy to report on its achievement of the Secretary of State’s strategic priorities for GBE, including the climate and biodiversity targets, as well as on the progress of community energy. It would be rather strange to determine strategic objectives for GBE without requiring it to report on progress on achieving them.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, it has just gone 10 pm. We are just over half way through the Government’s stated targets for this evening. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said, it is highly unlikely that we can finish another eight groups any time soon.
It is a firm convention that the House rises at 10 pm between Monday and Wednesday, and there has been no agreement to the contrary. We have had, thus far to date, one and a half days in Committee against a committed three days. This is a significant Bill; £8.3 billion worth of taxpayers’ money is going into it. We owe it the scrutiny that such public spending, rightly, should deserve. I ask the Government Chief Whip whether he will resume the House now or fairly soon after.
Earl Russell (LD)
Will the Opposition Chief Whip take an intervention? I just want to point out that there have been two and a half days of scrutiny and not one and a half days. She is not correct.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think that the noble Earl was not listening to me. I said that, to date, we have had one and a half days of scrutiny, and tonight would make two and a half days. The Government committed to three days. That was the point I was making.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
I thank the noble Baroness. I do not know why we could not have had those discussions in usual channels. I have been around all along today. No one has come near my office today to have this discussion—no one at all.
As I said to the noble Baroness—I spoke to her last week and at the weekend—we need to make progress on this Bill. It is an eight-clause Bill. When we started the first day in Committee, we had 13 groups of amendments. When we started today, we had 18 groups of amendments. We have seen lots of filibustering going on today. We need to make progress on the Bill.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I am sorry, but lots of degrouping and lots of filibustering is not the way that this House should operate. When I was the Opposition Chief Whip for three years, I did not act like that. I was always fair with the previous Government—
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I am sorry, but I absolutely was. Every time, we would get to Report stage and if we did not like something, we would defeat the Government, as we did many times, but we never sat there filibustering and wasting people’s time. It is not on. We need to proceed with the discussions tonight and see how much further we get.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I cannot agree. The Chief Whip is absolutely right that we had discussions on Friday, in which we did not agree, and so no agreement was had. In light of there being no commitment from the noble Lord, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
All I can say in response to the noble Baroness is that we have tried to get agreement on this. The House needs to continue with this important work and scrutiny. I oppose the Motion that the House should now resume.