House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
The Government are supporting local planning authorities to facilitate the delivery of more high-quality, well-designed homes, but we know that capacity is a problem with councils and that is why we have also announced a £46 million package of investment to support capacity and capability in local planning authorities, including 300 new planners and support to local authorities with delivering their local plans and green belt reviews. We will also make changes to planning fees so that councils can recover the costs of planning applications.
Gregory Stafford
In Waverley and East Hampshire, housing targets from this Government are doubling. When my constituents move into those homes when they are built, the infrastructure and services are simply not there. By “services”, I do not mean a phalanx of civil servants to help them move house; I mean the schools, play areas, supermarkets and road networks. Will the Secretary of State come to my constituency of Farnham and Bordon to see where we need that infrastructure, so that she can understand the implications that her housing targets have for my community?
Angela Rayner
We know that we need infrastructure as part of our planning reforms and the mandatory housing targets that we have put forward, and this Government will make sure that that infrastructure is there. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that it was his Government who allowed speculative housing developments, who failed to meet their housing targets and who left people without the houses they desperately needed.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
We have a number of schemes for social housing in Cornwall that rely on the affordable homes programme that ends in 2026. Can the Secretary of State confirm that there will not be a gap in the provision of funding so that the provision of those homes can continue?
Angela Rayner
We have set out another £500 million for the affordable homes programme and we will set out further requirements as we get to the spending review.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The increase in housing delivery that the Secretary of State is committed to requires a 50% uplift across the board in housing numbers, yet according to the House of Commons Library, urban and major conurbations have seen an increase of 17% while mainly rural areas are seeing an average increase of 115%. How is that fair?
Angela Rayner
The shadow Secretary of State will know that our mandatory housing targets were based on affordability and were introduced to ensure that people are able to get the houses they desperately need. His Government removed the mandatory housing targets, we saw speculative development, and they failed, year on year, to deliver the housing that this country desperately needs. We are going to deliver the houses where they failed.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
By the end of this Parliament, this Labour Government will have finally brought the feudal leasehold system to an end. On 21 November, I made a detailed written ministerial statement setting out how the Government intend to honour that manifesto commitment, including the steps we will take to implement reforms to the system already in statute.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
Every week my constituents in Poole, many of whom are retired, contact me with their concerns about the leasehold properties they live in. They are worried about excessive service charges, unfair ground rent, and exit and event fees. Can the Minister reassure them and me that the Government will tackle those problems once and for all, and will do so as a matter of priority?
Matthew Pennycook
I sympathise with the plight of my hon. Friend’s constituents. With regard to service charges in particular, we know that opaque and unaffordable charges are putting leaseholders and tenants across the country under immense strain. The Government are committed to improving service charge transparency and making it easier to challenge unreasonable increases. In the coming months, we intend to consult on how the provisions in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 relating to service charges and legal costs should be enacted, with a view to bringing those measures into force as quickly as possible thereafter.
Sarah Hall
Many of my constituents cannot afford to buy their freeholds under the current leasehold legislation. When does the Minister think the legislation to ensure that leaseholders can enfranchise easier, cheaper and quicker will come into force?
Matthew Pennycook
I fully appreciate the desire of my hon. Friend’s constituents to take advantage of the provisions in the 2024 Act that will make it cheaper and easier for existing leaseholders in houses and flats to buy their freehold. Unfortunately, we discovered on assuming office that the previous Government had passed the Act with a number of specific but serious flaws that prevent certain provisions, including those relating to enfranchisement valuations, from operating as intended. We need to fix those flaws through primary legislation, and we intend to do so at the earliest possible opportunity.
Anna Dixon
Earlier this month, together with about 40 Labour MPs, I met the managing director of FirstPort. I raised the case of 90-year-old Tom, who lives in a retirement complex in Bingley in my constituency. Like many of the residents whose stories we shared, he has been hit by extortionate service charges that have risen way above inflation. Does the Minister agree that stronger regulation of managing agents is needed to protect pensioners like Tom and others in leasehold flats from unaffordable housing costs?
Matthew Pennycook
We are very much aware that some managing agents provide a very poor quality of service to people like Tom and leaseholders across the country. Managing agents play a key role in the maintenance of multi-occupancy buildings and freehold estates, and their importance will only grow as we transition towards a commonhold future. As such, we have made it clear that we will strengthen the regulation of managing agents to drive up the standard of their service, and we are considering carefully the recommendations made in Lord Best’s 2019 report on regulating the property agent sector.
Mr Joshua Reynolds
Residents of a housing development in Maidenhead bought their properties 10 years ago on 99-year leases. Now they are coming to sell their flats, they are faced with a charge of £15,000 to £25,000 each to extend their lease so that the new owners can get a mortgage. What will the Minister do directly to help those residents?
Matthew Pennycook
In terms of lease extensions, there are provisions in the 2024 Act that will provide some assistance to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. As with other parts of that Act, those provisions, in many cases, require a detailed programme of secondary legislation. In some specific circumstances, we cannot switch on the provisions until we have made the fixes through primary legislation that I referred to in answer to a previous question, but we are working at pace. I am more than happy to have a conversation with him about what we are doing in this area.
Dr Pinkerton
Residents living in Mytchett Heath, a retirement community in my constituency, have reported the regular and repeated withholding of invoices, excessive insurance charges and £107,000-worth of maintenance without any supporting rationale. All of this adds up to a 70% increase in service charges since 2020. What is the Minister doing to ensure that not-for-profit companies such as Cognatum Estates, which is, to be very clear, not a social landlord, are held to account? Will he accede to a meeting with me and residents of Mytchett Heath and other Cognatum leaseholders to understand the challenges and anxieties they face?
Matthew Pennycook
In addition to the measures I have set out, we intend to proceed with implementing the service charge transparency provisions of the 2024 Act so that residents in all tenures can more easily challenge unreasonable increases. I think complaints about not-for-profit freeholders can be made to the housing ombudsman. I am more than happy to hear more from the hon. Gentleman about the particular circumstances of this case and give him further advice.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his reassurance to leaseholders, but what message does he have for freeholders, such as the residents of the Wolds View development in Driffield, who are trapped at the mercy of an unaccountable management company? Will he legislate to protect not just future homeowners but those currently stuck in these contracts?
Matthew Pennycook
We are determined to end the injustice of fleecehold entirely, and we will consult next year on legislative and policy options to reduce the prevalence of such arrangements. We remain committed to protecting residential freeholders on existing estates from unfair charges. Similar to my previous answers, we need to implement the 2024 Act’s new consumer protection provisions and bring those measures into force as quickly as possible. That is our intention.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government recognise that excessive concentrations of second homes impact on the availability and affordability of homes for local residents to buy and rent, as well as on local services. From April, councils will be able to charge a council tax premium of up to 100% on second homes but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, we do not think this is enough. We are considering what additional powers we might give local authorities to enable them to better respond to the pressures they face.
Tim Farron
I am encouraged by the Minister’s reply. Towns and communities in my constituency, such as Coniston, Hawkshead, Pooley Bridge and a whole range of other beautiful places, have so many second homes that up to 85% of properties are not lived in for most of the year, meaning that the very survival of those communities is under serious threat. The Government have done a number of things, including talking about short-term lets being a separate category of planning use. However, will the Minister agree to look at also making second homes a separate category of planning use so that we can prevent these beautiful places from becoming ghost towns?
Matthew Pennycook
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the previous Government consulted on making short-term lets a different use class, but did not consult on second homes becoming a use class. As part of our wider consideration about the additional powers we might give local authorities, I am more than happy to have a conversation with him. I understand that the pressures in his part of the world are particularly acute because of both second homes and short-term lets.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
The UK shared prosperity fund supports people, businesses and communities across Northern Ireland, and is an important part of this Government’s local growth funding. The Department is committed to evaluating the impact of the fund, including in Northern Ireland. The UKSPF evaluation strategy is a publicly available document setting out our approach, and the Department is committed to publishing ongoing evaluation findings, as they become available.
Robin Swann
The voluntary and community sector in Northern Ireland has said that the reduction in shared prosperity funding available in the next financial year, coupled with the increase in employer national insurance contributions, presents a perfect storm at a time when even more is being asked of it. Will the Minister agree to meet me, members of the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action and representatives of the voluntary and community sector to discuss those issues?
Alex Norris
We inherited a situation in which the previous Government had not made any money available for that work. I have no doubt that the transition year creates significant challenges for local organisations. I have visited the hon. Gentleman in South Antrim before and met representatives of some organisations, and I would be delighted to do so again.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Mr Speaker. Cornwall’s allocation from the shared prosperity fund is good news and well needed. The Government are reworking the outcomes for the shared prosperity grants, and councils such as Cornwall are awaiting the memorandum of understanding for the grant before they can make agreements with providers. Ongoing schemes need certainty, as employees with three-month notice periods are relying on the contracts, and the old SPF scheme expires on 31 March. Will the Secretary of State confirm—
Mr Speaker
Order. That must obviously be connected to Northern Ireland when we look at it.
Alex Norris
I know that local authorities from Northern Ireland to Cornwall are interested to know their allocations, information about which was made available to them in recent weeks, and that some have concerns about making spending commitments. The money is there and has been committed, but my officials are working—they have had conversations directly about Cornwall—to ensure that local authorities have the confidence to make those commitments, so that we do not see 90-day redundancy notices.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
I am very excited that high street rental auctions are capturing the imagination of local communities and colleagues in this place. A common view for all of us is that vacant shops are a blight and that high street rental auctions are a great tool with which to tackle them. We are working with some early adopters, but I encourage all local authorities to come forward and be active in this space. As of 15 January, we have made a £1.5 million fund available to support the delivery of those powers across the country.
Connor Naismith
Crewe town centre, in my constituency, is in desperate need of “new year, new me”. For too long, we simply have not had the tools at a local level to tackle the irresponsible, absent landlords presiding over empty shop units. For example, the old M&S unit is owned by an absent landlord who has left that crucial anchor unit in our town centre to go to rack and ruin. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can remove the obstacles to bringing that crucial unit back into use?
Alex Norris
I am sad to hear about Crewe’s experience, but I know it is shared up and down the country. Crewe has a proud record in the retail space and I believe it can have that again, but as my hon. Friend says, the right tools and powers must be assembled to make that happen. I would be very happy to meet him. He is slightly unkind, because he knows that Crewe town centre was the site of my biggest personal and professional embarrassment, some 17 years ago. Provided I am still allowed back in, I will very gladly meet my hon. Friend.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Rickmansworth high street in my constituency is a thriving hub for the community, supported by its fantastic local businesses. Having spoken to many of those dedicated business owners, I know the challenges they face. What steps is the Minister taking to support local authorities in delivering initiatives, such as high street rental auctions, to help high streets like the one in Rickmansworth?
Alex Norris
We are aware that with new responsibilities for local authorities come new costs. Local authorities want to spend their money as effectively as possible, so we have made £1.5 million available, including to the hon. Gentleman’s local authority, to ensure that they have the capacity to make these powers a reality.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
We will deliver on our promise to transform the lives of millions of renters through our landmark Renters’ Rights Bill, which will make renting fairer, more secure and more affordable by banning no-fault evictions, ending bidding wars and extending Awaab’s law to protect private tenants. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it was disgraceful that the Tories decided to play politics last week and tried to vote down this vital Bill, which would have denied renters the protections they deserve.
Chris Webb
Recent data shows that 75% of private rented sector properties in Blackpool have damp or mould, leaving tenants to suffer unacceptable conditions. I welcome the Renters’ Rights Bill, which will introduce a decent standard for homes in the private rented sector. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that councils have the resources they need to enforce those standards?
Angela Rayner
I am sorry to hear of the experience of many of my hon. Friend’s constituents. Most private landlords provide a good service to their tenants, but for the few landlords who fail to take reasonably practicable steps to keep their properties free from serious hazards, local councils will be able to issue fines of up to £7,000. That will allow local councils to target their enforcement effectively on the small minority of irresponsible and criminal landlords.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Late last year, Bradenham parish council in my constituency contacted me, concerned that the National Trust, which owns a high number of rental properties in the village, is leaving them empty and not putting in new tenants to avoid the burdens that the Government are placing on landlords. Does the Secretary State agree that there is a balance to be struck here, and what advice can she give areas such as Bradenham, which faces being an empty village?
Angela Rayner
The Government have taken action. We will ensure that empty homes are brought back into use. We make no apologies for asking that homes are of a decent and safe standard. People should be able to live in their homes without the risk of hazards that are dangerous to their health.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
In my constituency, one of the big challenges for the private rented sector is the need to house families who are in temporary accommodation. It is very often a five-year tenancy; sometimes it is longer. Such families really should not be in these sorts of homes, which are often overcrowded, leading to damp and mould, whatever the best intentions of the local authority that housed them. In order to improve standards across the board, will my right hon. Friend pledge to ensure that we are pushing for much-needed affordable social rented housing, so that those tenants can move into it, and other private tenants can move into these homes, which will then be improved?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend is right: 160,000 children and families were in temporary accommodation at Christmas. We need to build the social and council homes that we desperately need so that people have a home for life, and stop local authorities spending huge sums of money on temporary accommodation that does not help the life chances of those young people.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
During the last Parliament, I visited a family in Stanton Hill in Ashfield who lived in a private rented property. It was disgraceful: the property had damp, electrical problems and flooding. Not only was the property covered by the landlord licensing scheme; the landlord was the leader of Ashfield district council. Will the Secretary of State please remind council leaders that if they or their councillors rent out private properties, they should be held to a higher standard?
Angela Rayner
The hon. Gentleman highlights an issue across the board: we do not have decent homes standards. We want to introduce them in not just the social rented sector but the private rented sector. We have seen far too many situations where tenants are too frightened to come forward with mould, damp and health issues in their properties. We have to ensure that those standards are upheld. It does not matter who it is or where it is; people should have safe, secure homes.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
Our plan for change sets out that the whole of the Government are committed to the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. The previous Government failed to take social and in particular council housing seriously. I am determined to put right that wrong. We have already taken decisive steps, including an injection of £500 million into the affordable homes programme, our consultation on the rent settlement and reforms to right to buy. We will set out more details in the spending review.
Deirdre Costigan
After 14 years of Conservative Government, Ealing council has thousands of families waiting for a council home and has an affordable housing programme that it does not have the money to deliver. A report from Southwark council released on Sunday found that 71% of councils will have to delay or cancel house building projects. Will the Secretary of State look at ways to finally make local councils’ housing budgets sustainable so that we can build the affordable homes that my constituents in Ealing Southall desperately need?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Since taking office, we have set out a series of measures to support councils to increase their capacity, confidence and motivation to invest in new homes. We are providing £450 million to councils to house some of the most vulnerable in society through the local authority housing fund, as well as injecting an additional £500 million into the affordable homes programme to deliver 5,000 new homes. We are helping councils borrow from the Public Works Loan Board at a reduced cost until the end of 2025-26.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
We need a steady supply of affordable homes as well as homes in the private rented sector. Further to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), it is easy to sound morally righteous while demanding ever higher standards, but if the housing market is wrecked, ultimately it will be the tenants who pay. Will the Secretary of State answer my hon. Friend’s question and tell us how she will ensure that the private rented sector remains investable so that tenants have somewhere to live?
Angela Rayner
A balance has to be struck. People needs homes that are safe. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that they do not want to provide homes of a decent standard? The majority of landlords provide that decent homes standard, and it is a few who do not. Where they do not, they need to be held accountable.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
Local growth funding is crucial to our growth mission and to tackling regional inequalities. The Government will set out a refreshed approach to local growth funding at the multiyear spending review in the spring. That will end the beauty parades and short-term decision making and put local communities in charge of their own destiny, just as we committed to at the general election.
Jas Athwal
Ilford is a hub of regeneration, offering opportunities to independent businesses in new spaces such as Mercato Metropolitano. Ilford has thousands of small and medium-sized businesses that make our high streets more vibrant and offer choice to locals. What are the Government doing to support those businesses so that they can thrive on our local high streets?
Alex Norris
As has been a theme of earlier questions, revitalising our high streets is a priority for this Government. We have announced a number of measures, including permanently lowering business rate multipliers for retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27, introducing high street rental auctions and providing additional funding to tackle retail crime, all of which will support businesses and our high streets.
Elaine Stewart
The Ayrshire growth deal, worth over a quarter of a billion pounds, has the potential to stimulate growth and create jobs across the region, yet local delivery of the ambition is slow and stagnant. What message would the Minister send to spark action from the three Conservative-SNP run administrations in the region so that Ayrshire can realise its potential as a world-class business region?
Alex Norris
I am sorry to hear that. For our part, the UK Government are working closely with local partners and the Scottish Government to deliver the Ayrshire growth deal, which, as my hon. Friend says, is worth over a quarter of a billion pounds. As part of that, we are supporting a programme review so that, if any strategic changes are needed to ensure that the originally envisaged benefits are realised, they are made. On the message that she asks for, we need to move at pace, exactly as the Government have committed to do, so that the people of Ayrshire get what was promised.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
The villages and towns of Mid Norfolk are reeling from the cost of living crisis and the Government’s taxes attack on jobs and small businesses. Rather than taxing rural areas and spending the money in the cities, may I suggest that Ministers allow rural councils to keep the proceeds of their growth and incentivise them to support businesses out in our rural communities, rather than allowing the Government to milk rural areas to spend the money in cities?
Alex Norris
I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation. This Government’s decisions—whether on the support going into rural communities and rural policing, or the different business rates reductions—show that we want to support businesses in those communities to thrive, and we will continue to do so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his answers. He is a regular visitor to Northern Ireland, and that is because he loves Northern Ireland and wants to ensure that we play our part in the economic boost. Since coming into government, has he had an opportunity to speak to his Northern Ireland counterpart, to ensure that we can go forward together as we should?
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind points. I have a strong personal enthusiasm for Northern Ireland—its potential is huge. I speak frequently to Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive and will continue to do so. As part of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister’s reset of our relationship with the devolved Administrations, we meet them regularly and plan together so that our investments and their investments get the best value. I will continue to do that, and I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman as well.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
We share the Government’s ambition on local growth, but Companies House is reporting the highest level of business closures in 20 years. Will the Government commit to publishing an assessment of the impact that their national insurance rises, business rates rises and changes to business property relief are having on local growth plans?
Alex Norris
I have no doubt that the Opposition will have all the information they need to scrutinise the Government of the day—we always provide that with full transparency. What I will not accept is that the sand our economy was built on after the past four years, under the Conservative Government of the shadow Minister and the shadow Secretary of State, is somehow this Government’s failure. In reality, the hon. Gentlemen knows, exactly as we do, that we are fixing the mess that they left. Of course, they will have the chance to oppose us along the way, but we will get on with delivering for the British people, and they will get on with carping from the sidelines. I know where I would rather be.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I recognise that social housing providers need support to build their capacity and make a greater contribution to affordable housing supply, including via section 106. To assist in that, we have proposed a new five-year social housing rent settlement and permitted councils to keep all their right-to-buy receipts.
Mr Betts
I know that my hon. Friend is committed to increasing the provision of social housing. In the past few years, most social housing has been provided through section 106 agreements. According to the National Housing Federation, thousands of houses around the country are available but cannot be purchased under section 106 agreements because registered social landlords simply do not have the resources. I am sure that he is aware of that problem, but does he have any plans to deal with it and bring those houses, which are badly needed, back into use?
Matthew Pennycook
The Government certainly recognise the ongoing challenge posed by the reduced appetite of registered providers of social housing to buy affordable homes delivered under section 106 agreements. As I hope my hon. Friend is aware, the Homes England section 106 affordable housing clearing service was launched back in December alongside the revised national planning policy framework, with the aim of supporting buyers and sellers of section 106 homes to find each other more effectively. We are calling on all developers with uncontracted section 106 affordable homes, as well as providers and local planning authorities, to engage proactively with that new service. We will consider what further measures may be necessary to address the problem, informed by data from that service.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Private developers in my constituency have obligations to build social homes under section 106, and they are ready to do so. The difficulty they face is that there is no social landlord available to take those units. When I raised this issue with the Deputy Prime Minister in October, she said that she was aware of the problem and was working to tackle it. Will the Minister update the House on the progress made?
Matthew Pennycook
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman heard my previous answer, but I have just made it clear that we acted on 12 December to establish a matching service. I would advise him to ask the developers whether they have taken advantage of that service. We want to learn lessons from the data that comes out of it to see whether we need to take further steps. We think that the matching service will allow registered providers and developers trying to offload section 106 units to come together to see if agreements can be reached.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
On 16 December, I wrote to all councils in two-tier areas and neighbouring smaller unitaries, including in Devon, to set out plans for a joint programme of devolution and local government reorganisation. Later this month, I intend to formally write out to those councils on the shortlist to ask for interim proposals by March and fuller proposals later in the year. We will confirm that as soon as possible, because we know it is important to have clarity.
Ian Roome
Obviously, any reorganisation will impact council finances. My constituency of North Devon has coastal towns with real pockets of remote deprivation, isolation and poverty. Now that the Minister’s Department has cut the rural services delivery grant, what methodology will be used to ensure that local government funding does not overlook those areas?
Jim McMahon
With respect, the hon. Gentleman is conflating two entirely separate issues. One is reorganisation, which will take money away from the back office and put it on the frontline where people can see the benefit of that investment, but to be absolutely clear on rural services, the provisional settlement that was laid out ensures that primarily rural councils get an average increase of 5%, and no council sees a net reduction in its income levels. That is our commitment to rural communities, and it is firm.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving councillor on Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council.
Many councils have already undergone significant reorganisation, from moving to shared services right the way through to full unitarisation, and the costs of that have always been underestimated. Although transformation leads to lower long-term revenue costs, we know that councils everywhere are teetering on the edge, so finding funds to pay for reorganisation, transformation and redundancies will be problematic. The mayoral authorities add an extra complication, so can the Minister confirm that funding from central Government will be provided to fully cover both devolution and local government reorganisation, so that councils do not have to factor extra costs into their 2025-26 and 2026-27 budgets or risk reducing local services further?
Jim McMahon
The Government are not requiring any area to reorganise. What we did was write out and invite proposals to be submitted, and I pay tribute to councillors across the country for the leadership they have shown in putting those proposals forward. Investment to support LGR or devolution will follow a bit later, but to be clear, this is a bottom-up reorganisation being requested by local councils, and they have our full support in that process.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)
Funding for homelessness services in England is increasing next year by £233 million, taking the total to a record £1 billion. This will help prevent rises in the number of families in temporary accommodation and in rough sleeping. Today, I have announced the tripling of emergency winter pressures funding from £10 million to £30 million. Housing and homelessness is a devolved responsibility, but we engage with devolved Administrations on a regular basis to share best practice and inform our cross-Government strategy on homelessness, which is being chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her answer and welcome today’s announcement. Given that young people’s experiences of homelessness differ considerably from those of other age groups across all countries in the UK, will the Minister commit to addressing their needs specifically in the homelessness strategy that is coming up?
Rushanara Ali
My hon. Friend makes a really important point about the impact on children and young people. It is an absolute scandal that nearly 160,000 children are in temporary accommodation, and we are determined to ensure that the Government’s long-term strategy addresses the underlying issues affecting youth homelessness. We are working with mayors, councils and key stakeholders, including in the charitable sector, to get us back on track to ending homelessness.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
St Mungo’s has reported a 27% rise in rough sleeping in London under this Government compared with the same period under the last Government. Will this Government commit to removing the ringfences that they have introduced around the homelessness prevention grant, heeding councils’ calls to give them back the flexibility they need to get rough sleepers and homeless households into accommodation and avoid the cost shunts they impose on council tax payers?
Rushanara Ali
I thank the shadow Minister for his question. The fact is that this Government are investing record amounts of funding to tackle the root causes. That requires action on prevention, and we are working with councils to ensure that we address those underlying causes. We have inherited a mess—record levels of homelessness and rough sleeping—and we are determined to get a grip on it. That means action on prevention as well as addressing the impact of homelessness and rough sleeping, and that is what we are determined to do.
David Simmonds
One strategy that councils use to address homelessness is to move homeless households elsewhere in the country. That can be an appropriate response, but it needs to be done in consultation with the receiving authority. Does the Minister share my concern that Labour-led Rushmoor council is using the standards procedure to attack its own members for bringing this legitimate matter of concern to public attention?
Rushanara Ali
The shadow Minister will be aware that the shortage of housing is driving out-of-area placements. I am very happy to come back to him on his specific example, but the Deputy Prime Minister has written to councils setting out their responsibilities and that out-of-area placements should be a last resort. We will continue to work with councils to support them as they deal with the challenge of the underlying problem, which is the housing shortage and the crisis that has been left behind. We are determined to ensure that we get a grip by providing the support they need with funding, as well as the 1.5 million homes that this Government are determined to build.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
The English devolution Bill will strengthen public services by delivering local government reorganisation and establishing more directly elected mayors, who will have the new power to convene public services. The Bill will also deliver a new health improvement duty for strategic authorities, and enable more mayors to take on responsibility for police and crime commissioner functions, and health functions as well, to co-ordinate better on local public services. Beyond mayors, the White Paper reasserts the role of local authorities as leaders of place and the delivery arm for the Government’s missions.
Jen Craft
The catastrophic impact of the level of debt left behind by the previous Conservative council is being felt all over Thurrock. Our services have been cut to the absolute quick, and delivery for residents is at an all-time low. Although I welcome the impact that devolution will have on growth and value for money, what reassurances can the Minister offer that devolution will finally give us the chance to turn the page and deliver where it matters for my constituents?
Jim McMahon
That is a shared ambition. The Government are determined to take power away from Westminster and put it into the hands of local communities. We know that driving better outcomes and better public services rests on fair funding, and for too long councils have been impoverished, while more expectations have been placed on them. The funding reforms we are consulting on will be part of rebuilding the foundations, but this is a very significant project to get power away from this place to local communities.
Jodie Gosling
English devolution provides a generational opportunity to unlock the potential of towns such as Nuneaton. I thank the Minister for his time and support in ensuring we get these options right. Will he continue to meet me and council representatives to discuss the best options for unlocking growth and opportunity in Nuneaton?
Jim McMahon
I thank my hon. Friend and the many other MPs with whom I have had meetings to talk about devolution—at the last tally, about 140 one-to-one meetings with MPs have taken place, such is the interest being shown in devolution for the right reasons. I am more than happy to continue those conversations and to welcome the local leadership being shown.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Several Mid Leicestershire villages such as Glenfield, Birstall and Braunstone town are extremely anxious at the prospect of being forced into a large city unitary as a result of the English devolution Bill. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss this matter, and will he give my constituents the assurance that they will not be forced into a city unitary against their wishes?
Jim McMahon
It is important to say that any requests for local government reorganisation are proposed to Government by the local areas. It is for the Government to provide the process by which those applications are heard. Over at least the last four years, local authority elections have been postponed countless times to allow reorganisation to take place. To be clear, there is a bottom-up approach for both the postponement of elections and the boundaries that are drawn for the unitaries. Our job is to ensure that the process supports that approach.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I want to ask about the interaction between the planning reforms and devolution, which are two huge bits of legislation. In Tunbridge Wells we have a local plan, but we have been asked when we do our new local plan to have a 66% increase in houses. Except, we will not have a new local plan because Tunbridge Wells borough council will cease to exist—it will become part of the West Kent unitary authority. How will these two huge reforms interact and what will it mean for housing numbers in Tunbridge Wells?
Jim McMahon
In a sense, a council is only an organisation at a point in time, but there will always be a local authority responsible for the area. We want to ensure that the authority is strategic but also takes that wider view. Reorganisation is of course part of that, but, importantly, a strategic authority can also take wider responsibility for aligning public service reform with local growth. The hon. Gentleman talks about housing numbers and we can sometimes miss how important that is: housing targets are one thing, but we must not forget that for every one of those numbers there are people and families who currently do not have a safe and affordable place to live. This agenda is about tackling exactly that.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
In December 2024 we published a revised national planning policy framework, following extensive consultation. We are also making progress on developing our planning and infrastructure Bill, which will be introduced in the coming months.
Mary Glindon
A constituent of mine is endeavouring to prevent her neighbour from building an extension that would affect the rights of access set out in her restrictive covenant. She was initially quoted £80,000 to £100,000 to take the neighbour to court. Such costs make civil law inaccessible to ordinary people. Will the Minister consider looking at ways that restrictive covenants can be brought into the planning process as a material consideration?
Matthew Pennycook
I am sorry to learn of the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent. Legal restrictions on properties are not usually treated as material planning considerations; the planning process only addresses whether the development is acceptable in planning terms. Material considerations must relate to a planning purpose such as the character or use of the land. If my hon. Friend wishes to write to me with further details on this, I will endeavour to explore it further.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
In Gosport we are facing a massive increase in our housing numbers, and planners are putting in applications to build across the very last green spaces, in the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, which already has air quality issues and overstretched local infrastructure. We do have an abundance of disused military sites, however, so what priority is the Minister giving to encourage development on brownfield sites rather than eating up the last remaining green fields in areas such as Gosport, which are already overdeveloped?
Matthew Pennycook
The Government have a “brownfield first” approach to development. We strengthened that approach in the recently revised national planning policy framework. We also published last year a brownfield passport working paper to explore further ways in which we might prioritise and accelerate the release of brownfield land. On plan making, we are asking local authorities to take a sequential approach—brownfield first, densify those brownfield sites if possible and work cross-boundary where possible, and only then explore grey belt release and greenfield release in extremis. We are in conversation with Departments across the board about how we can best optimise the use of public sector land across all Departments.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
No one in Britain today should face the cold and indignity of having to sleep in a doorway, so the Minister for Homelessness and Democracy, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), has today announced the tripling of the rough sleeping winter pressures fund. This will ensure that as many people as possible have access to a safe roof over their head and a warm bed to sleep in.
Frank McNally
Safety experts have raised concerns about 95 high-rise blocks and nearly 300 other buildings in Scotland found to contain high pressure laminate panels. Shockingly, eight years on from Grenfell the Scottish Government have spent less than 10% of the £97 million received from the UK Government for dealing with cladding in 2020. Does the Minister agree that the Scottish Government have dragged their feet on this for far too long and must act now to make these buildings safe?
Angela Rayner
I agree that remediation has been too slow. This Government are laser-focused on speeding up the remediation of dangerous buildings, and I encourage the Scottish Government, for which this is a devolved matter, to increase their efforts, as we are, to up the pace of remediation in Scotland.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that everyone should be treated equally and be seen to be treated equally before the law, including planning law?
Angela Rayner
I do not know where the shadow Secretary of State is going with this, but yes, I think people should be treated equally.
Kevin Hollinrake
Great. Why, then, is it that the Secretary of State, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have all intervened in the planning application for the Chinese super-embassy, overriding the wishes and concerns of local residents, the local planning authority, the Metropolitan police, the security services and, most likely, the incoming US President?
Angela Rayner
These are live issues, but the security of our country and nation always comes foremost, and that is always what this Government think of first.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
All social housing tenants deserve to live in decent homes, to be treated with fairness and respect and to have their problems quickly resolved. Under the Regulator of Social Housing’s safety and quality standard, housing associations and councils must provide an effective, efficient and timely repair service for their homes, including setting timetables for completion and clearly communicating with residents. As my hon. Friend knows, we will also introduce Awaab’s law and a new decent homes standard to set the minimum quality that social homes must meet.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Recently, a 1-acre site in Corfe Mullen in my constituency was sold. It was a house surrounded by lots of beautiful gardens, and I think the House can see where this is going. The neighbours raised the alarm that the trees were going to be taken down. They flagged it with the council, which did not see a problem, and a week later, in the dead of night, the developers brought chainsaws and destroyed every bit of nature on the site. Will the Minister commit to bringing forward legislation to auto-protect trees above a particular size or age in their planning reforms, so that developers do not get away with environmental vandalism?
Matthew Pennycook
Protections are already in place, but if the hon. Lady wishes to write to me with further details of that particular case, on which I do not have the full information to allow me to comment now, I will endeavour to look into the matter more carefully and to provide her with a full response.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)
The Secretary of State is leading the charge in building 1.5 million homes to tackle the supply challenge that we face as a country, because of the housing crisis we inherited. We also announced £500 million for the affordable homes programme in the Budget and funding for homelessness services has gone up by £233 million, bringing the total to a billion pounds. I am pleased to say that Luton will receive more than £6.3 million. Furthermore, we are investing £210,000 in the emergency accommodation reduction pilot.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
Sadly, I hear these stories across the country as well. The reality is that the best step that can be taken is for the developer to enter into the cladding safety scheme, to get the building remediated and to get the costs removed. In the meantime, we have made money available through the waking watch replacement fund, so that that particularly expensive way of keeping a building safe can be replaced. There are ways of tackling the pain in the short term, but the reality is that the only solution is the remediation of buildings, and that is why we are pushing on so hard through our remediation acceleration plan.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Rushanara Ali
Effective regulation of political finance is crucial for maintaining trust in our electoral system and our democracy. The UK already has a strong framework that makes clear that only those with a legitimate interest in UK elections can make political donations, but the Government committed in our manifesto to strengthening the rules on donations to political parties in order to protect our democracy from foreign interference. We will bring forward proposals in due course.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Matthew Pennycook
I confess that that is a question to which I do not have the answer. The Government intend to amend building regulations later this year as part of the introduction of future standards, and it sounds like this issue, which I think came up in the debate on a private Member’s Bill on Friday, is one that we need to consider. I am more than happy to sit down with the hon. Gentleman and have a further discussion about it.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Rushanara Ali
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that excellent example of the vital work of Derby City Mission. I am pleased that it received £272,000 of Government funding through the night shelter transformation fund, to help people off the streets and into their own accommodation. The Government’s investment of nearly a billion pounds will allow partners to develop vital services for those in need, and we will draw on those lessons.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
The hugely increased housing target for East Hampshire gets further skewed by the extent of its overlap with a national park. Will the Housing Minister meet me to discuss our unusual situation and the case for having two separately set housing targets?
Matthew Pennycook
There are issues in such cases, particularly around the data that is available, and we are in conversation with the Office for National Statistics about that. I am more than happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman to discuss it further.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
Matthew Pennycook
Ancient woodland and ancient and veteran trees are already strictly protected in national planning policy, while tree preservation orders safeguard individual trees or groups of trees of particular value. It is for local planning authorities to apply the protections effectively as they have principal responsibility. I am more than happy to discuss that further with my hon. Friend.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
My constituents, particularly in Great Glen, have just experienced devastating flooding. Under the last Government, we opened up the flood recovery framework so that they could get grants to protect themselves. When will they be able to access that money under this Government?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman will know that these decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis, generally depending on the extent of damage from floods. We will look at that closely. I would be willing to talk to him to ensure that the accountability is there.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
Rushanara Ali
The Vagrancy Act is antiquated and no longer fit for purpose. No one should be criminalised for sleeping rough on the streets. We want to ensure that we avoid criminalising the most vulnerable, while also ensuring that the police and local authorities have the tools they need to make communities feel safe. We are currently considering our next steps.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
Will the Government look at redefining affordable housing in national policy so that it is pegged to average local income rather than at the whim of an overheated housing market?
Matthew Pennycook
We did make changes to some of the definitions around affordable housing in the recently revised national planning policy framework, by separating out the definition of social rent, but I hear the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I will certainly bear them in mind as we develop policy.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
For fire safety remediation works for buildings over 11 metres, there is a cap on non-cladding costs and leaseholders are given 10 years to pay remediation costs. However, my constituent in a building under 11 metres has been informed that he may have to pay costs within 12 months because the freeholder is a housing association and because of restrictions around credit and debt. Will the Minister meet me to resolve the issue and allow some flexibility?
Alex Norris
I would be very happy to take that meeting. We approach buildings under 11 metres on a case-by-case basis to seek a solution. I am happy to do so with my hon. Friend.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Bathford village shop and café has become a lifeline for local people in my Bath community, but it is at risk of losing its premises. The £150 million community ownership fund was crucial to sustaining these local assets. Will the Minister comment on the future of the community ownership fund?
Alex Norris
The community ownership fund came to an end with its round in December; the previous Government, of course, left no future funding for it. The hon. Lady knows that we have made a significant commitment around the community right to buy and a significant commitment around local growth funding. Future ownership funds will be a matter for the multi-year spending review in the spring.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It was freezing over the weekend in York. Despite working with North Yorkshire emergency accommodation services, I was unable to find accommodation for a very vulnerable constituent of mine. Will the Minister ensure that in the homelessness review we hold local authorities to account and that no resident’s case is put in the “too difficult to manage” box?
Rushanara Ali
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that deeply troubling set of circumstances. We will not only ensure an immediate response through the funding that we are providing, but ensure that we bring to our cross-Government strategy the perspectives and experiences of those who are affected.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Planning Inspectorate has overturned the democratic decision of Walsall council and decided to allow a battery energy storage system to go ahead at Chapel Lane in my constituency, a green-belt site in a historical open space. As this creates a dangerous precedent, will the Secretary of State clarify whether we will see more of this under her new policies on the grey belt?
Matthew Pennycook
The right hon. Lady will appreciate that we cannot comment on live or concluded decisions, as to do so would prejudice them. Our policy on grey belt and on how grey belt is released is set out in full in our response to the NPPF consultation.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
Recently, I visited the Royal Mail delivery office in Huyton. Posties spoke to me about serious problems with low-level letterboxes, including bad back and joint issues and an increase in bad dog attacks. One postie even showed me scars across his hand from a dog attack. Will the Minister meet me, the Communication Workers Union and posties to discuss the matter in regard to new builds?
Matthew Pennycook
Not least with a view to making myself the most popular Member of the House, I will happily do so.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
On Friday, I met the leader of Wiltshire council, who asserts that the way the Government have calculated the distribution of compensation between in-house and commissioned services means that Wiltshire has not fared well in the local government settlement that was announced on 18 December. Will the Minister meet me so that I can better understand the thinking and relay it back to the leader of my council?
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
We know that local government is feeling the pressures after 14 years that did not bode well for local and public services. We understand the pressures associated with national insurance, which is why the Treasury has committed £515 million to support councils in that endeavour. I am more than happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman about his particular circumstance.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Are the Government considering compensation schemes for homeowners who have suffered financial losses due to reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete in their properties? If so, I am especially interested in the Barnett impact for the Scottish Government of any such scheme, as I have constituents from Tillicoultry whose lives have been seriously impacted.
Alex Norris
As my hon. Friend alluded to, RAAC is a devolved matter. The responsibility for ensuring that buildings are safe is, of course, that of the owner, but we keep RAAC under active consideration in case any support is needed.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. At Teignbridge district council, I oversaw the commencement of council house building for the first time in 30 years. Will the Secretary of State meet me and others to discuss what can be done to make it easier for other councils to build more council homes?
Angela Rayner
I commend the hon. Gentleman for that work. We want councils to be able to contribute to council housing. I will happily get the Housing Minister to meet the hon. Gentleman.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s tripling of the emergency housing budget, but one of my constituents is about to be made homeless because debt incurred as a teenager means that she is not eligible for social housing. Are the Government willing to look at that? I am sure that they do not think that debt should be a reason for homelessness.
Rushanara Ali
I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the case. He will be aware that we are acting as quickly as possible to support local authorities to provide the necessary support to those affected, such as his constituent.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Many residents of West Suffolk who live in new build homes put up with management companies that fail to do the basic things expected of them, from sorting out roads and planting trees to maintaining shared spaces. They often pass the buck to the developers, who pass it back again. What plans have the Government to get to grips with these cowboy companies?
Matthew Pennycook
As I made clear in a previous answer, we remain committed to protecting residential freeholders on these estates from unfair charges. This year, we will consult on implementing the consumer protection provisions in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, which will cover up to 1.75 million homes subject to those charges. We intend to bring the measures into force as quickly as possible. I am more than happy to discuss the matter further with the hon. Gentleman.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, there are 160,000 children in temporary accommodation, and in many cases the definition of “temporary” is being stretched to breaking point. Does she agree that the Government’s homelessness strategy needs to look specifically at the outcomes for children who have experienced long-term or repeated spells in temporary accommodation?
Angela Rayner
I absolutely agree. That is why we have an inter-ministerial group—we are determined to tackle homelessness. This is not just about children in temporary accommodation; it affects every single aspect of their lives and outcomes. With our opportunities mission, we are determined to give every child the best possible outcome.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill—the sunshine Bill—received a sunny disposition from all sides of the House among the private Members’ Bills we debated on Friday. In the upcoming uprating of building regulations, will the Housing Minister confirm that solar generation will be part of the requirements for all new houses?
Matthew Pennycook
The Government’s position was set out in some detail on Friday when I responded to the debate on the private Member’s Bill. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I am in conversation with the promoter of that Bill, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), to shape the design of the future standards that we are bringing forward.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
In Scotland, we have record levels of children living in temporary accommodation without a home to call their own. Some 10,000 children have been left homeless on the SNP Government’s watch. The SNP is taking Scotland in the wrong direction. Does the Secretary of State agree that Scotland needs a new direction and a Scottish Labour Government in 2026?
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
Suffolk has a huge flooding problem. Part of the problem has been driven by overdevelopment in low-lying rural areas. In her steps to reform the planning system—as well as building more houses, which I totally accept we need to do—can the Secretary of State promise to force councils and developers to properly account for flood risk, ensure that developers are held accountable to residents when developments are badly impacted by floods, and ensure that housing targets favour homes built in dense urban areas?
Matthew Pennycook
As I have made clear, we are prioritising development on previously developed brownfield land wherever possible, and we encourage local authorities to look to that option in the first instance. We have made changes to the NPPF to clarify flood risk and issues that relate to it. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will be more than happy to look at the specifics in his area in more detail.
UK-Ukraine 100-year Partnership
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, Mr Speaker, before I turn to Ukraine, I want to begin by welcoming the release of Emily Damari. After 471 days of captivity, she has been brought home. It was deeply moving to see the pictures of Emily and her mother Mandy reunited. I pay tribute once again to all those who campaigned so tirelessly for this moment. The Government will continue to work closely with our partners to secure the release of all the hostages, get aid into Gaza and see the deal implemented in full.
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will now make a statement on Ukraine. Last week, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister visited Kyiv. It was his seventh meeting with President Zelensky, but this visit had a special purpose: to sign a historic 100-year partnership with Ukraine. The partnership enshrines both sides’ commitment to a relationship benefiting the whole of our nations: businesses as well as the Government, communities as well as our military. It consists of a legally binding treaty and a political agreement outlining our co-operation in greater detail. We will lay the treaty before this House for scrutiny in the usual way.
The partnership covers the full breadth of our friendship, across nine pillars. In each area, deeper co-operation can enhance our collective security and help us both to build resilient, flourishing economies. On maritime security, through joint exercises and training between the Royal Navy and the Ukrainian navy, we can enhance their effectiveness and learn from their successes in securing the Black sea. On air defence, the supply of 15 Gravehawk missile systems, produced in Yorkshire by BAE Systems, is a direct benefit to our economy and an innovative new capability for Ukraine. On the energy sector, the agreement cements the United Kingdom as Ukraine’s preferred partner, opening up opportunities for us and them in areas such as renewables and green steel.
The Prime Minister saw at first hand what our work together can mean for the people of Ukraine, while visiting a burns unit supported by specialist national health service doctors, helping them to treat victims of indiscriminate Russian attacks and joining a Ukrainian class speaking to a primary school in Liverpool. It is these young people who will reap the rewards of the efforts we are making today.
A partnership lasting 100 years, beyond the lifetime of even the youngest Members of this House, is unprecedented, but it reflects the unique nature of our friendship—a friendship that Members on all sides did so much to strengthen. I pay particular tribute to the work of my predecessors the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), the noble Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton and the former Member for Welwyn Hatfield for their work under the previous Government in supporting this partnership.
This cross-party unity is a source of strength for our country and a source of strength for Ukraine. It is a unity that goes well beyond this House. Members will have witnessed it in their constituencies, from the more than 200,000 Ukrainians who have found refuge in our homes to the countless Ukrainian flags flying proudly outside churches and town halls across the country.
This Government have shown strong support for Ukraine since our first day in office. For my part, I have called out Putin’s modern-day imperialism in the United Nations Security Council, I have been using the full force of our sanctions against Putin’s war machine, with the UK having led the way in sanctioning Putin’s shadow fleet, and I announced over £600 million in humanitarian and fiscal support during my own visit to Kyiv in September. My ministerial colleagues have been playing their full part as well. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has accelerated the delivery of military aid, extended our training of Ukrainian soldiers to at least the end of the year and signed a defence industrial treaty with Ukraine, allowing it to draw on £3.5 billion of UK export finance to acquire military equipment. This month, legislation introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor came into force, enabling a loan of over £2 billion more to Ukraine, all of it repaid through the use of profits from frozen Russian assets. That funding comes on top of the Government’s commitment, made by the Prime Minister in our first week in office, to provide £3 billion a year in military aid in every year that it is needed. We do not know for how long it will be needed; it is for Ukraine to decide at what point and in what way to have any form of talks with Russia, and Ukraine will continue to need support from its friends even after Putin’s barbaric, illegal war comes to an end. We have always said that we want to see a just and lasting peace, but our priority right now, together with our allies, is to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position to achieve that.
Three things are clear. First, Ukrainians want to live at peace with their neighbour. They did not provoke this war, whatever the false claims of the Kremlin or its army of bots online, but now that Putin’s mafia state is preying on them, they are fighting back courageously. Their cause is just: quite simply, the freedom to choose their own future. Secondly, Putin shows no sign of wanting peace. He could end this war tomorrow by withdrawing from Ukraine, yet he insists that the war will not end until he has achieved his objectives—objectives that amount to the subjugation of the Ukrainian people. That is no basis for meaningful dialogue, and Putin’s actions speak far louder than his twisted words: inhuman strikes on civilians on Christmas Day, dispatching North Korean troops to the frontline, and wave after wave of attacks on the brave people of Ukraine.
Finally, Putin’s position is not one of strength. The invasion has been a monumental strategic failure, and pressure is mounting. Russia’s casualty rate is staggering, the highest number of military casualties that the country has suffered since the second world war, and Russia is more insecure than it was before the war—and for what? Russia gained some territory last year, yes: fields and small settlements, left barren by relentless bombardment, and taken at a rate so slow that the Russians would need a century to conquer all of Ukraine. Meanwhile, their economy struggles increasingly to sustain the war through this year alone. Spiralling inflation is making basic goods such as butter unaffordable, welfare cuts are hitting the most vulnerable, and interest rates have been hiked to a record 21%. We are approaching the third anniversary of this conflict, and, as the Prime Minister said in Kyiv, we must not let up now. Putin hopes that the world lacks his resolve, and we need to call his bluff to prove him wrong.
This is not simply a moral necessity, although I know that the whole House has moral clarity on the righteousness of supporting Ukraine. It is also a strategic necessity for Britain and our allies. If Putin wins in Ukraine, the post-war order founded in great part by my predecessor Ernie Bevin, which has kept us all safe for more than eight decades, will be seriously undermined. Foundational principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity will be shaken, and a more dangerous world will result. That is why the Government will not falter, it is why the Prime Minister travelled to Kyiv, and it is why we stand firmly with Ukraine, today, tomorrow, and for generations to come. I commend this statement to the House.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
May I start by joining the Foreign Secretary in welcoming the release of Emily Damari yesterday? Our thoughts are with her, with her family and with all the hostages at this time. I associate those on this side of the House with the Foreign Secretary’s comments.
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for providing advance sight of his statement. For nearly three years the House has stood united and steadfast in our support of the people of Ukraine. We admire their determination, courage and bravery in the face of such horror, terror and brutality being inflicted on them, and our hearts bleed for the pain, the loss and the suffering that Putin has caused through his illegal war and invasion of a sovereign country.
From day one—in fact, since before Russian troops started the latest wave of aggression in 2022—the British Government have backed President Zelensky in defence of Ukraine’s freedom. We recognise the threats posed since the invasion of Crimea in 2014, and the ongoing incursions in the east. We quickly provided the Ukrainians with military equipment, aid and finance. We set up bespoke routes to provide safety in the UK for those needing to leave Ukraine, and the British people opened their homes. Through Boris Johnson and Ben Wallace, we led global diplomatic efforts to rally the world in support of Ukraine and to isolate Russia. That included one of the most comprehensive packages of sanctions ever imposed on a country, members of its ruling regime, and businesses with links to Putin and the war.
When we were in government, our commitment to Ukraine was solid, and we were grateful for the support of the then Opposition. In three years, we have provided £12.8 billion-worth of support for Ukraine, including £7.8 billion in military assistance, and we welcome the ongoing commitment to provide at least £3 billion a year in military aid for as long as it is needed.
As the Foreign Secretary will know, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) and my noble Friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton were instrumental in laying the foundations for this partnership. The partnership reached commitments to a long-standing and deep relationship between our two countries. At this time of uncertainty for Ukraine, the prospect of future stability and our ongoing friendship and support will be welcome.
Can the Foreign Secretary provide more details about the following elements of the partnership? First, on security and defence, referenced in articles 2 and 3, can he give an update on when he expects the proposed maritime partnership to be concluded, and on how any such partnership can be impacted in the future? The partnership also enshrines our support for Ukraine becoming a future NATO ally, so can the Foreign Secretary give an update on his discussions with the incoming US Administration on their plans, and on how we can ensure that there is consistency in this partnership? On defence alliances, can he give an update on the progress being made towards spending 2.5% of gross domestic product on defence?
Secondly, the partnership commits to increasing economic and trade co-operation, partnership working on energy, and work on science, technology and innovation. Will the Foreign Secretary elaborate on the levels of investment that he expects to be made, and on what work is under way within Government and with the private sector to facilitate that? What discussions are under way with our international partners to boost the contributions that they are making?
Thirdly, can the Foreign Secretary give an update on the further steps being taken to isolate and undermine Putin and Russia, including responses to the use of North Korean troops fighting for Russia? Does he expect to announce further sanctions and activities to mobilise assets, to fund the rebuilding of Ukraine?
Fourthly, the partnership refers to commitments to
“combatting foreign information manipulation and interference”
in article 7. Will the Foreign Secretary give an update on how that will work in practical terms, and on the steps being taken to prevent and combat Russian interference in other countries, including Moldova, Romania and Georgia?
There will continue to be difficult days ahead for the people of Ukraine, but their fight for freedom is a just cause, because they are not only fighting to free their country from Putin’s aggression; they are fighting for our values and freedoms, too. That is why we must continue to stand by them, and to make sure that this partnership is a success and gives Ukraine hope for a brighter future. Slava Ukraini!
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her words, which underline the bipartisan support in this House. It was very useful for me to be in Washington DC with the Defence Secretary last May, when we underlined to colleagues across Capitol Hill that here in the United Kingdom this remains a bipartisan issue. It is a great indication of what we can achieve in this Parliament on matters of the greatest concern.
On the right hon. Lady’s last point, she will understand that today is inauguration day and it would have been a bit pre-emptive to have had discussions with the incoming Administration on the security guarantees and on Ukraine’s path to NATO. She knows that we set out an irreversible pathway to membership at the NATO conference when we came into office, and that remains the position. She also asked me about the security pillar, and that is important. Helping Ukraine to reach NATO’s standards, particularly across its military structures, to support Ukraine’s irreversible path to NATO membership, is something that we in this country take very seriously.
Ukraine has defended itself resolutely in cyber-space in the face of Russian aggression, and the UK has been proud to support that defence, both in Ukraine and also in the next-door country. The right hon. Lady mentioned cyber. I was in Moldova seeing the work that we fund, which began before we came into power. It is good, hugely important work, and when we see the interference across the region in Romania and Georgia, the importance of this work is underlined even further.
The right hon. Lady rightly talked about the maritime context and strengthening our maritime capabilities. Working with Ukraine to protect Black sea security is essential to its future security and prosperity. Some 49% of Ukraine’s pre-war trade went through the Black sea, and I might say that that is why, for a substantial period of history, Russia has wanted total control of much of the Black sea. Through the agreement, we will work together to ensure the safety of trade in the Black and Azov seas through joint naval tasking and de-mining activity, which will be hugely important once this war comes to an end.
More broadly, it is important for me to be absolutely clear on the issue of third-party support. I raised concerns with my Chinese counterpart when I was in China on 18 October about the supply of equipment to Russia and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s relationship with Russia. The right hon. Lady knows that I went on to designate companies that we saw dealing with that dual-use technology. The direct participation of DPRK troops in combat operations is another dangerous expansion of Putin’s illegal war against Ukraine and further proof that he has no interest in peace. We have also imposed sanctions on a number of Iranian individuals, on 10 September and again on 18 November, including Iran Air, in response to Iran’s transfer of ballistic missiles to Russia.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I want once again to thank the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister for willing this partnership into life. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, I fully support all nine pillars of the agreement, as I am sure all members of the all-party group do. Pillar 4 deals with the economy and trade, and there are many things we can do now to deepen and strengthen our trade relations with Ukraine, one of which involves joint ventures. What work will be done to remove insurance barriers and trade barriers, for instance, to give access to kindred or joint venture partnerships between UK and Ukrainian companies in all areas, including defence?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all his work on the all-party group. He will be pleased that there are active conversations on this very issue at this time. He will know, too, that because of some of the changes that my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has made on procurement, we are doing all we can to assist trade in Ukraine, as complicated as that is at this moment.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I associate myself with the Foreign Secretary’s remarks on the release of Emily Damari, and I thank him for advance sight of his statement.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment last week to a 100-year partnership with Ukraine, and today I am thinking of those in Ukraine who have faced 35 months of continuous conflict since Russia’s illegal invasion in 2022. I am also thinking of the many communities across the UK that have welcomed thousands of Ukrainian families since that time. The courage and resilience of our Ukrainian guests has been matched by the solidarity and generosity of British communities. Cross-party support for our ally Ukraine has been unwavering.
I assure our Ukrainian allies that we will continue to support them, for in the face of expansionist Russian aggression and threats to democracy, Ukraine’s fight is indeed our fight. Yet today is a critical juncture, for a man who described Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as “genius” will today become President of the United States, while his vice-president has advocated for a deal that would reward Russia with the territory that Putin has seized, so I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement that the Ukrainians must have the freedom to choose their own future.
In that context, what initial contact has the Foreign Secretary had with the incoming US Administration about Ukraine? What assurance can he give the House that the US will stay the course and not press Ukraine to capitulate to Russia? If the Foreign Secretary is unable to give that assurance, will he agree that we must redouble our efforts to work with our European allies to secure Ukraine’s future and our own security?
I welcome the Prime Minister’s tour of Ukraine and eastern Europe last week, but it leaves some questions that I now put to the Foreign Secretary. What new actions and investments will the UK take to support security in Europe? How will the UK demonstrate the strengthened leadership in the joint expeditionary force that our European partners expect? And did the Prime Minister raise with our allies the support expressed by Members across this House for mobilising the frozen Russian assets held in the UK and Europe to support our Ukrainian allies?
We must stand with Ukraine for the long haul. The Ukrainian people must be in charge of their own destiny. If the UK’s new pledge is to be real, it must address the uncertainty generated by President Trump. The Prime Minister’s 100-year commitment must outlast the President’s desire for a quick deal in his first 100 days.
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind the Front Benches of the set times that they are meant to stick to. Can they please look at this and make sure they get it right next time?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) for his questions and their bipartisan spirit. We welcome the bipartisan support that we eventually got from the United States after a lot of lobbying, including from my predecessor. It should not be forgotten that it was a £61 billion package to support Ukraine, notwithstanding the work that Europe is currently doing.
It is also important to say that Europe now shoulders two thirds of all aid to Ukraine, including over half of all military aid. In President Trump, we find someone who has been consistent in urging those colleagues across Europe who are still not spending 2% of GDP on defence. Since Roosevelt, successive US Presidents have raised this. When President Trump first came to office, just six countries were meeting their commitment. By the time he left, it was 18. That must be something we can welcome.
I encourage the hon. Gentleman to look at my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary’s announcements in December in relation to procurement and the assistance we will continue to give to Ukraine, and on the ease with which Ukraine can now use our processes to get the equipment it needs to modernise its systems. The UK will provide £2.26 billion of additional support to Ukraine as part of the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loan scheme, which will be repaid using the profits of frozen Russian sovereign assets, and that must be welcome.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the JEF, which is hugely important. The support from the Baltic nations is extraordinary. The JEF is a very important partnership, and it has been one of the most proactive groupings in support of Ukraine. All JEF nations have signed their own bilateral security agreements with Ukraine. JEF nations are some of Ukraine’s strongest supporters and will continue to be so.
I also commend to the hon. Gentleman the Interflex training that we are doing with Ukraine, which we have said will continue until the end of this year.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
I am proud of my constituents in Hampstead and Highgate who opened their doors to Ukrainian refugees, and those at South Hampstead synagogue who offered free history and English lessons. Last year, I met some of those refugees to talk about the enormous cultural contribution they are making to our country. Turning to the pillar 9 of the partnership, what is the Foreign Secretary doing to ensure those who have been forced to flee their homes retain cultural links with their country and preserve their sense of heritage?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to take my hon. Friend’s question and to see her back in her place. She is right to commend the work of her constituents in offering their homes to Ukrainian families, as many of our constituents are doing. Three years into this war, it is important that we commend their efforts. Under pillar 9, which is about the strong people-to-people links that exist across the country, we are working with the Premier League and the British Council to help young people in Ukraine to develop the skills, education and confidence needed for them to be assets in society, and to promote the power of the English language. Over time, I hope we will see the power of the Ukrainian language in our country and our schools.
Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I find myself thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the second time in quick succession for his gracious recognition of the work done by his Conservative predecessors, including me. I am reminded of conversations I have had with President Zelensky and, particularly, Prime Minister Shmyhal about our collective desire that when the scars and pain of the conflict have diminished, the bond of friendship between the UK and Ukraine is maintained. To that end, what can the Government do now to make it easier to de-risk some British-based businesses and potential investors going to Ukraine to start the rebuilding work now, in preparation for that glorious day when Russia is ejected from Ukraine sovereign territory and the Ukrainians can properly start to rebuild their homeland once again?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, friendships can exist across the House, and I have greatly valued his over the years. I put on record my thanks for the work he did; I know this partnership was first mentioned in a meeting he had with the former Member for Welwyn Hatfield and I am pleased to be able to take that work forward. The idea he mentions is a good one. He will be pleased that one of the things that flowed from the Prime Minister’s trip to Ukraine is the possibility of such a delegation to Ukraine, perhaps led by a Business Minister, at some point in the future, when it feels safe to make such a visit. That will mean we can assess the opportunities, which go well beyond Kyiv. A huge industrial base existed in Ukraine before the war. There are huge opportunities because it is “the bread basket of Europe” and because of the innovation present in the country, which a lot of people do not realise, that has led to one of the biggest drone industries on the planet.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and his announcement that the UK will continue to do all it can to keep Ukraine in the fight in the face of Putin’s unlawful war of aggression. He mentioned sanctions. Will he update the House about what discussions he has had with international counterparts on seizing and repurposing Russian state sanctions, to the tune of the £300 billion held in G7 countries, to finance Ukraine to keep it in the fight?
Mr Lammy
That was a very good question. I reassure my hon. Friend that the subject remains under active discussion with our colleagues, particularly in Europe. We have made progress in relation to interest. We recognise that more funds need to be found to keep Ukraine in the fight. There are differences of opinion about the lawfulness and legality of doing this, and the implication for the markets particularly at this time. Those discussions are live and active, and I was with the Weimar group of not just Foreign Ministers, because Prime Minister Meloni and Chancellor Scholz were there as well, discussing these very issues just before the Christmas break.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is welcome to hear that this partnership agreement is a binding treaty. As such, it contrasts with the Budapest memorandum, which was non-binding and not worth the paper it was written on. There is a lot of talk about how Ukraine is on an irreversible path to NATO membership, but it will be difficult to get a consensus for that anytime soon among the 32 NATO members. In lieu of NATO membership, what security guarantees might the UK seek to develop for Ukraine with European allies?
Mr Lammy
This is a very live issue. As I said in my statement, we do not see Putin ready to halt his aggression and come to the table for serious negotiations, but just as this country has stood by Ukraine throughout, and provided very important intelligence in the run-up to this war, we will recognise our part in working with others on security guarantees.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement on this 100-year partnership with such an important European ally. We absolutely understand how our futures are linked. I want to recognise the Ukrainian community in Milton Keynes, which has established the Sunflower school and held the first Holodomor memorial event. These communities are very worried. They are coming to the renewal of their visas because they never thought that they would be here this long. They have built new businesses, family connections, and friends and community connections. Can we reassure Ukrainians in the UK that they will continue to have our support for the duration of the war, and potentially support afterwards for some of them to continue their lives here?
Mr Lammy
I reassure Ukrainians in the strongest terms—I hope that they might see the 100-year partnership as a signal of this—that the UK will stand with them long after none of us are in this Chamber. That is the nature of the partnership. They should be reassured, and remember that war strikes indelible bonds; just as it did between us and the United States after the second world war, it will do so between us and Ukraine.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
I am sure that the Foreign Secretary’s statement will be as welcome in Kyiv as it is in this House. He referred to the 200,000 refugees in this country. Further to the point that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) made, many of those people would like to return home, but home is a war zone, particularly in the east, and they cannot do so. They therefore have children in school here, and have built lives here. It would reassure them to know that they are safe and secure in the United Kingdom for not just the future but the immediate future, and will be able to be here for as long as it takes.
Mr Lammy
None of us knows when the war will complete, but across our constituencies we all recognise communities that continue to be here, coming out of other conflicts. I am thinking of Kosovan communities, for example, which exist right across the country; I can think of a significant community in south London in particular. Many Ukrainians want to return, and we should make it possible for them to do so, but in some areas there will have to be a lot of de-mining, let us face it, in order for them to go back to their homes. Let us see where we get to at the end of the conflict.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for the statement. Exeter’s large and vibrant Ukrainian heritage community will welcome this further strengthening of our cultural, security and economic ties. Going back to sanctions, will he confirm that the UK will continue to keep up the pace and pressure of sanctions on Russia and, indeed, strengthen them where necessary to close the loopholes, in full partnership with our allies?
Mr Lammy
I have been very proud of the work I have led on sanctions since coming to office. It is now the strongest sanctions package against Russia anywhere in the world, with more to come.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s efforts on the 100-year partnership. President Zelensky has made great strides in cracking down on corruption in his country, but he has a long way to go—he has probably got rid of most of the low-hanging fruit. What extra efforts will the UK Government make in assisting the Ukrainian Government to crack down on corruption, which will aid its ability to get NATO membership? I also push the Foreign Secretary on whether he has further views on how maritime support can work in conjunction with the Montreux convention.
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the Minister for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), met officials from Ukraine on the issue of anti-corruption just a few weeks ago. This is an issue I have spoken about directly with President Zelensky in the past, and it is an issue that the US traditionally has taken a big interest in. I was first in Ukraine looking at those issues in opposition. At that stage, the UK was funding a lot of work with non-governmental organisations. That work must continue to break the corruption—a lot of it a legacy, frankly, of the Soviet Union.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. We have already seen the extensive role of the Russian shadow fleet in the Black sea and across the world, most recently in the Baltics. What further action can the UK Government take to tackle the role of the Russian Black sea fleet in the conflict?
Mr Lammy
One of the issues is how third countries, some of them significant countries, are still facilitating the Russian shadow fleet because of the illicit oil that finds its way into various economies. Those are conversations that we and our European partners continue to take forward. If we are serious about tackling Putin’s aggression, we have to be serious about the revenues that finance it.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
This morning, I was struck to hear the Foreign Secretary describe Donald Trump as a man of
“incredible grace, generosity…very funny, very friendly, very warm”
and say that most of the world is glad he is back in power. Yet, as Trump re-enters the White House, there are significant concerns about whether support for Ukraine from the US—so far Ukraine’s biggest backer—will continue. With Trump boasting that he will stop the war in Ukraine in a day, and with his choice for US Secretary of State saying on Wednesday that Ukraine will have to make “concessions” to Russia, does the Foreign Secretary think that Ukraine is as happy as he is to see Trump back in power?
Mr Lammy
I encourage the hon. Gentleman to actually read the words of President Zelensky, who said that he welcomed Donald Trump and his approach of “peace through strength”. I encourage him to take all opportunities he gets over the coming years to meet Donald Trump and make up his own mind.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I welcome the announcement of the new grain verification scheme, which will help track stolen grain from occupied Ukrainian territories. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is an important UK contribution given Ukraine’s role as a major agricultural producer, which gives it a critical position in global food security?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is exactly right. People forget that before this war, Ukraine was effectively the breadbasket of Europe. This is an issue that I spoke about with Ms McCain of the World Food Programme. It is hugely important that those grain supplies are able to leave the country. It is hugely important that they are not sabotaged. That is one of the reasons why the pillar on the Black sea is important: there must be the means for the grain supplies to leave Ukraine. The work continues.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I join others in very much welcoming this declaration of solidarity between London and Kyiv on the future of Ukraine, but there is something surreal in these exchanges. Everything is about to change very dramatically; we all know that this is a kind of pre-positioning statement in advance of Mr Trump assuming the presidency. What assessment have the Government made—the Foreign Secretary has given us no idea of this at all—of what President Trump is likely to do and of how they will respond? How ready are they to ensure that we do not falter and that we step up our support for Ukraine along with our European allies—or will President Trump call all the shots?
Mr Lammy
I say to the hon. Gentleman—in whose question is a seriousness about the cost of war and what it takes to negotiate—that when I met Donald Trump, my sense was that he did understand acutely the importance of this war, and he struck me as a man who is not prepared to be a loser. It is becoming clearer and clearer that Putin shows no sign whatsoever of wanting to negotiate, and we must therefore continue to support Ukraine as strongly as we can. The hon. Gentleman will also have picked up—I read about it in the papers—that there was a sense previously of a rush towards negotiation. That has moved over time somewhat, and that must be right as a new Administration pick up the files and fully grip this, understanding of course that we all want peace.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
I warmly welcome this bold new partnership. I think it is a source of pride for everyone in the House that we have more than 200,000 Ukrainians living among us as our friends and neighbours. Will the Foreign Secretary offer a tribute to the Ukrainian community in Welwyn Garden City, who have set up a thriving Saturday school that I had the pleasure of visiting just before Christmas? I encourage him to look favourably on their ask for us to fast-track Ukrainian as a GCSE and A-level language, because many young people would love to study it but do not currently have the opportunity to do so.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the partnership between schools under pillar 9 is fundamental. It is what gives us the bedrock on which to build both the English language capability in Ukraine and, I hope, the Ukrainian language capability in this country.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
It is to be hoped that, as has been said, President Trump can indeed bring significant additional pressure to bear on the dictator Putin to end this horrific war. Will the Foreign Secretary give additional reassurance to the British people that, although we have invested billions and billions of pounds in supporting Ukraine, we are committed to recovering it from the frozen assets of the Russian state in due course?
Mr Lammy
I know that the hon. Gentleman understands history. He will know that after the second world war, we were in quite a lot of debt to the United States as a result of lend-lease, which it took us many years to pay off. Today, no trading relationship of ours is bigger than that with the United States: it totals over $300 billion, with $1.2 trillion invested in each other’s economies, and 1 million British people working in US companies and 1 million Americans working in British companies. This partnership sets up something similar for the next 100 years. It is the result of war, but it has brought our two nations together. He is absolutely right to centre on how we can better use those Russian assets. That is a matter of close discussion across the European family.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to 100 years of friendship with the people of Ukraine. In pillar 4, which talks about economy and trade, there is a commitment to “broaden mutual market access” and raise
“awareness and utilisation of the UK-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement”.
How long will it take for that work come into effect and for both countries to benefit from it?
Mr Lammy
I am so glad that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to pillar 4. That allows me to remind the House that the Prime Minister announced £40 million for a new economic recovery programme, which will create opportunities for UK companies by supporting key growth sectors in Ukraine. That is the bedrock of an enhanced trade and investment opportunity, and eventually a trading relationship when Ukraine gets back to the normality that I know it is so keen to achieve.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. As he will know, in order to have an enduring peace, there will need to be credible deterrence for Ukraine. We have already seen the development of deterrence in eastern nations such as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania through the enhanced forward presence. Is the Foreign Secretary thinking of opening up discussions about how we could do that in Ukraine in the future, establishing an enhanced forward presence to underpin its security?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for raising this issue. Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO—allies agreed at the July summit in Washington that that was the rightful place of Ukraine over time. However, he is right that guarantees will be necessary. It is a matter of intense discussion. We have been the European country that has led on our military support for Ukraine, so he is absolutely right that we would expect to play a role in that when the day comes, working with other allies. As President Zelensky has said, the US would have to play a role in that, too.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), for their leadership on sanctions. We know that Putin’s shadow fleet is still a major source of financing for the war, and that cutting it off is vital to bringing him to the negotiating table and, crucially, preventing him from rearming later on. How does the Secretary of State plan to persuade allies and counterparts —including some of our own British overseas territories—to clamp down on sanctions evasion and expand the capture of the shadow fleet to the full extent of that fleet?
Mr Lammy
I am so grateful to my hon. Friend for the work he did on these issues prior to coming to Parliament, and for the work that he continues to do. He will be pleased that this is a subject we have raised, particularly with the overseas territories. It is also something I have raised with both the Indians and the Turks, where we have seen some going behind the rules that we have made in order to inadvertently benefit Russia.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The scores of Ukrainians living in my constituency will be very happy to hear today’s statement, because they are fearful about their future due to the length of time that the war has gone on. I just hope that the Foreign Secretary stands by these promises more so than the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has done today for the people of Northern Ireland—he has surrendered to the EU, rather than protect Northern Ireland businesses. However, does the Foreign Secretary have any concerns about the effect that either the resolve of EU countries or the attitude of the forthcoming American Administration is likely to have in undermining the message of support to the Ukrainian people and the message of defiance to Putin?
Mr Lammy
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am a man of my word, and that I am not as worried as some are. The reason is that while there is this debate—which Donald Trump has continued to push—about our commitment to defence spending, it is important to say that if we let Putin win, defence spending across all of our countries will rocket. During the cold war, defence spending rose to about 7%, so I think all countries need to concentrate their minds on standing by Ukraine.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Ukrainian defence and tech sectors have proven themselves resilient and innovative under the harsh pressure of war. Will the Foreign Secretary say a bit more about how, under the new 100-year partnership, the UK defence and tech sectors can support their Ukrainian counterparts? Likewise, how can we learn from the innovations of our Ukrainian friends and allies?
Mr Lammy
The Ukrainians recognise our huge strengths in higher education and, as result, innovation, which my hon. Friend will that referenced in the eventual treaty. Prior to the war, there was immense expertise in tech and IT in Ukraine. The innovations in drone technology are extraordinary and, frankly, are changing the nature of warfare, from which we should benefit. For all those reasons, that is an important pillar, from which we will gain as much as Ukraine will over the coming years.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Pillar 2.3 states:
“Throughout the duration of the Declaration, neither Participant will be left alone in the face of an attack or aggression.”
To what extent does that act as a NATO article 5 commitment in lieu of Ukraine joining NATO? Does it, like article 5, facilitate direct UK military action in support of Ukraine should it be attacked again in the future in violation of the UN charter? Are other NATO allies also negotiating similar pacts, and to what extent do they complement this one?
Mr Lammy
Unusually, the hon. Gentleman is jumping ahead of himself somewhat. We continue to support Ukraine with every military effort. That is going on now, and in a sense that is the reference he is making. I have indicated an irreversible pathway to NATO, as we agreed back in September. This is not article 5.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I welcome the statement, and I thank the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues for working on the partnership. As he will know, the House, in its first debate of the year, called on the Government to investigate how we might seize Russian assets. Notwithstanding his statements about the ongoing conversations and the sensitivities, will he update the House on when he will be able to report back to us on that?
Mr Lammy
I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that this is the most sensitive of times. We all recognise that this is a critical year for Ukraine, and further funds will need to be found. I am pleased to see that the $50 billion loan through the G7 will eventually be getting into Ukrainian coffers, but there is more to do, and the conversations are live at this point in time.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
It has been reported—indeed, it was mentioned by the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton)—that Putin has deployed North Korean troops in Ukraine. What is the Government’s response to what is now an axis of operations against Ukraine?
Mr Lammy
This is incredibly dangerous, as we see the Euro-Atlantic theatre and the Indo-Pacific theatre coalesce. It is important to emphasise that our assessment is that those troops are being used in Kursk. We see that, we recognise it and we will use all means necessary to deal with that issue with the tools we have as best we can in the coming days.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
While the worst of humanity was being demonstrated with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, our nation was showing the best of humanity, in our rich tradition, by opening our doors to those displaced by war. One of those families is that of my constituent Professor Ivan Waddington, who has adopted a Ukrainian refugee family, whom he sees as his own. He has asked me to ask the Government whether they are planning to continue with the scheme, and will those Ukrainians who have assimilated and are making a positive contribution to our country have the right to remain in this country when the war ends?
Mr Lammy
I recognise why hon. Members have raised this issue, but that must rightly be a determination for the Home Secretary at the appropriate time. However, I want to strongly indicate our support for those families in this country, and our recognition, as the war continues and may go on for some time, of the huge contribution they continue to make. I hope that the 100-year partnership that we have signed is an indication of the inextricable link that we think now exists between Ukraine and the United Kingdom.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. It will give the almost 300 Ukrainian families living in my constituency the encouragement they need. It is our desire and their desire that the war in Ukraine will come to an end shortly, for which I am a known advocate, along with many other Members. Do we still intend to send the £3 billion annual military assistance until 2031 whether the war is being fought or not? What will “no less than £3 billion” mean, and will we be expected to fund the Ukraine defence wholly if allies such as the United States of America do not make the same deals?
Mr Lammy
Our commitment is for that £3 billion for as long as it takes. It is a solemn and important commitment to Ukraine, and it underlines the cross-party support in the House and the strength of support among the British people.
New Hospital Programme Review
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the new hospital programme.
Of all the damage that the Conservative party did during their time in office—the broken public finances, the broken economy, the broken NHS—perhaps the most egregious was the broken trust between the British people and their Government, not just through their scandals or by breaking the rules they imposed on the rest of the country, but by making promises that they never intended to keep.
In 2019, the Conservatives told the British people that they would build 40 new hospitals over the coming decade, but there were never 40 new schemes and many of them were extensions or refurbishments. Put simply, they were not all new, some of them were not hospitals, and there were not 40 of them. Five years passed, start dates were delayed, spades remained out of the ground, and it became clear the announcement was a work of fiction.
Yet what did the Conservative party manifesto at last year’s general election say on the matter? It said:
“We will invest in more and better facilities, continuing to deliver 40 new hospitals by 2030”.
They repeated the promise even though the Department of Health and Social Care was putting contracts out to tender for hospital building that ran until 2035. They repeated that commitment even after the National Audit Office found that the Government
“will not now deliver 40 new hospitals by 2030.”
They repeated it even though the Government’s own infrastructure watchdog deemed it to be “unachievable.” No one thought that the promise would be met, yet the Conservative party made it anyway time and again.
Despite knowing this, when I walked into the Department of Health and Social Care on 5 July, what I discovered shocked me. The scheme was not just years behind schedule; the money provided by the previous Government was due to run out in March, just weeks from today. On 25 May 2023, the then Health and Social Care Secretary, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), stood at this Dispatch Box and told the House:
“Today’s announcement confirms more than £20 billion of investment”.—[Official Report, 25 May 2023; Vol. 733, c. 480.]
The truth is that no funding had been set aside for future years; the money simply was not there. This was a programme built on the shaky foundation of false hope.
If I was shocked by what I discovered, patients ought to be furious—not just because the promises made to them were never going to be kept, but because they can see when they go into hospital how badly the health service needs new buildings. The NHS is quite literally crumbling. Lord Darzi’s independent investigation found that the NHS was starved of capital investment by the previous Government. Its outdated estate has hit productivity, with services disrupted at 13 hospitals every day during 2022-23. I have visited hospitals where the roof has fallen in and where pipes regularly leak and even freeze over in winter. The Conservatives literally did not fix the roof when the sun was shining.
On Thursday, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority published its annual report for 2023-24. Its assessment of the new hospital programme read:
“There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed.”
That is what this Government have done.
Our review of the new hospital programme and the announcement I am making today will do two things: first, it will put the programme on a firm footing with sustainable funding, so that all the projects can be delivered; and, secondly, it will give patients an honest, realistic and deliverable timetable that they can believe in. This Labour Government are rebuilding our NHS, and as we do so, we will also rebuild trust in politics.
The seven hospitals built wholly or mostly from reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—RAAC—were outside the scope of the review. These will be rebuilt at pace to protect people’s safety. Also out of scope were the hospitals already under construction or with an approved business case, where building works have continued without delay.
Working closely with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, we have secured five-year waves of investment, backed by £15 billion of investment over consecutive waves, averaging £3 billion a year. That funding is in addition to the £1 billion that the Chancellor announced at the Budget to tackle dangerous RAAC and the backlog of critical maintenance, repairs and upgrades across the NHS estate. It is also in addition to the £1.5 billion we are investing in new surgical hubs, diagnostic scanners and beds. Together, it forms part of the £13.6 billion of capital investment announced at the Budget, which is the largest capital investment in our national health service since Labour was last in office.
I will now set out the new timetable. Projects in wave zero are already in the advanced stages of development and will be completed within the next three years. These are: the Bamburgh unit, phase 3 of the care environment development and re-provision, or CEDAR programme; the national rehabilitation centre in Nottinghamshire; Oriel eye hospital; Royal Bournemouth hospital; St Ann’s hospital; Alumhurst Road children’s mental health unit; and Dorset county hospital.
Wave 1 schemes will begin construction between 2025 and 2030. These include the seven RAAC hospitals: Leighton hospital; West Suffolk hospital; Frimley Park hospital; Hinchingbrooke hospital; Queen Elizabeth hospital; James Paget hospital; and Airedale general hospital. The other wave 1 schemes are: Poole hospital, Milton Keynes hospital; the 3Ts hospital—trauma, tertiary and training—in Brighton; the women and children’s hospital, Cornwall; Derriford emergency care hospital; Cambridge cancer research hospital; Shotley Bridge community hospital; North Manchester general hospital; and Hillingdon hospital.
Wave 2 schemes will now begin main construction between 2030 and 2035. They are: Leicester general hospital and Leicester royal infirmary; Watford general hospital, the specialist and emergency care hospital in Sutton; Kettering general hospital; Leeds general infirmary; Musgrove Park hospital; Princess Alexandra hospital; Torbay hospital; and Whipps Cross hospital, where I should declare an interest, as it serves my constituency.
Wave 3 includes nine schemes that will start construction between 2035 and 2039: St Mary’s hospital in London; Charing Cross hospital and Hammersmith hospital; North Devon district hospital; Eastbourne district general hospital, Conquest hospital and Bexhill hospital; Hampshire hospitals; Royal Berkshire hospital; Royal Preston hospital; the Royal Lancaster infirmary; and the Queen’s medical centre and Nottingham city hospital.
Following this statement, further details of the hospital building programme will be published on my Department’s website and a copy of the report will be placed in the House of Commons Library. In addition, the Minister for Secondary Care will hold meetings tomorrow, to which MPs of all parties are invited, to answer any further questions about these projects.
To ensure that every penny of taxpayers’ money is well spent and every hospital is delivered as quickly as possible, we will shortly launch a new framework for the construction of the new schemes. This will be a different way of contracting by working in partnership with industry to mitigate cost, schedule and delivery risks and saving money through a standardised design approach. That will speed up the process of opening new hospitals and provide a foundation for a collaborative supply-chain partnership. We will also appoint a programme delivery partner in the coming weeks to support the delivery of crucial hospital infrastructure across the country and provide programme, project and commercial expertise.
I know that patients in some parts of the country will be disappointed by this new timetable—they are right to be. They were led up the garden path by three Conservative Prime Ministers, all promising hospitals with no credible plan for funding to deliver them, and by Conservative MPs, who stood on a manifesto promise they knew could never be kept. We will not treat the British people with the same contempt. We will never play fast and loose with the public’s trust.
The plan that we have laid out today is honest, funded and can actually be delivered. It is a serious, credible plan to build the hospitals that our NHS needs. It is part of the biggest capital investment that the NHS has seen since Labour was last in office, delivering not just more hospitals but new surgical hubs, community diagnostic centres, AI-enabled scanners, radiotherapy machines, modern technology, new mental health crisis centres and upgrades to hundreds of GP estates. It will take time, but this Labour Government are determined to rebuild our NHS and rebuild trust in politics. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I am grateful, as always, to the Secretary of State for his typical courtesy in giving me advance sight of his statement. Labour was prepared to make all sorts of promises in opposition to win power—it promised not to raise taxes on working people, it said that it would not cut the winter fuel payment, and it promised to deliver the new hospital programme—but just as working people, pensioners, farmers and businesses have found, this is a Labour Government of broken promises. They have cynically betrayed the trust of the British people.
The Secretary of State and the Chancellor travelled the country to meet candidates who were promising a new hospital in their local area. In fact, despite my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) calling them out in this very place in May last year, warning that Labour had said in the small print of its health missions that it was planning to pause all this capital investment, the Secretary of State was quoted in the Evening Standard in June last year to have said:
“We are committed to delivering the New Hospitals Programme”.
Those are seemingly hollow words now that those hospitals are at risk, with the investment and upgrades they deserve pushed back potentially to start in some cases as late as 2039. Voters put their trust in the Labour party to deliver on its promises, yet today they have been let down.
In response to claims that that is perhaps because of Labour’s economic inheritance, that simply does not reflect reality. Before the Secretary of State warms to the theme of the mythical £22 billion black hole, he will know that the Office for Budget Responsibility has simply failed to recognise that figure. Let us also be clear that, due to the Labour party and the Chancellor’s financial mismanagement at the Budget and the rise in gilts, the BBC recently estimated that the cost of borrowing could be £10 billion higher over this Parliament. Just imagine what the Secretary of State could have announced today if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not caused that.
To govern is to choose: what to spend money on, what to invest in, and what not to invest in. The Secretary of State rightly pointed out that the Darzi review highlighted the need for more capital investment in the NHS, yet he has decided not to prioritise the delivery of these new hospitals in a rapid fashion. He will also know how the Treasury allocates funding, with cash earmarked to the end of a spending review period but not going across it until that comprehensive spending review formally concludes—that is what his Government are now doing.
The Secretary of State will be aware that the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), was very clear about the £20 billion anticipated in the next CSR to fund this. Let me be clear: we prioritised the delivery of these new hospitals, as my right hon. Friend did in his statement on RAAC on 25 May 2023, setting out the Government’s commitment to fund them. This Secretary of State has not replicated that.
We had a clear plan, with that funding commitment to be formalised at the CSR, to approve, build and complete new hospitals to a definition akin to that used by Tony Blair when building new hospitals, which were already being designed to a standardised approach with modern methods of construction. The Secretary of State has put that progress at risk. Will he confirm that in his CSR discussions with the Chancellor of the of the Exchequer about the capital departmental expenditure limit—CDEL—allocation for his Department, he will prioritise the new hospital programme? When will the Secretary of State set out to local people in each area exactly when construction will start? I declare an interest: University Hospitals of Leicester NHS trust serves my constituents. In each case, when will the doors actually open?
If the Chancellor fails to get the economy growing and starts looking yet again for cuts to fill the hole that she created with her Budget, will the Secretary of State rule out any further delays? What is his assessment of the effect of his lengthening the programme’s timescales on costs, given inflationary pressures? Are all other previously approved capital projects and programmes safe from review? Can he possibly update the House—via the Library if not here—on his latest assessment of the impact of RAAC in those hospitals, which rightly he is continuing to prioritise?
Today’s announcement will come as a bitter blow to trusts, staff and, crucially, patients, who believed the Labour party and will now be left waiting even longer for vital investment. Yet again, before the election, they talked the talk, but patients lose out when this Government fail to deliver. In yet again kicking the can down the road, as is increasingly their habit, they have sadly betrayed the trust of the British people.
Wes Streeting
This weekend the Leader of the Opposition said that she will be honest about the mistakes of the Conservative Government. It seems that the shadow Health Secretary did not get the memo. If the Leader of the Opposition is serious about showing some contrition, she might want to start here. In 2020 the Department of Health and Social Care requested funds from the Treasury to rebuild the seven RAAC hospitals. That request was denied, setting back the necessary rebuild of those hospitals by years. The shadow Secretary of State will remember this, as he was a Minister in the Department at the time. Which of his colleagues was a Treasury Minister when it blocked the rebuild of the RAAC hospitals? The Leader of the Opposition. That is her record. She should apologise.
Once again, like the arsonist returning to the scene of the crime to criticise the fire brigade for not responding fast enough, the Conservatives have the audacity to come here and talk about a failure to deliver, when promise after promise was broken. The shadow Secretary of State was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury who had to come in to clean up the mess caused by Liz Truss’s mini-Budget. That is what crashing the economy looks like. They still have not had the decency, even under new leadership, to apologise.
If the shadow Health Secretary genuinely believes that all these projects could be delivered by 2030—the commitment in the Conservatives’ manifesto—I invite him to publish today their plan for doing it. How would he ensure the funding, labour supply, building materials and planning to build the remaining projects in the next five years? Which capital programmes would he cut? Which taxes would he increase? He knows as well as anyone that those are the choices that face Government.
While he is doing that, can the shadow Health Secretary tell us what he can see that the National Audit Office, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority and the eyes in my head cannot see? What was the Conservatives’ plan past March, when the money runs out? What taxes would they have raised? I wonder what capital projects they would have cut in order to invest even more than we are in hospital buildings—the biggest capital investment since Labour was last in office.
While he is answering those questions, the shadow Healthy Secretary might want to reflect, with the shadow Cabinet and with Members on the Benches behind him, on the other messes that this Government are having to clear up. As I look around the Cabinet table, I see an Education Secretary dealing with crumbling schools, a Justice Secretary without enough prison places, a Defence Secretary dealing with a more dangerous world, a Transport Secretary having to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, and a Deputy Prime Minister building the homes we need—in short, dealing with multiple crises of the Conservatives’ making. There is a massive rebuilding job to do in Britain, and we are getting on with it.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I think my point will be unlike that of any other Member in the House. The specialist emergency care hospital in Sutton is in tier 2 of these schemes. Can I say to the Secretary of State, as I have said to every Health Secretary over the past 25 years, that no one wants this? We want the services at St Helier hospital to remain at St Helier, where the people who are poorest and most ill need them. Will he look at this £500 million-pound scheme to see if it is really necessary?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: I think that will be a unique representation this afternoon. I can already hear the vultures swooping, looking for that capital allocation and slot in the pipeline. She has made the case repeatedly, forcefully and with conviction that these services should remain in a community with high levels of deprivation and high need. I know that the Minister for Secondary Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), has already committed to meeting her, and we are very happy to have those conversations with her.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
In Hampshire and across the country in 2019 and 2024, Conservative MPs stood on the promise of delivering new hospitals, including one for Hampshire. However, it turned out that there was never any funding for that, and that those were just false promises to try to get votes. I have fought tirelessly to save and improve Winchester’s A&E and consultant-led maternity unit. With the announcement that construction of a proposed new hospital in Hampshire will not even start until between 2037 and 2039, we absolutely need to ensure that the current services are invested in and improved so that they remain fit for purpose.
Given that the new hospital programme is delayed, it is more urgent than ever to increase capacity by fixing social care, so that those who are well enough to leave hospital can be cared for in the community, thus freeing up beds immediately. We cannot endure both insufficient social care packages and crumbling hospitals. Given this delay to the new hospital programme, will the Secretary of State commit to prioritising more social care packages now, rather than waiting three years for a review to be complete?
Although the Health Secretary is not responsible for the state of the NHS or the state of the economy, which the Government inherited, the new hospital programme was seen as part of the solution to the crisis in the NHS, and people across the sector have warned that delaying the programme will only mean more treatments cancelled and more money wasted plugging holes in hospital buildings that are no longer fit for purpose. We are therefore concerned that one of the biggest announcements to affect the NHS over the next few years is coming out right now, during Donald Trump’s inauguration, because it will not get the media attention it deserves. Liberal Democrats therefore urge the Health Secretary to promise to release a full impact assessment on how the delays to the new hospital programme will affect patients and NHS staff.
Wes Streeting
I will take those points in turn. With enormous respect for the momentous democratic event taking place in Washington today, I do not think that the new President, last time I checked, had declared an interest in any of our hospital schemes. I am sure he will forgive us for getting on with the job of British government, even as the American handover takes place.
I committed some time ago to coming to the House in the new year. I have kept that promise and I dare say that the decisions that we are taking and setting out today will receive good coverage. I reassure the hon. Gentleman, and other Members across the House with an interest in particular schemes, that my hon. Friend the Minister for Secondary Care and officials from the programme team will be happy to meet as early as tomorrow to take questions on individual schemes.
The hon. Gentleman raises broader challenges for the NHS and social care pressures in our country. That is why the Chancellor prioritised investment in our NHS and social care services in the Budget, with £26 billion of additional funding for my Department of Health and Social Care. On social care specifically, we have taken a number of actions in our first six months: fair pay agreements for care professionals, the biggest expansion of the carer’s allowance since the 1970s and an uplift in funding for local authorities, including specific ringfenced funding for social care. We will be setting out further reforms throughout this year, as well as phase 1 of the Casey commission reporting next year for the duration for this Parliament.
Opposition Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot keep on welcoming the investment and opposing the means of raising it. If they do not support the Chancellor’s Budget, which is their democratic right, they have to say which services they would cut or which alternative taxes they would raise. Welcome to opposition, folks. We’ve been there. Enjoy the ride: you’ll be there for some time.
Finally, let me just say this to the Liberal Democrats, who have constructively raised a range of challenges. This is at the heart of the challenge facing this Government. The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the capital challenges facing the secondary care estate. The same is true of the primary care estate and of the community and mental health estates. As I have spelled out, every single one of my Cabinet colleagues also has significant capital pressures. That is the consequence of 14 years of under-investment in our public infrastructure and in our public services, which means that we are paying a hell of a lot more for the Conservatives’ failure than we would have if they had built on, rather than demolished, Labour’s record of the shortest waiting times and the highest patient satisfaction in history.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
Today’s announcement is welcome for my constituents. It confirms that we are keeping the promises we made in 2023 to deliver Hillingdon hospital in the first term of a Labour Government. I thank my right hon. Friend for that commitment. We also know that, shamefully, my predecessor and his predecessor misled my constituents. My predecessor stood here, almost where I am standing today, and told my constituents that Hillingdon hospital was fully funded and that construction had started. We now know that that simply was not true. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that today’s statement outlines a fully funded programme that is deliverable and an honest assessment of when hospitals will be delivered? Can he confirm that that is the case?
Wes Streeting
First, I thank my hon. Friend for his strong representations on behalf of his constituents, not just since his election, but before it. Between the by-election and his election to this place, he did not give up; he continued to fight for his community.
I stood outside Hillingdon hospital, having had a good look around at the state of the hospital and the plans for the reconstruction of the site. I am delighted to have kept my promise and this Government’s promise, so that construction at Hillingdon hospital will begin in 2027-28. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that his predecessor and his predecessor’s predecessor made claims about Hillingdon hospital that were not true. This Government will not make those mistakes. We will keep our promise. What we have set out for all schemes in the new hospital programme is a credible, realistic, funded timetable that this Government, for as long as there is a Labour Government, will actually deliver.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State forgive me if I give the House a few seconds’ respite from the blame game by trying to make a positive suggestion? Everyone accepts that the real problem facing our hospitals is the number of frail and elderly people who do not need to be in hospital and should be in some sort of care facility. Does the Secretary of State agree that while building brand-new, all-singing, all-dancing hospitals is very expensive, there is a future for smaller cottage hospitals such as the one in Gainsborough and a case for opening other facilities so we can move elderly, frail people out of those big hospitals into a caring environment and free up space?
Wes Streeting
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for a rare constructive contribution from the Conservative Benches—not rare from him, for he is regularly constructive; it is the rest of the Conservative party that we have a problem with. Let me reassure him that one thing we are determined to do is deliver a shift in the centre of gravity, out of hospitals and into communities, with care closer to home and indeed in people’s homes. As I saw on a visit to Carlisle over the new year, good intermediate step-down accommodation sometimes provides better-quality and more appropriate care and better value for the taxpayer. That intermediate care facility in Carlisle, funded through the NHS by a social care setting, was providing great-quality rehabilitation in a nicer environment at half the cost of the NHS beds up the road. This Government will deliver both better care and better value for taxpayers.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am really glad that my right hon. Friend has a grip on the hospital building programme and has developed a pipeline for scheduling the new hospitals. York is not on the list, but given that it was one of the cheapest hospitals to build, it will certainly need to be there in 10 to 15 years. How will my right hon. Friend review hospitals that are not on the list and schedule them into future programmes?
Wes Streeting
We keep a regular eye on the capital needs of the NHS across the board. Subject to the usual constraints on resources, supply chain construction industry capacity and so on, we will continue to do so. We are determined not to repeat the mistakes of our predecessors, but to ensure that the promises we make are promises we can keep.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Before the general election was called, there was a clear indication from the Government that they intended to fund the—only—£25 million reconstruction of the maternity unit at the QEQM hospital in Margate, which emerged from the Bill Kirkup report. I will be grateful if the Secretary of State can tell me whether it is his intention to ensure that that funding is made available.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the number of houses that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is determined to see built. Could he explain, for the sake of East Kent, how the primary and secondary healthcare services will be provided to meet the needs of the people who will live in those houses?
Wes Streeting
I am very aware of the challenges in East Kent and the challenges of providing good-quality care and the facilities that people need. I am sure that Ministers will be happy to receive representations from the right hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Gentleman asks about the Government’s commitment to building 1.5 million more homes. Let me reassure him and the House that the Deputy Prime Minister and I, as well as other members of the Cabinet, are discussing very carefully how we can make sure that alongside the new homes that our country needs, we have the infrastructure and the public services that people deserve.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
My predecessor in Chelsea and Fulham claimed to have secured funding for Charing Cross hospital. That claim went out on election literature throughout the constituency. At the time, I doubted it. Today’s announcement confirms beyond any doubt that the money was not there. What he was saying was not true.
I welcome the honesty and realism of the Government’s statement today. It is about time the British people had a Government playing straight with them and telling them the truth. [Interruption.] Instead of laughing and jeering from the Conservative Benches, which is of no use to my constituents in Chelsea and Fulham who were promised the money for Charing Cross hospital when it was never there, I would like to see some contrition. On a more positive note, can the Secretary of State assure my constituents that the timetable that he has set out will be met?
Wes Streeting
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I thank him for the very strong representations that he has made on behalf of his local trust since his election to this House. I am afraid that the extent to which promises were made about this scheme that could not be kept is shameful. I can reassure him that pre-construction work will take place between 2030 and 2035. As he knows, this is not a straightforward project, but it is one to which we are very much committed, with construction due to start around 2036. I am very happy to continue to work with my hon. Friend and with neighbouring right hon. and hon. Members to make sure that the trust is supported during that period, given the day-to-day challenges that it faces.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The acute hospital that serves most of my constituency is the Royal Lancaster infirmary. It is an overcrowded Victorian hospital; parts of it are falling to bits, it has inadequate parking and it is at the wrong end of a one-way system. With the Secretary of State’s help, the local hospital trust has acquired an almost perfect site for a rebuild. The trust has designed the new hospital and even begun consulting the public on it, so today’s announcement that we face a 10-year wait until a spade is dug into the ground will come as something of a bombshell. Will he reconsider the timescale? The longer we leave it, the more the cost will spiral and, I am afraid, the less likely it is that people will have confidence that it will even happen at all.
Wes Streeting
On the hon. Gentleman’s final point, I can well understand why people across the country will be cynical about commitments made on hospitals, given the experience that they had under our Conservative predecessors. Even if not every decision that we are taking is universally popular, I hope that people will appreciate our up-front candour and honesty in not trying to pull the wool over their eyes, and in setting out in today’s report, in terms, the timetable for pre-construction work and for starting construction.
In the particular case that the hon. Gentleman raises, I hope that the fact that land was acquired by this Government in December 2024 signals our absolute commitment to the scheme. If we were not committed to the scheme, we would not have made the land purchase up front ahead of pre-construction works, which are planned for 2030. We did so because we absolutely accept the case that he makes about the desirability of the site and the need for investment and the new hospital locally. In addition to the representations from the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) wins the award for being the first MP to collar me straight after the election to say, “Buy this land and do it now.”
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
After years of broken Tory promises on new hospitals, can the Secretary of State confirm today that, following this review, my constituents in Blaydon and Consett can at last be confident that we have an honest, realistic and deliverable timetable that they can believe in?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the representations that she has consistently made since before the general election. I think her constituents will particularly welcome the investment in Shotley Bridge community hospital, which will be in wave 1, with construction starting in 2026-27. I know that that is not the only need for health and care provision in her constituency; we will continue to work together to make sure that her constituents experience an improving NHS, as opposed to being lumbered with the broken one that was left behind by the Conservatives.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
This announcement will come as a terrible blow to the people served by Basingstoke and North Hampshire hospital, particularly after the very personal commitment made by the now Prime Minister in June 2024. We assume from what the Secretary of State has said today that, come the spending review, the Government will set out detailed capital budgets stretching into the 2040s. Can he tell us in the meantime what his announcement will do to his projections for operating costs, for repairs and maintenance costs and for the provision of stopgap facilities where they are needed?
Wes Streeting
Given that the right hon. Gentleman served in the Cabinet under successive Conservative Governments, he has some brass neck, frankly, in turning up today and complaining in the way that he has. He wants to talk about the costs placed on the country, but he should look in the mirror and consider the costs that he and his colleagues in government lumbered this country with when they imposed over a decade of austerity, of Trussonomics and the worst sort of kamikaze ideological project that this country has experienced in modern times.
I would just remind the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I remind him and those on the Conservative Benches who are living in an alternate reality where they bear no responsibility for their actions of only months ago, that the National Audit Office said:
“By the definition the government used in 2020, it will not now deliver 40 new hospitals by 2030.”
The Infrastructure and Projects Authority gave the scheme a red rating, saying that
“the project appears to be unachievable… The project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed.”
What on earth does he think that record did for NHS managers, given the stop-start, stop-start? What on earth does he think that did to communities who were seeking certainty and assuming that the promises made by the Conservatives would be kept? They said in their manifesto only last July that they would deliver 40 new hospitals by 2030. Well, according to the NAO’s definition and the IPA’s report, that promise was never going to be kept. They knew it. They did not care. They just said what they wanted to try to win votes, and that is disgraceful.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Members will have seen how many people are on their feet wanting to ask the Secretary of State a question. Could I ask Members please to try to keep their questions and answers quite short? I want to try to get everybody in, if at all possible.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend’s statement stands in sharp contrast to that made on 25 May 2023 by the previous Secretary of State, when he completely forgot to put in his statement, both written and verbal, North Manchester general hospital. I am pleased that North Manchester general hospital is today in the first wave, but I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend could spell out in detail when the work will continue, because in one of the areas of the country with the worst health outcomes, it is not only a hospital scheme; it is an urban regeneration scheme, and some work has started. Will that work be allowed to continue? Can he give me some details, please?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is right about the sorry state that North Manchester general hospital has been left in by our Conservative predecessors, not least the critical infrastructure risk at that hospital. Most of the existing estate dates back to the 1870s, and NHS leaders, managers and staff are having to deal with multiple day-to-day operational issues, including poor fabric and fire safety, ventilation, asbestos and water management issues. That is why I am delighted to confirm to my hon. Friend that the work will continue and construction will start in 2027-28. I am looking forward to working with him, other Greater Manchester MPs, the leader of the city council and the Mayor of Greater Manchester to make sure that this project delivers for the health and the wider economic benefits and needs of the people of Greater Manchester.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Given how Government finance works, the Secretary of State knows that he has, in effect, cancelled the replacement of Basingstoke and North Hampshire hospital. That is despite, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said, the now Prime Minister going there during the election campaign and making a specific, unequivocal and unconditional promise that the hospital would be replaced by 2030. Sadly, it looks like that will now not be the case. I am sure the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy), who is in the Chamber, will be considering his position, given the promises he made.
Are we able to rescue something from this wreckage by purchasing the site? As the Secretary of State will know, we are now likely to lose the land. It is a critical site, so can we please buy it before it slips from our grasp?
Wes Streeting
We are happy to receive sensible representations from Members about their projects, as we have from my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy). It is a bit rich for Conservative Members to talk about understanding how public finances work.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Last autumn, I met the Secretary of State to discuss the rebuild of the RAAC-infested Airedale general hospital. I reiterate my thanks on behalf of my constituents, who are being treated in wards with propped-up ceilings, for his and the ministerial team’s commitment to ensuring that this vital new hospital goes ahead with a deliverable timetable and a sustainable funding plan.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the previous Government’s commitment to delivering 40 new hospitals by 2030 was, as the NAO concluded, disingenuous and “unrealistic”?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. We are very fortunate to have in the House someone with her experience of social care and health issues. She has already done an outstanding job representing her constituents, who I know will not only welcome the news that Airedale general hospital will begin construction in 2027-28 but will be appalled that, as a RAAC hospital, work could have been well under way had the Department’s request for funding not been denied by the woman who is now the leader of the Conservative party.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I sympathise with the Secretary of State for having to pull these projects out of the fire of non-funding, and I thank him for the announcement on the women and children’s hospital in Cornwall. I know that all my parliamentary colleagues in Cornwall will be delighted at today’s news. I sympathise with colleagues who find themselves in waves 2 and 3. What can the Secretary of State do to crack on with the enabling work to ensure that this project is delivered in double-quick time? It is desperately needed, and a 2030 finish date will be challenging for Cornwall. It would be much appreciated if it could be brought forward.
Wes Streeting
I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Gentleman poses his question. I can confirm that pre-construction work is ongoing, with construction due to start between 2027 and 2029.
A lot has been said about what my party said before the election, and I will give Opposition Members a role model in how to do honesty ahead of an election. I stood outside the Royal Cornwall hospital and was asked by local media whether I would commit to a specific timetable, and I said, “We have committed to the new hospitals programme. We are committed to seeing through the new women and children’s hospital at the Royal Cornwall, and I know that enabling work is under way. Beyond that, we are going to take an honest look at the books.” That is the approach I took as shadow Health and Social Care Secretary, and that is how to do it—to under-promise and then over-deliver.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
Leeds general infirmary received outline planning permission in 2020. Two Conservative Prime Ministers came to Leeds and promised that we would get our new hospital, despite knowing that the funding was not there in the Treasury.
I thank my right hon. Friend for visiting the LGI. Now that we know we are in wave 2, will he meet me and the chief executive to talk about one of the largest maintenance backlogs in the NHS, how we are going to cope in the intervening period, and how we are going to move forward and hit wave 2 running to get our hospital built before we need to close down our children’s services, which are at risk?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the extent to which Leeds general infirmary was let down over 14 years of Conservative Government, with initial under-investment followed by total inactivity, apart from a big pile of dirt outside the hospital, which I went to see with the then shadow Chancellor. The Chancellor and I are both committed to the project: we know how important it is. We have had to phase the programme so we can say it is genuinely affordable, deliverable and credible on this timetable. I reassure my hon. Friend that pre-construction work will take place over 2030 to 2032, with construction due to start in 2033 to 2035. We would be delighted to receive representations from MPs from his city and across the region about the support we provide to the trust in the meantime.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Airedale hospital has some of the worst RAAC of all the hospitals on the new hospital programme. All the surveys have said that given the risk profile associated with RAAC, parts of the hospital will have no life expectancy beyond 2030, which is why the completion date of 2030 was so important. With funds having been allocated to the project for it to be delivered, it is disappointing to hear today that the start date will be between 2025 and 2030. When is it likely that the new, rebuilt Airedale hospital will open? Will the Health Secretary provide the trust with confidence that additional funds will be available to help with the mitigation that needs to take place before the new hospital can open, to keep the existing hospital operational?
Wes Streeting
If the hon. Gentleman is disappointed with this Government, he will be absolutely furious when he finds out who was in power before. In fact, he is a dead ringer for the guy I used to see on the Conservative Benches cheering on and voting for every calamitous decision the Conservative Government took, including crashing the economy and supporting the now Leader of the Opposition when she rejected appeals to fund RAAC hospitals. We are prioritising those hospitals and going as fast as we can. The rebuilding will happen under a Labour Government, but it did not happen under the Tories, did it?
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the honesty with which my right hon. Friend is approaching this matter, because Governments should not make false promises. I had the chance to visit a couple of the RAAC hospitals, and the Public Accounts Committee, which I used to chair, examined Hospital 2.0, the standardised approach he talked about. It contained some quite startling assumptions, so will he assure me and the House that he has looked into those in detail and that we are absolutely sure about the dates of delivery?
Wes Streeting
I reassure my hon. Friend that the approach we are taking, particularly the steps in the coming weeks on the outline for key delivery and the appointment of a partner, give me the confidence and assurance to know that the timetable we have set out is affordable and credible. I am always happy to receive advice and representations from my hon. Friend, who knows a huge amount about what she speaks about.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
In a few weeks’ time, I will celebrate my 42nd birthday. I was born at the Royal Berkshire hospital in Newbury, and given the Secretary of State’s announcement today, I will be celebrating my 60th birthday when the new hospital is due to open. Will the Secretary of State talk us through how operational budgets will be increased at hospitals such as the Royal Berkshire, which currently has a backlog of repairs of over £200 million that could stop operations and procedures happening? How will the Government ensure that money is in place while we wait 14 years for our new hospital?
Wes Streeting
I will be getting to 42 slightly earlier than the hon. Gentleman, as it is my 42nd birthday is tomorrow—I look forward to the cards in the post.
More seriously, on the phasing of the programme, we have taken an approach that ensures that we can stand up and look his constituents and others in the eye, and say that we have an affordable programme that can be delivered according to the timetable that is set out. I know people will be disappointed by the length of time it will take and I am genuinely sorry that they were led up the garden path by our predecessors. That is why we have taken an approach that says that honesty is the best policy. We would rather be up front about the length of time and in the meantime ensure we are delivering the investment and reform needed to reduce waiting times and improve primary, community and social care services, so even as work continues to prepare for the Royal Berkshire hospital scheme, his constituents and others across Berkshire will begin to experience an improving NHS under Labour, as opposed to the broken one they experienced under the Conservatives.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
While I welcome the firm commitment that the Secretary of State has made to a new Royal Berkshire hospital, my constituents will share my disappointment at the delay to its construction. I agree that the blame for the delay lies squarely with the Conservatives, who promised new hospitals without setting aside the money to pay for them, but will my right hon. Friend visit the Royal Berkshire hospital to discuss the interim capital funding that we will need as we wait for wave 3, and to see for himself how important it is that our new hospital is built as soon as possible?
Wes Streeting
No one has fought harder for the Royal Berkshire hospital scheme than my hon. Friend, and our hon. Friends the Members for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) and for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), who are sitting beside her. They have worked incredibly hard as a team to make the case for investment in health and social care across Berkshire. I would be delighted to visit, because she is right that even as people wait for this particular hospital scheme there is a lot that we can, must and will do to improve health and social care services across her constituency and across Berkshire. I look forward to working with my hon. Friends to achieve that.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Health Secretary has recognised the urgency of replacing the Queen Elizabeth hospital in King’s Lynn due to the RAAC safety issues. My constituents and I are grateful for that; it reflects the position of the last Conservative Government. In his statement, he said that he was working at pace to rebuild QEH, so will he instruct the NHS to expedite the business case approvals for the new multi-storey car park, which is the key enabling project, and will he commit to the 2030 deadline, which is the end of life of the hospital?
Wes Streeting
We recognise the challenge of RAAC in the Queen Elizabeth hospital in King’s Lynn, and took that approach from the outset. I can confirm that the programme will start construction in 2027-28. It is due to complete in 2032-33 but will be prioritised for expedition as a RAAC scheme. If we can go faster, we will. Today I am setting out a credible timetable. If we are able to under-promise and over-deliver, I will be delighted, but I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are going as far and as fast as we can, given the safety challenges. If he is not happy with the pace, he should reflect on the fact that one of the local MPs was a former Prime Minister. She had the chance to get on with it. I hope I do not get a legal letter, but she did not deliver, did she?
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
For nearly 25 years, I have been part of campaigns to either save or rebuild Whipps Cross hospital. For the last 10 years, I have stood shoulder to shoulder with the Secretary of State, so I know—let me put this on the record for him, because he cannot say it—his pain and frustration that we are now talking about eight years to restart the building works that have already started at Whipps Cross, and which will finally deliver the new hospital that we need and a thousand new homes in our community. It is devastating to us all, but we can see from the list that some hospitals have moved between the different waves. Given that, and given the examples of funding sources that can be put together, will he organise an urgent meeting—we know about his conflict of interest—for all MPs whose constituents use Whipps Cross, to look at the criteria and possible new sources of funding? I know that he will agree that we owe it to our constituents not to give up fighting for the hospital that our community so desperately needs.
Wes Streeting
As my hon. Friend says, I must declare an interest, as Whipps Cross hospital and Barts health NHS trust serve my constituents. I would be delighted to lead a delegation with her to lobby the Minister of State for health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), who has to take decisions on schemes that affect my constituency. It would be nice to be on the other side of exchanges for the first time in a while. Let me reassure the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), and my own, that pre-construction work on Whipps Cross hospital is due to begin in 2029 to 2031, with construction beginning in 2032 to 2034. My constituents know me well enough to know that if we could go faster, we would do so. On alternative investment vehicles and means of raising additional capital investment—not to mention learning from some of the less successful initiatives of the past—I would be delighted to work with Treasury colleagues and Government Members on how we can get more capital investment, but for reasons that she will well understand, we need to tread carefully on that point.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The Secretary of State inherited Torbay hospital where we have had almost 700 sewage leaks, many of which have impacted clinical areas of the hospital and, sadly, that is set to continue. The hospital operates at 98% bed capacity, which only results in poorer services for residents, and that is set to continue. Will he reflect on the fact that many people in Torbay will fear they have suffered the impact of the national insurance hikes in our low-wage economy, but without seeing much of the gains for our hospital?
Wes Streeting
I say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, we recognise the need for investment in Torbay hospital. We are committed to it, and that is what this programme commits us to deliver, with pre-construction work beginning from 2030 to 2032 and construction beginning in 2033 to 2035. Secondly, I say to him and other Opposition Members who oppose the decision that the Chancellor took in the Budget that they cannot welcome the investment on one hand and oppose the means of raising it on the other—unless, of course, they spell out which services they would cut or which alternative taxes they would increase. That is the challenge we face. The Chancellor has had to do a hell of a lot of heavy lifting to clean up the mess left by the Conservatives, and I support her decisions.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State—he is doing what he should be doing and what should have been done before: telling truth to the people and the Commons. I will not waste any time. I urge the Secretary of State to get his appropriate Minister, if not himself, to visit Whiston hospital and St Helens local authority. They will show him how things can work better than at present with proper integrated health and social care. I ask him to please pay a visit. It is worth it; he cannot afford not to go.
Wes Streeting
There’s an offer I can’t refuse. My hon. Friend is a great champion of health and care services in her community and has enormous experience in local government. We are always looking for best practice. We want to take the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS, and we would be delighted to hear more about the success in her community.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
As the Secretary of State will be aware, I and MPs from surrounding constituencies wrote to him at the beginning of December to talk about Watford general hospital. I am sure that I speak on behalf of the two Labour MPs, one Lib Dem and a Conservative colleague when I say we are disappointed that he has decided to delay reconstruction of Watford general until at least 2030. Notwithstanding my public disappointment and given that all six of us campaigned actively on investment in Watford general, the statement says that further details will be provided in the hospital building programme. If there are assumptions there that we wish to challenge—such as build cost—do we go to the Secretary of State or the Minister of State with those questions?
Wes Streeting
The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), will be holding briefings tomorrow for Members from across the House and is happy to receive further questions. The hon. Member seems to be saying on the one hand to go faster, and on the other that he wants to challenge underlying assumptions in the scheme. He cannot have it both ways. As I said to some of his hon. Friends, if he is disappointed with this Government as we clean up the mess they left behind, goodness knows the self-loathing he felt when they were in government.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I feel doubly blessed this afternoon because the West Suffolk hospital in my constituency is to be rebuilt and the James Paget hospital where I have worked for 30 years is to be rebuilt. Does the Secretary of State agree that our primary care estate is in a terrible situation and that we must also invest in general practice facilities?
Wes Streeting
With that track record, my hon. Friend might want to tell us this week’s lottery numbers while he is here. In all seriousness, he makes a good point. Although today’s statement is about the new hospital programme, the challenges across the health and social care estate are enormous. That is why the Chancellor committed at Budget to the capital investment that will deliver not only this programme but a significant investment in the general practice estate. We have an enormous array of capital challenges in health and social care. I ask Members on both sides of the House to bear in mind that while I have to struggle to weigh up the competing priorities across the health and social care budget, the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury have to do so not only for health and social care, but for education, transport, defence, justice, the police estate—right across the board, we have inherited a country left in an enormous hole. We are taking the necessary decisions to get our country out of that hole and beat a path to a better future.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
One of the hospitals that my constituents and wider Buckinghamshire residents rely on for treatment is Wycombe hospital. It is not a RAAC hospital, but severe maintenance issues in the ageing tower mean that it is losing about 2,000 hours of operating time per year. In the spirit of the transparency that the Secretary of State speaks of, will he tell the House where the elongation of the new hospital programme leaves the works at Wycombe hospital, and will he meet me to discuss constructively how to move that work forward so that Wycombe can get the new surgical hub that it needs?
Wes Streeting
I am always open to constructive representations. As I said in my statement, the capital envelope that the Chancellor has given my Department—the biggest since Labour was last in office—includes funding for exactly those sorts of maintenance, backlog and disrepair challenges in the NHS estate. It is not just about new units or hospitals; it is also about ensuring that the current estate can deliver the quality of care and the value for money that our constituents deserve. I would be happy to take representations from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The Conservatives made promises about 40 new hospitals that they knew they could not build and deliver, and now it turns out that they knew they could not pay for them by 2030. It is little wonder that trust in politics is so low at the moment. It is also little wonder, given the unedifying display from Conservative Front Benchers today, that they are sat on the Opposition Benches. It falls on this Government to take the decisions that the Conservatives ducked when they were in power. Given that trust is so low, what reassurances can the Secretary of State give my constituents that the Leeds general infirmary will be delivered according to the timetable that he has set out today?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his representation and for his outstanding work for the people of Leeds since his election. I can reassure his constituents that this is a credible and funded timetable that we can stick to—and I am determined to ensure that we do. As for promises made by the Conservatives, we saw the crocodile tears from the Leader of the Opposition this weekend. She says that she will admit that the Conservatives got things wrong, but she never, ever gives a specific example. In fact, we have heard more about steak sandwiches than humble pie since the election.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The previous Conservative Government promises the people of west Hertfordshire that we would have a new hospital, and they even claimed that it was fully funded, so our sense of betrayal is incredibly acute. Today, the Labour Government have announced that the rebuild start for Watford general hospital has been pushed back by seven to nine years, without Ministers having even visited the hospital, even though it is shovel-ready. We have the land, we have the planning permission and we have done the enabling work, so can the Secretary of State say why 23 hospitals are ahead of Watford general, and what money will be made available for repair bills, which will inevitably pile up, possibly for the best part of a decade, while our hospital is left to crumble?
Wes Streeting
I can well understand the hon. Member’s anger on behalf of her St Albans constituents, who are invested in this project, as are the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Watford (Matt Turmaine) and for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor). She will be able to see in the report, which we are placing online and in the Library, the methodology that we followed to assess prioritisation and ordering of schemes, which was about affordability, deliverability and the other factors that she would expect us to take into account. That is how we reached today’s decision. I can reassure her and her constituents that pre-construction work will begin from 2028 to 2030, with construction beginning in 2031 to 2033. Those of her constituents who are angry about the delays do not need to be told where the blame lies. That is why they returned a Liberal Democrat MP instead of a Conservative.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I plan to run this statement until 6 o’clock, so I ask Members to please help each other out by keeping their questions and answers short.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
My predecessor told my constituents that the work on Kettering general hospital was ready to go. It is shameful that, in reality, the Conservatives had no credible plan, and the money was going to run out in March this year. Does the Secretary of State agree that people in Kettering are right to be angry at the previous Government for breaking their promises, and can he reassure my constituents that they will see a realistic, deliverable timeframe for the rebuild of our hospital?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has raised this issue consistently and persistently with me since she was elected. I can reassure her and her constituents that pre-construction work will begin from 2028 to 2030, with construction starting in 2031 and lasting until 2032. I am extremely sorry that my hon. Friend’s constituents were led up the garden path; I rather feel that they have already rumbled the Conservatives by sending her to Parliament, but for as long as there is a Labour Government, we will deliver for the people of Kettering.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I will say it, because no one else has: many happy returns for tomorrow. I genuinely thought that you were in your mid-30s—that the Secretary of State was in his mid-30s.
Lincoln Jopp
I also congratulate the Secretary of State on coming to the Chamber with such a massive capital expenditure announcement and eliciting a saving with his answer to the first question from the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh).
One of the plans that went by the board in May, for reasons I have not quite got to the bottom of, was for the Staines health and wellbeing centre, which is one of only six community diagnostic hubs that NHS England has allocated in England. The funding got pulled in May; will the Secretary of State please have another look at it?
Wes Streeting
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for that question. I think he is going to go far in this place, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would be delighted to look favourably on his representations about his local facilities.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
My local hospital was not selected for the new hospital programme. While I am happy for colleagues who have received some certainty today on when work on their local hospital will start, does the Secretary of State recognise that there are hospitals the length and breadth of this country that are falling apart, and that staff and patients deserve better? Will he commit to considering a wider estate plan for the rest of the NHS estate, especially in east Kent?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and for the outstanding work he has done representing his constituents since his election. He makes the really important point that, of the record investment that the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury have given to my Department for capital investment—the biggest allocation since Labour was last in government—£3 billion a year is allocated for the new hospitals programme. Eagle-eyed people have noticed that a sum much larger than £3 billion a year is available for capital investment, precisely because there is a need for improvement and modernisation of the existing estate right across the health and social care estate, as I know from the representations that are piling into my inbox from my constituents who use Queen’s hospital in Romford. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are looking across the board at the capital need in the NHS and social care and prioritising accordingly, and I would be delighted to receive his representations.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Hinchingbrooke hospital in Huntingdon is one of the RAAC hospitals for which funding has already been approved. That hospital will not be allocated grid space until quarter 1 of 2028, but it will need it by Q1 2027 in order to keep the build on track. Additionally, traffic around the hospital is frequently gridlocked. A vital new access road is part of the plans, but the land where it would go is owned by Cambridgeshire constabulary and National Highways, who are yet to give up the additional land they acquired via compulsory purchase order when constructing Views Common Road. Will the Health Secretary meet me in order to work through those blockers—given that they are all being caused by Government agencies—and meet Hinchingbrooke hospital’s 2030 delivery date, and can he confirm that the 2030 date is still the target?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his representations. This Government are on the side of the builders, not the blockers. I can confirm to him that we are determined to start Hinchingbrooke in 2027-28. We work closely with the local project team, but we would be delighted to receive representations about his frustrations with the delivery of that project.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
The last time the Secretary of State came to the Chamber to talk about the new hospital programme, I shared the story of taking my 93-year-old grandmother to accident and emergency at Milton Keynes hospital, only to be told when we got there that the wait time was nine and a half hours. I am afraid to say she was back there again earlier this month, and despite the tireless efforts of our incredible NHS staff, the brutal reality of 14 years of Tory neglect means she did not get the care she desperately needed and deserved. However, it is not just my family; this is the lived experience of countless people across my constituency. On behalf of my grandmother, my family, my friends and my neighbours, I thank the Secretary of State for doing what the previous Government failed to do, which is securing the extra funding needed for the new hospital in Milton Keynes. Can I ask that he continues to work with me and the other MPs across Milton Keynes to ensure we get spades in the ground as soon as possible?
Wes Streeting
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who has done so much with his parliamentary neighbours in Milton Keynes and Bletchley to get this scheme delivered and going as fast as possible. He underlines how important this is: it is not just about bricks and mortar; it is about people’s lives and life chances. He really brought that home with his powerful contribution. I can reassure him that pre-construction work is ongoing, with construction due to begin in 2027-28, which I know will be welcomed by people who use the hospital right across Milton Keynes and beyond.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
My former constituency neighbour Councillor Steve Tuckwell chaired the planning committee that granted permission for the new Hillingdon hospital, which serves my constituents. For full disclosure, my wife works there as an NHS doctor. Those of us who are local residents saw pre-construction works under way, including sewerage, electrics and demolition and strip-out beginning in the building. Will the Secretary of State apologise to my constituents affected by this for the delay that he has introduced to this project? Will he consider lobbying the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to cancel the Chagos islands deal, the cost of which alone would fund 10 new NHS hospitals?
Wes Streeting
It is truly extraordinary that we have a Conservative Member standing up and criticising a Labour Government for delivering the Hillingdon hospital project, which will begin construction—not pre-works, but delivering—in 2027-28, as I promised the people of Hillingdon. That is what we are delivering, and people should judge the contrast between a Labour Government who are delivering and not just Conservative Members, but a Conservative Prime Minister, who made promises on the 40 hospitals, did not follow through and walked away, leaving us to pick up the pieces.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
First, I say happy birthday to the Secretary of State for tomorrow. I cannot think of a better birthday present than to give the people of Milton Keynes a new women’s and children’s hospital. We are a growing city, and nowhere is it more needed in terms of population per bed. Will he reassure my constituents that the money has been found and allocated, because they feel they were taken for mugs after the scheme was announced by the previous Government and the previous MPs more than four times, but was never funded and never delivered?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her birthday wishes, even after I announced the timetable that I know she and her constituents wanted. On a serious note, I think people will see the contrast between sending Conservative Members from Milton Keynes, with inaction and broken promises, and sending Labour Members from Milton Keynes who are delivering. I am delighted with the work and improvements we will be able to deliver for her constituents. I hope Members right across the House, whichever wave their hospital is in, know that this Government have set out a timetable that is credible and deliverable, and a funding package that will be delivered for as long as there is a Labour Government.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
My constituents in North Devon were let down by the previous Government, and they will be utterly dismayed to find that the remotest hospital in England has been passed over again for essential repairs—it is now beyond 2035. Does the Department understand that if critical care and operating theatre facilities begin to fail within the next five years, as expected, there is no alternative critical care for patients for over 40 miles? I invite the Secretary of State to come to see for himself why investment is needed now, and to visit North Devon district hospital because it has not had a ministerial visit from this Government.
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question. I can tell his constituents that, since his arrival, he has been absolutely dogged in pursuit of health and care investment in his community. I say to his constituents that we will deliver against this timetable. The funding is there, and it will be there for as long as there is a Labour Government. In the meantime, we would be happy to work with him to make sure that rural communities such as his receive the investment they need, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Secondary Care or I would be delighted to visit at some point soon.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
There is no doubt but that this statement will be met with a deal of anger and frustration by my constituents. The hospital in Basingstoke is badly needed, and they are not getting the healthcare they deserve. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) called on me to consider my position. I would call on him, were he still in his place, to consider his connection with reality, because there is absolutely no doubt where the blame for that anger and frustration should lie, and that is with Conservative Members. [Interruption.] They repeatedly told my constituents that the hospital was funded; it was not. They told us it would be delivered by 2030, but they themselves delayed this fictitious plan until 2033, and the right hon. Member has the gall to ask me to consider my position. I am surprised he could make it to the Chamber today, so weighed down he must have been by his brass neck.
That brings me to my question. I welcome the clarity that the Secretary of State has brought to the scheme and to the House today. A number of the hospitals in cohort 4, which includes Basingstoke hospital, have been moved forward, such as the hospitals in Milton Keynes and Kettering. I am of course delighted for my colleagues, but I would be interested to know why they have been moved, but Basingstoke is where it is. What confidence can the Secretary of State give my constituents that under our plan, unlike the previous Government’s, they can be confident that Basingstoke hospital will be delivered as we have set out?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I am not surprised that Conservative Members tried to shout him down. They want to silence criticism of their record because they are ashamed of it. That is a simple fact. He is absolutely right about his parliamentary neighbour, who sat around the Cabinet table of the notorious Liz Truss, even as she crashed the economy, and then has the temerity to turn up and lecture other people about the sound management of public money. These people have no shame whatsoever, and they will have no credibility until they sincerely and honestly apologise to the country for the mess they made.
I am very happy to talk through with my hon. Friend and his constituents why his project has been phased as it has. There are a number of constraining factors—not just resources, but other factors such as allocation of land, planning and so on—but I reassure his constituents that we will deliver. I also reassure his constituents that, since his arrival in this place, he has been absolutely dogged and determined in speaking up for them and lobbying on their behalf.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s clarification on the timing of the new Sutton specialist hospital, which will serve my constituency. I am really pleased that the project is going ahead, although the delay is disappointing. The current situation at Epsom and St Helier university hospitals NHS trust is not sustainable. The trust currently runs duplicate services across two sites, which makes staffing incredibly difficult. The physical estate is deteriorating faster than it can be fixed, and some of the buildings are older than the NHS itself. Could the Secretary of State set out how he intends to reduce waiting lists in Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages in the short term in the light of the delay to this project?
Wes Streeting
I can reassure the hon. Member that the hospital is due to start construction from 2032 to 2034 —although my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) had other ideas. On cutting waiting times, just earlier this month the Prime Minister and I published this Government’s elective reform plan so that we can deliver the 18-week standard for referral to treatment, which has not been met for a decade. Had the hon. Member been here during the last Parliament, she would have been absolutely shocked at where the Conservatives led us: from the shortest waiting times and the highest patient satisfaction under Labour to the highest waiting lists and lowest patient satisfaction on record.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Trust in the delivery of healthcare for my constituents has been damaged by 14 years of failed NHS policies and fake Tory promises for new hospitals—the Tories knew full well that they did not have the money to deliver them. They visited Whipps Cross five times for announcements but delivered nothing—not a brick, not a penny, and certainly no hospital. Although the delay confirmed today is disappointing, we welcome the honesty and the work to mitigate the impacts of Tory failure.
The campaign for Whipps Cross hospital is not over, however. As the Secretary of State’s team knows, we will continue to make other Departments aware of the impact on their housing programmes and continue to seek their support on his behalf. I am grateful for his remarks earlier about meeting to look at alternative funding methods. Will the Secretary of State confirm that funding for remediation and maintenance works will be made available to get our hospital to its wave 2 start line?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my parliamentary neighbour for his representation and reassure him and his constituents—and mine, for that matter—that thanks to the capital allocation at the Budget provided by the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is in his place, we will be investing more in capital than at any point since Labour was last in office, because we recognise the capital funding pressures right across the NHS estate. We are determined to meet those pressures and clear up the mess that the Conservatives left behind.
I know that across the House and the country there will be real anger at the promises made by the Conservatives when people see that the timetable was a work of fiction and the money was not there. I hope it is of some reassurance to know that this Secretary of State represents a community that is also feeling let down by the actions of the Conservatives, as does the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The way in which we have phased this scheme, and the fact that both our schemes are in wave 2, should reassure people that we are doing as much as we can as fast as we can within the constraints. I hope that people will take some comfort from the honesty, credibility and affordability of the timetable we are setting out today. As long as there is a Labour Government, the new hospital programme will be delivered.
Office for Value for Money
(1 day, 2 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 Treasury Committee. Dame Meg Hillier 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 Chair, not the relevant Government Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It gives me great pleasure to make a statement on the first report of the Treasury Committee in this Parliament, and I again thank the House for giving me the honour of occupying this position. Our first report is on the new Office for Value for Money.
There will not be a single Member who does not believe in value for money for our constituents, who pay for Government services through hard-earned taxes that they give grudgingly to be spent well. As the Chancellor herself has been very clear, the taxpayer is not an automatic cash machine and every penny of taxpayer money needs to be spent as well as possible. The notion of value for money is one we would all support. We also need transparency, and that is a large part of the role of Select Committees: to shine a light on Government actions. This is our first public report shining a light on the work of the Treasury.
The Office for Value for Money is a short-lived, year-long body that is expected to have 20 staff, including secondees from the National Audit Office and the evaluation taskforce in the Cabinet Office. It is headed by a chair, who told us that it would conduct a small number of studies mainly on a cross-departmental basis to identify better value for money across Government. When we spoke to the chair in our hearing at the end of December, we found that although it was supposed to have 20 members of staff, it only had 12 and all were below director-general level, so not the most senior civil servants. That total of 12 and the ultimate total of 20 will include secondees.
It had not ruled out in December using external consultants to bolster the skills it will need to deliver on its work. It had not yet decided at the end of December into which areas it would launch studies, and nor had it set the parameters for evaluating its effectiveness. The Committee was clear that having a body with a name we would all agree with the principle of is not enough; we want to see such a body deliver for our constituents.
We highlighted in our report that there is a risk of duplication. There are already a large number of bodies across Government that deliver on value for money, scrutinise Government, and shine a light on how money is spent: the National Audit Office, which has nearly 1,000 staff in Newcastle and London; the evaluation taskforce in the Cabinet Office, which evaluates projects across Government to make sure they are properly delivering; the new National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority, which will be operational in the spring and brings together the previous Infrastructure and Projects Authority in a slightly different format.
There are also units in Departments that work to deliver on value for money in a range of areas, in particular the new arrangements for the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, with its centre for digital transformation of public services. The Cabinet Office also has a readiness programme, based on regulations arising from the Procurement Act 2023, called “Transforming public procurement”.
There is also the rainbow of books. If we walk into the Treasury and ask questions about the green book, the teal book and the magenta book—and there are others—we will learn that is an important infrastructure for how it issues guidance. The green book appraises policies, programmes and projects. The teal book provides guidance on project delivery in Government, including managing projects, programmes and portfolios—that has been in an internal trial since July 2024. The magenta book provides Treasury guidance on what to consider when designing evaluation.
There are also a number of frameworks, including the Government efficiency framework and the public value framework. Datasets are also provided, including the priority outcomes and metrics first set out in the spending review of 2020. One of the most crucial elements in delivering value for money is that every Department has outcome delivery plans addressing the meat and drink of what is going on in Government. As Secretaries of State sit and plan what they might have to deliver in the spending review coming up in June, they will be poring over those outcome delivery plans as they do their departmental review; each Department will have its own review to look at where money is being spent and what projects are being delivered.
Overarching this there is “Managing public money”, which covers the approach of all permanent secretaries, who are the accounting officers and are therefore responsible for answering for how taxpayers’ money is spent through the accounting processes of Government. Their accounting officer assessments have to fit in with that regime.
We all want to see value for money, but this young body is one-year long and is not yet well established. The risk of duplication is high, and we need to ensure that it delivers something special and different, and crucially that nowhere in the Office for Value for Money will Ministers be playing a role. They will have a key role in delivering on the spending review, but in my experience of over a decade of scrutinising public spending, Ministers can make promises but they are not always well delivered, which can drive up public spending if we are not careful.
It is vitally important that this body delivers as set out, so we have asked the Treasury to explain in more precise detail what it expects the Office for Value for Money to deliver, how it will evaluate its success, and what it wants to see in the long term from this body chaired by David Goldstone. We wish this body well, but the Committee is clear that at the moment there are a number of areas of concern about whether it will actually deliver what it is set out to do.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady not only on her excellent chairing of our Committee and this report, but on securing a slot in the Chamber to tell people about some of the report’s recommendations. Her background as the former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee gives huge credibility to the points she is making about the possibility that this new and temporary body will not be able to make its mark in the way the Government hoped. One of the areas where my constituency has benefited most in value for money from public spending is flood defences. With her long experience, does she agree that protecting our communities from the impact of climate change is one of the best uses of public money?
Dame Meg Hillier
The hon. Lady, the former Chair of the Treasury Committee—she still serves on the Committee—highlights a pertinent point. The chair of the Office for Value for Money said that it is not just about cash costs and that sometimes it might want to look at programmes that will save costs in the long run. However, that was still ill-defined, and we need to hear more detail, because that is the holy grail, really. If we can spend to save, that benefits our taxpayers in the long run in cash and, in the case of flooding in particular, it prevents something that is catastrophic for many communities.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
I join others in thanking the hon. Lady and her Committee for producing this report. Given the increasing pressures on public expenditure since the Budget, the report is timely. The picture it paints is that the Office for Value for Money’s remit is vague, its personnel are limited, time is tight and other established groups are already in place, and there is therefore concern that its efforts may dissipate. It is clear that it cannot do everything. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is here, and I understand that the chair of the Office for Value for Money was clear that there are a few areas he will be looking at. Does the Chair of the Committee agree that it would be of value for those areas of investigation to be made clear and public, so that we can more clearly monitor where their impact could be felt?
Dame Meg Hillier
The hon. Gentleman is saying what we said in the report. As a cross-party Select Committee of the House, we said that we need more detail about what will come. The chair of the Office for Value for Money was in front of us before Christmas, and we recognised that, given the body had only been established in October, he might not have all the answers, but we need those with dispatch, if this body is to be disbanded in October and is to contribute meaningfully to this spending review, although we recognise that would be challenging within the timeframe. If he is to lay down markers for genuine value for money and better spending by Government in the long term, we need precision. We have asked the Treasury for that, and hopefully it will respond to us in quick time—it has to respond to us, whether it wants to or not—with answers. We also need to evaluate the effectiveness in terms of whether, when the Office for Value for Money comes up with its studies and things, they will have to be taken on by the Treasury. We want to know the mechanisms for that and how the Treasury will prove to this House and taxpayers that the body has made a big difference.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Value for money in public spending is important to my constituents, who work hard for their money. In Scotland, under the Scottish National party, we have higher rates of income tax for anyone earning more than £29,000. The Government in Edinburgh and the UK Government that we have just finished with have indulged in some shocking wastes of money. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential for the Office for Value for Money to set out its suggestions for ways of securing value for money for future reference in both London and Edinburgh?
Dame Meg Hillier
My hon. Friend highlights an important point that I have mentioned already. Our constituents give the Government their hard-earned money in the belief and hope that they will spend it wisely. It is important that the Treasury is clear about what it expects to get out of the Office for Value for Money and, as a result of that work, thereby proves to the House, voters and taxpayers that it is getting better value than it would have done had the Office for Value for Money not existed.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member on her excellent chairing of our Committee and on this excellent report. Given that the Office for Value for Money has only 20 staff and only 12 in post, whereas the NAO has 1,000, I share her concerns about whether it will be able to deliver value for money. What additional steps would she like to see taken to reassure the Committee that this body can offer value for money?
Dame Meg Hillier
It is important that we know what the Treasury is expecting from this body. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who was at our session, will agree that the chair was straightforward with the Committee about the limitations of a body of this nature, which is time-limited and whose few staff are not very senior. I am not in any way denigrating the staff, who no doubt are working hard, but we need to be clear about what we are getting from the headline of the Office for Value for Money, an organisation that is small and lean, and about what it adds to the work of other bodies. I listed only a few such bodies, not all of those that are in place across Whitehall.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for her skilful and professional chairing of the Select Committee. I think all Committee members were straining to find the substantive additionality of this body; I am not sure that we totally convinced ourselves of what that was. I very much welcome the fact that the Office for Value for Money is a time-limited unit within the Treasury. I also welcome the fact that the Office for Value for Money intends studies in specific high-risk areas of cross-departmental spending.
The role of Chief Secretary to the Treasury is not easy, and I am sure that the incumbent would say that it has been made far worse by all his predecessors. Does the hon. Lady agree that one area that bears scrutiny is the future of the UK Health Security Agency at Porton Down? In September 2015, the then Chancellor suggested that it should move to Harlow. In 2020, additional investment was needed at Porton in a national crisis, and there remains enduring uncertainty over where that investment should lie. That is a classic example of what this body should be capable of doing, which is evaluating where future investment should be in the national interest.
I am sure that the hon. Lady would echo my concern that the lack of specificity around those specific areas of focus creates ambiguity. Would she welcome more clarity on what that focus would be over the last six weeks?
Dame Meg Hillier
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who is a fellow member of the Treasury Committee and a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, for his question. We could have a whole debate about Porton Down and the animal health centre in Weybridge, where there was under-investment by his Government and challenges on his side, but we are not here to make party political points.
There are areas of under-investment, but the lack of specificity and the duplication issues are key concerns, as is reflected in our cross-party Treasury Committee report. There is a danger that unless this new body narrows its focus soon, it will not be able to deliver in time to aid the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury in his work of ensuring that Departments deliver on the spending review and come up with the proposals that provide the best value for money for the taxpayer. We need that clarity. The Government should welcome this report, because it gives them an opportunity to seek greater clarity from this body to aid the challenging spending review process.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It seems that the Chair of the Treasury Committee has come to the firm conclusion that the Office for Value for Money is itself not value for money. In carrying out her investigation of this body, which appears to have been set up only for a very limited period, she must have asked it what its terms of reference are, why it has been set up only for a limited period and what it is intended to achieve. My guess is that the answer has something to do with the ability to search just about anywhere across the spectrum for any project that causes concern. Did she get an answer of that sort? She must surely have got some sort of answer.
Dame Meg Hillier
I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much, although I should stress that it is not my evaluation but the Committee’s. We were unanimous in our concerns and unanimous in our desire to see taxpayers’ money spent well. We asked questions of the Office for Value for Money’s chair. Our report reflects the areas that he might consider looking at, especially areas in which there is great risk and areas of cross-departmental working.
There has been a move over the years to get more cross-departmental or joint departmental bids into the spending review, but that has not really got traction, because we have a terribly siloed culture in Whitehall. That is a big challenge, and the current Government—of my own party, of course—have the missions, which aim to bring things together. The chair said that he would be looking at some of that, but that is quite a lot to do in the timeframe available: the bids and cross-party working areas have to be identified, those Departments have to co-operate and the office needs the resource to look at where the issues are. With only 20 staff in total—there were only 12 when we had our hearing with the chair, but there are probably more now—that is a stiff ask. It would be helpful for Treasury Ministers to sit down with the Office for Value for Money and push it to come back with the exact areas that it proposes to look at and that will be most useful to the Government to deliver value for money.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for her statement and her answers. Speaking as an Ulster Scot, like many of us in this Chamber, it might be an exaggeration to say that every pound is a prisoner, but it is none the less telling of how thrifty we are. Ever mindful of that, I hope that the hon. Lady is aware of the issue of agency staff in the health service, whose costs are some 15% above those for an ordinary nurse’s pay. I have highlighted the matter directly to the Health Department on several occasions in this House. Will the hon. Lady and her Committee take it on board and investigate how permanent nurse jobs could be allocated? If we want value for money, a 15% saving must be worth that effort and that commitment.
Dame Meg Hillier
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to stray into the territory of the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown)—this is exactly the territory that his Committee examines. We all know that agency staff cost more, whether that is for schools or for hospitals, and there is an issue with the pipeline of staff. I will stop there, because it is really not a matter for the Treasury Committee, or indeed for the Office for Value for Money: as the office is short-lived, it would not have the opportunity to look at something like that, as we heard from its chair. However, I am sure that the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee will be listening and will take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board.
Global Combat Air Programme
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
We now come to the second Select Committee statement, on behalf of the Defence Committee. Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. They should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair, not the relevant Government Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to present the Defence Committee’s third report of the Parliament, which illustrates just how hard the Committee is working on the House’s behalf for the people and their Parliament. My sincere gratitude goes to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this salient, significant statement on the global combat air programme.
The UK is a world leader in combat air. We have developed and built some of the most iconic fighter jet aircraft in history, from the Spitfire and the Meteor to the Tornado and the Typhoon. The global combat air programme offers the opportunity to build on that history as we look to the Royal Air Force of the future. GCAP, an international collaboration with Japan and Italy that aims to deliver a next-generation fighter aircraft by 2035, will be one of the UK’s most significant defence programmes of the coming years. The new aircraft, known as Tempest, will be crucial to countering the threat posed by our adversaries in an increasingly volatile world.
GCAP promises much: national sovereignty in combat air, strengthened relationships with key allies and a boost to our defence industrial capacity. However, delivering on that promise will not be easy. The Committee’s report seeks to make constructive recommendations that we believe will maximise GCAP’s chances of meeting its ambitious target on time and on budget.
Before I come to the detail of our findings, I would like to provide some context about our inquiry, which was begun by our predecessor Committee and interrupted by the general election. Given the importance of the topic, we felt that it was incumbent on us to complete that important work and bring our findings to the House. I place on the record the Committee’s appreciation of the work undertaken by our predecessors. I also thank the Committee staff, especially Lucy Petrie, who managed the inquiry through to completion, and our specialist adviser Douglas Barrie. I express my gratitude to my fellow Committee members, many of whom are present in the Chamber, who approached the report in the collaborative, cross-party manner for which Select Committees are rightly renowned.
I turn to the report’s conclusions. It is no surprise that a programme as ambitious as GCAP will take up a significant share of the defence budget in the coming years. The Ministry of Defence has already spent £2 billion on the programme and has allocated a further £12 billion over the coming decade. Our report calls for transparency about costs as GCAP progresses so that our Committee and others in the House can hold the Ministry of Defence to account.
The need for robust scrutiny of GCAP is underlined by the difficulties facing previous multilateral defence programmes, which have all too often seen costs spiral and delays pile up. Of particular relevance is the UK’s experience on the Eurofighter Typhoon, where the Committee heard of the difficulties caused by a lack of empowerment in the programme’s delivery organisations. We make it clear in our report that those fundamental errors cannot be repeated on GCAP.
If GCAP is to succeed, it must not only learn from the mistakes of the past, but anticipate the opportunities and challenges of the future. Our report warns that it will need to be sufficiently flexible to adapt to emerging technologies including artificial intelligence and the development of uncrewed aircraft.
The Committee welcomes the UK’s partnership with Japan and Italy. Both our partners have much to offer. Italy and the UK have a shared history in combat air, having worked together on Tornado and Typhoon. For Japan, involvement in GCAP is a significant step both politically and militarily. We applaud Japan’s progress in opening up exports for GCAP, which we believe will be critical to its success.
There has been speculation that further partners may join the programme. Our report is clear that the potential benefits of expanding GCAP must be balanced carefully against the risks, and that meeting the 2035 target date must remain paramount. Our report also highlights how, as with all defence programmes, GCAP’s success will ultimately come down to its workforce. Recruitment and retention will be a major challenge for a programme of this scale. The defence industry faces fierce competition from other sectors for skilled workers. Our report emphasises the importance of ensuring that the existing Typhoon workforce is transitioned to GCAP, as well as attracting new talent into the sector.
I conclude with a reflection on the Committee’s first visit to Scotland last week. At RAF Lossiemouth we were privileged to have the opportunity to meet the Royal Air Force personnel who protect our skies. Our visit was a welcome reminder that, for all the advanced capabilities promised by GCAP, the UK’s security ultimately rests in the hands of the brave servicemen and women who put their lives on the line to defend us. On behalf of the Committee, I pay tribute to their dedication and professionalism. They have our sincere gratitude. I commend the report to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I thank the Chair for his excellent report and his vigorous statement, reminding the House about the great history of the UK in combat air. The Opposition strongly support GCAP because we want that great tradition to continue well into the future. However, GCAP is not just about the Tempest platform. It is meant to be a system of systems offering technological advances to the RAF in areas such as AI and autonomy. Given how important that is and how the Committee’s report focuses on transparency, does he agree that we need financial transparency to ensure adequate funding both for the platform that we call Tempest and for those associated technologies, because they could bring enhancements to the lethality of the RAF well before 2035?
Mr Dhesi
I welcome the words of the shadow Defence Secretary, and I thank his shadow minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), for all his work as part of the Defence Committee in the previous Parliament. The shadow Defence Secretary is right that the Ministry of Defence must balance funding pressures in the near and long term, but transparency from the Government about the cost of GCAP is crucial, because Parliament and the public rightly expect value for money, as the Chair of the Treasury Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), so eloquently highlighted.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on an excellent statement. He will know that the Committee, of which I was part in the previous Parliament, was able to visit Japan and Italy, where we saw for ourselves the tremendous enthusiasm for the project and how they wanted to work very closely with us. At the end of the statement, my hon. Friend rightly touched on the importance of the workforce, but this project is also crucial to the future defence industrial base, is it not?
Mr Dhesi
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the previous Defence Committee and to bring the report to fruition. He is absolutely right. This project is crucial for our partners in Japan and Italy and for our own defence industrial base. If we do not commit wholeheartedly to GCAP, it will be to our detriment as a nation.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Tornado, Typhoon and Tempest has a sort of ring to it. I understand why we are using the term GCAP, but its presentation leaves a lot to be desired. One reason is that it is so much more than just the Tempest airframe—autonomous aircraft will fly in conjunction with it. How confident is the Select Committee Chair that all this can be done in a fast-moving landscape and in just a 10-year programme?
Mr Dhesi
I thank the former Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee for his question. I am not well enough versed in acronyms to be able to offer something better than Tempest, Tornado or Typhoon. I see the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), is in her place; perhaps she can think of a better acronym than GCAP. It is incredibly important that the programme is met and that we work with our partners. The Committee has highlighted the need to meet the very ambitious programme by 2035, which will take substantial effort.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. As the shadow Defence Secretary made clear, GCAP is a system of systems, but like every programme, it requires a pipeline training solution. Our report highlights the need for a jet training solution now that production for the Hawk aircraft series has been shuttered, after 1,000 aircraft were produced and exported to 18 countries. That is a grave mistake as our GCAP partners are looking for a GCAP trainer in the US, and we have nothing to offer them. Our defence and aerospace industry cannot survive on elite technology alone. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to look at jet trainers as an essential part of the training system offered as part of GCAP for its pilots, our industry and economic growth?
Mr Dhesi
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the Committee. He has certainly hit the ground running. I fully agree with his views on training. The Committee’s report found that training for the Hawk aircraft has been an absolute blunder and a huge missed opportunity. We must ensure that we do not miss such opportunities in future, as doing so would be to our national detriment.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Chair and the Committee for their industry and for this excellent report. He highlighted the size of the GCAP programme and the need for such programmes to show greater flexibility. Does he intend for the Committee to look during this Parliament at the agile procurement of the sort that we are seeing in Ukraine, and to make recommendations to the Government on that?
Mr Dhesi
Yes, we have already been looking into that, and the Committee has held evidence sessions on Ukraine. Many of us are impressed by the agility being displayed in Ukraine. We hope that many of those lessons will be learned by the UK Government.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. There has been some suggestion that Saudi Arabia and other global partners might want to join the programme. What does the Committee think of that?
Mr Dhesi
The existing partnership with Japan and Italy is a strong one, but we must recognise that further partners could benefit the programme. Our report warns that including any additional partners will require careful consideration, and it must not jeopardise the 2035 target date, which is paramount.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, with our Italian and Japanese partners committing to multi-year funding plans for GCAP to give confidence to industry, the UK should show a similar commitment?
Mr Dhesi
I thank the hon. Member for his excellent question and for his hard work on the Committee—long may it continue. I wholeheartedly agree, and I hope that Ministers are listening intently, because multi-year funding settlements can offer us that extra stability to provide a lot more in a shorter space of time.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and the whole Committee on a fantastic report. Could he expand a little on the export potential of Tempest and how he thinks the Government might be able to secure that? Secondly, is there an opportunity, through informal collaboration with the other consortia pursuing sixth-generation fighters, for general lessons to be learned between the three programmes, all of which involve our allies?
Mr Dhesi
We should always be open to collaboration. I hope that the Ministry of Defence is looking into that. On my hon. Friend’s first question, I highlighted exports in my statement and I commended Japan. The real potential for us is not merely to deliver on these next generation jets but to export, because they contribute so much to the Exchequer for the provision of public services in our country.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I thank the Chair of the Defence Committee for his statement. I declare an interest as a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. In March 2024 the RAF published its autonomous collaborative platform strategy. Is the Chair content with the assurances that there is sufficient flexibility built into GCAP to allow it to operate alongside a range of uncrewed solutions?
Mr Dhesi
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The Committee has looked at autonomous aircraft. We hope we will be able to realise the full benefits, although only time will tell just how much of a benefit we realise.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I commend the Chair and the Defence Committee for turning their scrutinising eye to the global combat air programme. The Chair talked about the benefits and risks of new partners, and explained that we need to weigh the benefits against the risks. In previous multilateral fighter jet programmes, there has been an overestimation of just how much of the product could be exported. Last November, Reuters said that Saudi Arabia could be a potential fourth partner on the programme. Could the Chair expand on some of the benefits and risks of adding Saudi Arabia to the programme, as it relates to exports?
Mr Dhesi
The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and indeed a former defence spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. Having extra partners on board can be very beneficial, as it can share the cost burden and enhance our export possibilities. However, as the Committee rightly noted, having additional partners will require careful consideration. Under no circumstances should we allow that to jeopardise the 2035 target date, because that could have serious cost implications for the Exchequer.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chair of the Defence Committee for his statement today. In the statement, he referred to the demand for skilled workers. On Friday, I had the opportunity to meet Unite and GMB in relation to the airspace sector in Northern Ireland, where the Chair will be aware a skilled workforce already exists. What discussions are being held with this sector in Northern Ireland to transfer the global combat air programme skills through both smaller and larger operations and contracts?
Mr Dhesi
As always, the hon. Gentleman asks an excellent question. Having a robust defence industrial base is vital, as is having a skilled workforce. As I mentioned, our report calls for a holistic approach to recruitment and retention. The Committee has had various meetings with union representatives, and we feel it is very important to retain our existing Typhoon workforce, wherever that may be in the UK. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s comments about Northern Ireland.
Points of Order
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will recall that on Thursday afternoon I led a Backbench Business debate on the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, during which lots of critical comments were made about the MHRA. I specifically made reference to the minutes taken from meetings of the Commission on Human Medicines for the vaccine benefit risk expert working group. On Saturday, following the debate, the MHRA removed the minutes from its website. I should be grateful for your guidance and advice as to what can be done to ensure that those minutes are put back on the website immediately, and without alteration. Surely public bodies should not be using debates in this Chamber as an excuse to remove information that is in the public interest.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the right hon. Lady for giving me advance notice of her point of order. She will appreciate that that is not a matter for the Chair, but she has put a point on the record, and those on the Front Bench will have heard it.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 17 January the world lost possibly Scotland’s greatest ever footballer: Denis Law, who was born in 1940 in Printfield, in my constituency. The youngest of seven children, he did not own a pair of shoes until he was 12 years old—he went barefoot. He played for Huddersfield and Manchester City, but he was known for his time at Manchester United, where he was known as The Lawman and The King. The only Scottish player to have ever won the Ballon d’Or, Denis Law scored in our 1967 victory over England, crowning Scotland the unofficial champions of the world. In more recent years, he created the Denis Law Legacy Trust, which has done an amazing amount for sport in Aberdeen. I wonder whether the House and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would join me in sending condolences to Denis Law’s family and friends on his sad passing.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. That is not a matter for the Chair, but she has most definitely put her remarks on the record.
Robin Swann
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland took the decision not to deploy the Stormont brake, despite it being supported by every Unionist Member in the Northern Ireland Assembly. This Chamber is the only place where the Secretary of State can be challenged and directly questioned by elected representatives. However, rather than making a statement to this House, he decided to give it to the media. Can you advise me on the options available to get the Secretary of State to make a statement on his decision in this place, where he can be questioned?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. I have had no indication that the Secretary of State intends to come to the House to make a statement, but I am sure that the Table Office will be able to advise the hon. Gentleman on how to pursue the matter further.
Backbench Business
Obesity: Food and Diet
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of food and diet on obesity.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating parliamentary time to this crucial issue. We were actually going to have this debate before Christmas, but we decided that before Christmas was not a good time to discuss obesity; we were then going to have it last week, but it was postponed. I am really grateful to colleagues across the House for supporting the debate.
Our country has an obesity crisis that is threatening the health and wellbeing of the whole nation. It is a cross-party issue: since 1990, rates of obesity have doubled. Two thirds of all adults in the UK are carrying excess weight, and a quarter of adults are classified as obese. The figures are even more worrying in children: 10% of children aged four, when they enter school, are obese; that figure rises to 22%—nearly one in four—in year 6. One problem with obesity is that, as many of us know, once someone becomes overweight, it is difficult to shift. That is why the most important age group to concentrate on is young people.
Obesity is now the single most important modifiable risk factor for the prevention of disease, and I will briefly go through its effects—as a doctor, I cannot resist. Around 4 million people in this country have type 2 diabetes, which is five times more likely in obesity. Type 2 diabetes almost doubles a person’s mortality rate, with 22,000 people with diabetes dying early every year. Ischaemic heart disease, the leading cause of death in the UK, is much more common in obesity, as is hypertension and osteoarthritis, which causes joint pain and reduced mobility. Something that a lot of people do not know is that 13 cancers are directly attributable to obesity—it is actually also the second commonest cause of cancer.
As a GP, there are other things I see quite regularly, such as reflux, varicose veins, infertility and even thrombosis, all of which diminish quality of life. The commonest cause of liver disease is now obesity. I will not go into the cost too much but, as we can imagine, obesity costs the country an absolute fortune: on average, four extra sick days a year; and, taking into account the cost to the NHS and so on, an estimated £98 billion a year, or 4% of GDP. The cost to the NHS is £19 billion a year.
What is the cause of obesity? From the evidence, it is clear that the main cause of obesity is diet—it is what we eat. The food system in this country is fundamentally broken. I welcomed the statement from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed) about sustainable food production: nutritious foods grown while restoring nature, and farms with good food production at its core, rewarded properly. There is a complicated relationship in food production, whereby farms mostly exist on Government subsidy with very small profit margins and then the supermarkets make profits out of what they sell. We need to look into that complicated relationship.
One problem is that unhealthy and ultra-processed foods—UPFs—that are high in fats, salt and sugar are often the easiest, cheapest and most convenient. Crucially, they make the most profit for the food industry. The other problem with these types of food is that they are addictive—salty, fatty foods are addictive. Another problem, revealed by the Food Foundation, is that healthy foods, calorie for calorie, are twice as expensive as less healthy foods. So there are a lot of issues there to unpick.
Inequalities and deprivation are very, very strong causes of obesity, with less well-off people being twice as likely to be overweight. Therefore, one strategy has to be to increase the living wage, reduce child poverty, improve health and social services, and invest in education —all of which the Government are doing.
On pregnancy, obesity actually begins in the womb—it does not even begin when we are born. In one fascinating experiment, one group of pregnant women were fed a lot of carrots and another group did not have any carrots. The children of the women who ate carrots loved carrots, so a memory is made in utero. It is therefore really important that pregnant women have a very healthy diet, as this is a risk factor for obesity in young people. Another is formula feed. Breastfeeding protects against obesity, but formula feeds do not. Follow-on feeds, hungry baby feeds, are just normal milk packed full of calories, so they tend to increase obesity. That is perhaps something we need to discuss, too.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I am the chair of the eating disorders all-party parliamentary group. To make any progress, we have to understand that eating disorders are highly stigmatised. Many people with obesity also have an eating disorder. To make real progress, is not the first thing to take the stigma away from obesity and get to the people who really want to improve their lives?
Dr Opher
I absolutely agree with that. We must treat people in a fair and compassionate way. We must point that out to them, as medical professionals, and help them to get better. I agree with the hon. Lady about stigma.
On obesity strategies, since 1990, we have had 700 separate policies to tackle obesity, yet it has doubled. Clearly, we are doing something wrong. Having looked at the evidence, it is clear that voluntary targets do not work. Voluntary targets for the food industry and relying on individual agency—giving us choice in what we eat—cannot reduce obesity. The food industry, of course, has a vested interest in making money. While education and exercise are really good, there is not much evidence to suggest that they reduce obesity. It is all about food.
There has been a lot of research. Nesta, the Obesity Health Alliance and the House of Lords Food, Diet and Obesity Committee have done multiple reports on obesity, and it is clear that we can halve it. All we need to do is reduce everyone’s calorie intake by 200 calories a day. That is the difference between McDonald’s large fries and standard fries—other fries are available—so it is not a massive thing, but we all have to do it. As always with public health, small drops in what we take can have a massive effect on the population.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important, when there is such a strong correlation between child poverty and child obesity, that we tackle not only the food systems leading to poor health outcomes, but the price of food? We must see those two challenges in lockstep and work to address both the quality of food and the cost.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate and for allowing me to intervene. I commend the Government’s new policy of free breakfast clubs for all primary school children, but does he agree that we should not miss the opportunity to ensure that that meal is wholesome and nutritious so that all our kids can get off to the best possible start?
Dr Opher
Yes, I could not agree more. As I said in the debate on education, we should be careful about the food industry sponsoring school breakfasts. As I pointed out, there is no such thing as a free breakfast. Companies often make unhealthy and addictive food and get young people addicted to it, so we must be cautious.
I wanted a recipe to solve this crisis and what I am suggesting comes from evidence from Nesta and the House of Lords Select Committee. It should be mandatory that all stores report on the food healthiness of their sales. We need a fully independent Food Standards Agency. We should have a ban on advertising junk food, as has already been proposed, and there should be a watershed for children—that is incredibly important. As is planned in Scotland and Wales, there should be a ban on price promotions, particularly for unhealthy foods, ultra-processed foods and takeaways. We also need to put a lot more resource into breastfeeding and diet in pregnancies—remember the carrots—and we must regulate formula feeds.
One measure, which has worked with the drinks industry in reducing sugar, is a reformulation tax on foods that are high in sugar and salt. Supermarkets and food companies would reformulate their foods to avoid the tax, thereby making them healthier. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) mentioned breakfast clubs. There is a lot of evidence that free school meals and breakfast clubs reduce obesity. Where free school meals have been introduced in London, childhood obesity has been reduced by 11%. That is because the food is healthy and a healthy hot meal is really important, rather than high-calorie snacks, which are what a lot of packed lunches consist of. If we cannot have free school meals, because of financial problems, we should have auto-enrolment so that children who should be on free school meals actually get enrolled. That would benefit schools, too.
We must have mandatory front-of-packet labelling. I have never met a parent who does not want to buy healthy food for their children. The trouble is that they pick up a packet of cereal and it says, “High in iron and filled with vitamins,” and think it must be healthy. Nothing could be further from the truth, so we must have accurate labelling. Healthy school foods should be sourced locally. In Stroud, I have been working closely with local primary schools to encourage them to eat fresh, locally grown, highly nutritious food. I think the Government’s target is to procure at least 50% of food in schools from local sources.
Then there is the famous hospital food. I was recently in hospital with a relative, and I can tell the House that hospital food is not healthy. We had white-bread sandwiches and some crisps—that was our healthy snack. We must introduce healthy foods in hospitals.
Takeaways are another big barrier to healthy eating—there was a massive explosion in their use during the covid pandemic—and we need to include them in any regulation. As I have said, in Scotland and Wales a ban on takeaway price promotions has been proposed. On average, those in deprived areas order more takeaways than those in non-deprived areas. We certainly must not let takeaway outlets open near schools—that is a planning must.
I would also caution against the treatment of the obesity crisis with injections of drugs such as Ozempic, which could well turn out to be dangerous.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
According to today’s press, there is clear evidence of that. Apparently, 400 people across the United Kingdom who took Ozempic experienced poor health as a result. It is not for everyone, and the sooner that people know that, the better.
Dr Opher
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention reminds me of the GP I took over from—an old chap; very wise—who said, “Always be a few years out of date, Simon, because we never know what these new drugs are going to cause.” I think that is good advice—not that I am suggesting that doctors are out of date, of course.
Are we proposing the creation of a nanny state? That is the great fear of many people when they are confronted by controls of this kind, but let us look at what happened with the ban on smoking inside pubs. People—particularly in Ireland, but also in England—were saying, “This is crazy; it is never going to work”, but it worked fantastically well. We need to be aware of the vested interests of food companies, and we need to take radical steps.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I thank my Gloucestershire neighbour for giving way. He mentioned the nanny state. As a Liberal, I believe in freedom, but there are two sides to it: freedom from and freedom to. Should not freedom from some of those representing the big, powerful vested interests in the food companies, who are not interested in our health, be at the centre of this debate?
Dr Opher
I entirely agree. I think that this Parliament could do to obesity what the Government who were in power between 1997 and 2010 did to smoking: we could drastically reduce it. For the sake of our children and our older adults, I urge everyone to accept that we need to act now, and we need to act radically.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) on securing this important debate. There was a lot in his speech with which I agreed, and a lot with which I disagreed. I do not want to explore the subject of childhood obesity, although I think that many of his points about it are quite important; I want to focus on adult obesity.
There are a great many new Members in the Chamber who do not know who I am, so they will not have seen me when I was enormously fat, before I was down to the size I am now. I have struggled with my weight throughout my life, but I have controlled it for several years. Back in 2019 I managed to lose 4 stone through smoking. Cigarettes provided a way for me to diet and keep the weight off. I gave up smoking in May 2022—we do not need to have a debate about smoking and what it does to people—and put on a considerable amount of weight.
There is always a lot of stigma surrounding weight. Everything about weight is stigmatised, whether we are too thin or too fat or dieting—and, by the way, everyone has advice for us when we are dieting. It does not matter what is working; they will say, “What you need to do is this.” I will come on to the weight loss regime that I am on at the moment, but they will say, for instance, “You shouldn’t be giving up drinking, because you will lose your social life.” Well, going to the small Yorkshire village where I live and having several pints over a few hours means having a lot of empty calories—thousands of them—so that is exactly what someone who is trying to lose weight should do; but people always give that advice.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned 400 incidences, but what that statistic did not say about the damage that the jabs, as we call them, can do is that half a million people are having them. We are in danger of getting into the same arguments that some of the nutters who talk about the covid jab have got themselves into—that it is deadly and we are poisoning everyone; and this, that and the other. It is administered to millions of people, and drugs will always have side effects. That is something we must remember. The contraceptive pill, used by millions of people, has side effects. Drugs do have side effects, but that is not a reason to rule them out.
I want to expand on this stigma about the jabs. As I said at the outset, I am focusing today on adult obesity, and as I also said, the hon. Member for Stroud made some important points about childhood obesity and the links with food, but much of what he said was based on the idea that people have three meals a day and they are eating too much. That has not been my experience. Many Members, especially new Members, will learn how exhausting this job becomes. At some points in their career, they will ask themselves, “How do I carry on?” and they will turn to sugar to get them through the rest of the day. I see plenty of Members nodding. They will have chocolate bars, because that is the boost we need and that is where we end up. I have done that.
I have what some might describe as an addictive personality: when I cut something out, I replace it with something else. When I cut out cigarettes, I replaced them with food. It has been a difficult journey. I tried to eat healthily and I tried to do things with my weight, but I reached a point at which I could not do it. In the middle of September, I started taking Wegovy, and since then I have lost over 5 stone. I have gone from a body mass index of 42 to one of 30, although there are still a couple of stone that I want to lose. But—and this is the big “but”—people have to work with it. These are not miracle drugs. The biggest mistake that the press made in this regard was referring to “fat-dissolving drugs”. There is no such thing as a fat-dissolving drug; that is blatant nonsense. For me, this drug takes away the cravings. It has enabled me to do the intermittent fasting, having a protein-based meal at 1 pm, a banana at 5 pm and a small meal in the evening with a tiny bit of carbohydrate, and I do not eat after 9 pm. That is how I have dropped the weight.
I cut out drinking for the first eight weeks, although I did drink over Christmas, and I cut out sugar for 12 weeks. I want to build on something that the hon. Member for Stroud said about sugar being a drug. Oh boy, yes, it is a drug. I felt horrific for the first three weeks of cutting out sugar. Having had a little bit of sugar over Christmas, I thought, “It is Christmas; you have to manage the psychology of this.” Well, the first time I had one mince pie, boy, did I know about it! I had to have some grapes later to try to bring about the slow sugar release. There is no doubt that high sugar and salt levels are addictive, but I have a personality that made me do that.
A very interesting point was made on Radio 4 last week. Emma Barnett was interviewing someone about this drug—I missed who it was. She said, “But isn’t there the question of morality when people use drugs to reduce their weight?” This is where I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of obesity in adults and the issue of weight. What is now emerging is a link, a thread that runs through several aspects of someone’s health, not least related to fatigue, mental health or personality, and what is being discovered is that the drugs have a positive effect in many of those areas.
We need to remove the stigma from talking about being on drugs such as Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro. They are certainly helping me, and I know of many friends and many colleagues in the House who are using them, because they do take away that craving. However, it still comes down to willpower. I stand before Members today, and I feel horrific. I have consumed less than 600 calories so far today and it is now 7.10 pm. I do not feel great, but it is working. I am engaged in a process in which I am trying to lose the weight in the first six months, and in the next six months I will go back to the normal number of calories, do the exercise and build up my fitness. This is a programme and a regime, and it is working for me.
However, I must make the point that if people are not willing to work with these drugs, they will not have the effect. There must be a “brake” in their promotion, because people who think they can just inject themselves at home and lose weight are wrong. It is so easy to cheat. Why do I not feel too great at the moment? There are not enough calories in me. What would give me a boost straight away? Some chocolate, or anything like that. When I cut out sugar, I cut out crisps, cakes, biscuits and various other things, including alcohol for a while. I am not going teetotal for the rest of my life, and I am not cutting out sugar for the rest of my life. People have to find a balance, but it is easy to cheat and they have to want to lose weight.
There is no correlation here, but I think there is an interesting piece of work to be done—I will explain why I am saying this in a moment—on the fact that there has been a huge reduction in smoking in the 21st century and a big rise in obesity. I certainly used cigarettes to help keep my weight down, and I know that many other people do too. If someone feels hungry, they can have a cigarette. I am delighted that I gave up smoking; it took me most of my life to do so. I smoked for most of my adult life, and I have drunk a lot for most of my adult life. I am 49 years old, and I was in my twenties in the 1990s. There was a culture in the ’90s that carried on through.
Why did we push forward with getting people off smoking? We did it because of the absolutely obvious and well-proven health consequences of smoking, such as thrombosis, heart attacks and high blood pressure. Since I have lost 5 stone, my blood pressure has come down by 30 millibars; it is now textbook blood pressure. The hon. Member for Stroud is absolutely right. I had pain in my joints and feet, and I would sweat, but I would not give in to it. When my feet hurt, I would not give in to it, because I thought, “If I give in to it, I’m just going to put on even more weight.” I would not stop, because I have always been fairly active and have kept going.
I make these points because I recently heard a report that if weight-loss jabs were put out on NHS prescription, it would bankrupt the NHS. I think that is absolute nonsense, because we know just how preventive this sort of action is. That is why we got people to give up smoking. We made a lot of tax from the sale of cigarettes, but it cost the NHS billions of pounds. We know that a lot of the conditions that cigarettes cause are equally caused by obesity, along with many other things. Again, the use of weight-loss jabs could prevent the NHS from spending much more money later on diabetes care, orthopaedic care and mental health care. We know that people find being inactive depressing, quite frankly, and that their mental health takes a decline when they become inactive.
We have to separate the issues of childhood obesity and adult obesity, which are two very different things. For those of us who end up starved of sleep, and those who end up never knowing when they will have a proper meal or where they will get it from, it is easy to fall into the traps. I have often found that people who have never had a problem with their weight are full of all the answers for those who do struggle with their weight, who may well tell others what they are doing and then be told, “No, what you want to be doing is this.” It is nonsense.
The use of weight-loss jabs offers the NHS a real advantage, but we have to reduce the stigma and it is right that we ask whether it is moral to use drugs to reduce people’s wight. A lot of people do not have a choice about their weight, and they are now discovering that a small dose of hormonal drugs helps them to control their desire to eat. The long-term effects of obesity on the country’s health, and on the pressure on the NHS, will be reduced. When I become 7 stone lighter than I was back in September, there is no doubt that my health situation will have a far better outlook than it did, and that is the conversation we should be having when it comes to adults.
There has been enough commenting on whether somebody is stick thin or really fat, and enough advice about what people should do to lose weight. We now have some answers that will actually make a difference, and we have to say, “These are the right things to do,” as we do with so many other drugs that help people get through their lives. We do not comment on people using nicotine patches or nicotine gum, yet we do talk about people who are trying to do things to help them lose weight.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. As Members can see from the annunciator, the debate on financial education has been postponed, so the current debate can go on until 10 pm.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this debate.
Some 21.7% of five-year-old children starting school in Bolton are classified as overweight or obese, and the figure rises to 37.8% by the time they leave primary school. Across the country, children in the poorest areas are twice as likely to be living with obesity as those in the richest areas. When we walk around our constituencies, we can see why. We all know that the poorest parts of the areas we represent are invariably overwhelmed with fast food outlets selling cheap junk food with minimal nutritional value. They are plastered with adverts for food that harms people’s health. They are often devoid of safe green spaces for exercise and of routes to travel safely to work. That is the impact of the places where people live.
When we add the price and convenience of unhealthy food and the relentless and predatory marketing that pressures people into eating more junk food, we can see why the UK now has the third highest obesity rate in Europe. The burden of this preventable illness is falling on our poorest citizens. It cannot continue. As the Minister will be aware, it is in the poorest communities that we see the worst cases of heart attacks, strokes, type 2 diabetes, fatty liver disease and other preventable diseases.
There will always be those who claim that people just need to make better choices. I would ask them, “Are our poorest citizens making choices that are twice as bad? Are they less informed? Do they care less about their children’s health?” Of course not. They face structural barriers that richer people do not. We must break down the barriers. Many of the interventions recommended in the House of Lords report could make a real difference, including improving baby food, increasing access to Healthy Start vouchers and building on the success of the soft drinks industry levy. All those interventions are worth making, but I will talk specifically about marketing.
It is very welcome that the Government have committed to deliver regulations on TV and online advertising in October this year and to end the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to children. I note that the latter policy was one of the most popular ideas in our manifesto, because people are worried about what their children are eating and drinking and they want the Government to do something about it. Both policies should have come into effect under the last Government, but unfortunately they did not. I urge Ministers not to make the mistake of listening to the same lobbying that took place last time and prevented the regulations from coming in. The 2018 regulations on TV and online advertising were modest and will not come into effect until the end of this year. That is not good enough. We must go further and faster to deliver the changes that we need to really turn the tide.
The House of Lords Food, Diet and Obesity Committee recommended going further and ending the advertising of foods high in fat, salt and sugar, on all formats, by the end of this Parliament. There is a clear blueprint for this. Tobacco advertising on TV was ended in the mid-1990s, but the Blair Government realised that more action was needed and introduced the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. That legislation could almost be copied verbatim to protect children from predatory advertising or products that harm their health.
A particular focus should be on outdoor advertising. Four out of five billboard adverts in this country are in the poorest areas, and they are overwhelmingly for unhealthy products. It is overtly preying on our citizens, and we have the power to stop it. Eleven metro Mayors, including my own Mayor in Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, have stepped up to end such adverts on the outdoor spaces that they control, but they can only do so much. We need the Government to extend the regulations to cover privately held outdoor advertising, to ensure that children in my constituency and across the country are protected from these adverts.
Obesity and poor diet constitute the leading preventable health crisis of our time, one that is driving horrific and preventable harms to people’s health and is driving inequalities in health outcomes. Our poorest citizens are paying the price for these harmful foods with their health. The House of Lords inquiry echoes the recommendations of many other experts, including the Henry Dimbleby national food strategy, multiple leading think-tanks, such as the Health Foundation and the Institute for Public Policy Research, and the 60 leading health charities and medical royal colleges represented by the Obesity Health Alliance. All the experts agree on the action that needs to be taken. The Minister has a blueprint for what needs to be done. I implore him to implement it.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) on securing this debate. I thank him for raising interesting aspects of which I was not aware, such as the 13 cancers. I also thank the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) for sharing his personal journey with us in this Chamber. It was a worthwhile contribution to this debate.
In 2023, nearly 32% of children in year 6 in West Berkshire were classified as overweight, an increase of 3% on the year before. This is not an isolated trend: obesity rates among children and adults are rising across the country. The doubling of obesity rates in the UK over the past 30 years has been driven by multiple factors, of which changes in diet are one of the most significant.
In that time, the UK’s food environment has also undergone a dramatic shift. Today, 25% of all food outlets are fast food establishments offering meals that are higher in sugar and fat but more affordable than healthy alternatives. Their affordability makes them increasingly attractive, particularly to those who are under financial pressure. With the rising cost of living, especially with energy bills, many households are left with less disposable income, and food budgets are one of the first areas in which people try to cut costs. Over the past three years, the price of healthy food has increased by £1.76 per 1,000 kilocalories, compared with just 76p for less healthy options.
The impact of these changing diets is having severe consequences on people’s health and is placing immense pressure on the NHS. Obesity increases the risk of developing various diseases, including certain cancers such as colon cancer. It raises by more than two and a half times the likelihood of high blood pressure, which greatly increases the risk of heart disease. According to Frontier Economics, obesity costs the NHS £35 billion every year. That is simply unacceptable. The UK should be among the healthiest countries in the world. We have a rich tradition of grassroots sports, high-quality food production and world-leading medical research, yet our statistics tell a different story.
The UK currently has the third highest rate of overweight or obese individuals in Europe. The Government must take decisive action to address this growing crisis. The Liberal Democrats have called for a reversal of the Conservatives’ cuts to the public health grants that enable local authorities to deliver the essential preventive services and community programmes that combat obesity and promote healthier diets. We also urge the Government to expand the national food strategy, not only to address food security, but to tackle rising food prices, end food poverty and improve public health and nutrition.
It is vital that we halt this alarming trend of rising obesity. People deserve the opportunity to live healthier, longer lives. Reducing obesity will also have a transformative impact on the NHS, easing the immense pressure that it is facing. I implore the Government to take bold action and urgent steps to ensure that healthier food options are more accessible and to foster a culture of healthy activity across our nation.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) on securing this hugely important debate.
When I was writing my maiden speech back in July, I did some research into my predecessors, as one does. It was fascinating to see that it had been nearly 120 years since the voters of Chelsea elected a non-Conservative MP. He was Mr Emslie John Horniman, lately of the Horniman museum. His father, Frederick Horniman, was an MP under Queen Victoria. I was thinking that Mr Horniman senior would find a lot of similarities between his time as an MP during the Victorian era and the job today. The main building is largely the same, although it was possibly even colder in those days; some of the rules and procedures are the same; and he would probably even find some familiar faces among colleagues in both Houses.
Thankfully, one of the big differences between Mr Horniman senior’s time and today would be the food. That is not just because the Victorians would not be enjoying the famous parliamentary jerk chicken, but because when it came to the food that people ate in Victorian times, the story was one of adulteration and contamination. Describing the Victorian history of adulteration and contamination of food, the US professor of history Anthony Wohl says:
“The list of poisonous additives reads like the stock list of some mad and malevolent chemist”.
If we had enjoyed a glass of beer here with Gladstone or Disraeli, we might also have been drinking strychnine and hallucinogens. With wine, we could have imbibed sulphate of copper. The mustard with our lunch would probably have come with added lead chromate. Our Gloucester cheese afterwards might well have owed its rosy hue to red lead. It is no wonder that indigestion cures in Victorian times were so popular.
Thank goodness things are so different today. Thank goodness we have food standards. Thank goodness we do not allow people to eat things that make them so ill—except that we do. Day in, day out, food manufacturers add substances to food that, on the scale at which they are eaten today, quite legally damage people’s health. Supermarkets promote them and sell them. As a result, obesity, type 2 diabetes and the many other medical problems to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud referred have become huge issues in this day and age.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. When the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) takes an intervention, he must be seated.
John Glen
The hon. Gentleman is making a thought-provoking observation, but does he acknowledge that in times past, the proportion of income that any individual, from whichever class, spent on food was considerably higher than it is today? If we are to get to the heart of the matter, we have to address the wider challenge of our society’s expectations of how much money we should spend on food. Does he not agree that we are addicted to cheap food?
Ben Coleman
The right hon. Member makes an excellent point that I will come to in a moment.
The additives that cause so much harm today have simpler names: sugar, salt and fats. In moderation, all of those are fine, but the problem is that they are being shoved into our food willy-nilly in an effort to preserve it and—on the right hon. Member’s point—to make it cheap, alongside making it more addictive by design. As a result, we have what the House of Lords Food, Diet and Obesity Committee’s report rightly describes as a public health emergency. We now have one of the highest rates of obesity among high-income nations. Only tobacco shortens British lives more than poor diet.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
The hon. Gentleman is making some very important points. I would add that adult obesity is not necessarily down to the kinds of food that he has outlined. When people are tired or feeling depressed, just the satiation of eating—even if it is healthy and they are eating more than they should—has the same effect. I used to have cigarettes, which did that, and sometimes people drink to do it, but it could also be done with healthy food. It is about quantities that cannot always be controlled, and there is a bigger link. I totally agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying about these addictive substances, but they are not the only part of the puzzle.
Ben Coleman
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. I was not attempting to put together the whole puzzle, but additives are an extremely important part of the puzzle. We do ourselves a disservice if we pretend that sugar, salt and fats—eaten in the quantities they are today—and the ready food that can be bought so cheaply are not poisonous, and not huge problems that we need to address.
I am not wild about the term “obese” because of the negative, pejorative connotations that can make people feel awful about themselves, as has been said, but it is the best term we have at the moment. Over a fifth of children in this country—22.1%—are obese. The figure is even higher in my constituency, which contains some of the country’s richest people, as well as many residents living in poverty. In the London borough of Kensington and Chelsea, 23.4% of reception pupils, aged four to five, are obese. In the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, 22.4% of reception pupils are classified as obese. This is a problem everywhere, not just in the poorest parts of the country. It is therefore hugely good news that the Government have identified a shift from ill health to prevention as one of the three major objectives of their health mission.
It is even better news that a cross-Government national food strategy is being developed. What would I like to see in that national food strategy? What should be done? I would like us to start by realising that it is time to stop placing excessive emphasis on individual responsibility. That may be hard to swallow for some people, but the Lords report makes it clear that 30 years of policies that rely solely on personal choice, rather than tackling the underlying drivers of unhealthy diets, have failed to shift the dial. Sadly, under successive Governments, these policies have contributed to widening health inequalities.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) noted, the Lords report rightly praised the last Government’s sugar tax on soft drinks. Officially called the soft drinks industry levy, it was a significant public health success—people are consuming less sugar. While obesity remains an overall problem, it has fallen to an extent, particularly among girls aged 10 and 11 in the most deprived areas. Fewer children are having to go to hospital to have their decayed teeth pulled out. That brings me to the lack of dentists after 14 years of Conservative Government, but I will not go there now. The sugar tax has saved millions, possibly billions, of pounds in healthcare costs, as well as a lot of misery. It is a pretty good example to follow, so I support the call by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud for the levy to be extended to more food products and for similar action to be taken on salt and fats.
I am glad that the Government are delivering on their manifesto pledge to give children the best and healthiest start in life by banning the targeting of junk food at children. Just as advertising restrictions contributed to a decline in the number of smokers, I hope that restricting the advertising of unhealthy foods will contribute to a decline in childhood obesity. I also agree that labelling food better, to distinguish between healthy and less healthy products, is essential. It already works, as allergy sufferers are benefiting from Natasha’s law, which requires food businesses to fully label their ingredients.
However, targeting unhealthy food is not enough. Even unhealthy food is better than no food, for those who cannot afford healthy ingredients, for those who cannot find healthy ingredients or for those who do not know how to cook them. I am not arguing that we should make crap food so expensive that people are forced to go elsewhere to buy even more expensive alternatives. As the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) said, it is of fundamental importance that healthy food should be affordable to everyone and widely available wherever they live. At the moment, it is far from either. It is no good badgering people to eat five pieces of fruit and veg a day if they cannot afford to do so or if it is not available locally—that is just patronising.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I am surprised that no one has mentioned the rise of food banks. Does my hon. Friend share my view that, although well-meaning people give produce to food banks, it is often tinned products or ready meals that people need to cook at home, which may be an inadvertent driver of this issue?
Ben Coleman
That is a very good point. The poverty in this country now and the cost of energy is causing people in my constituency to go to food banks and ask for foods that they do not have to cook. We are offering people food that might not always be of the best quality, and food banks tell me that a lot of healthy, fresh fruit and veg goes to waste because people are either worried about the cost of energy or simply do not know how to cook. These are addressable problems; these are things that we can do something about if we want to do so.
I strongly back the House of Lords report’s recommendation that the revenue from a salt and sugar reformulation tax should be used to make healthier food cheaper, particularly for those on low incomes. I would like some of the revenue to go to organisations such as Alexandra Rose, a charity operating in my constituency. It makes healthy food affordable and accessible to families on low incomes by handing out vouchers so that pregnant women and the families of children under five can buy fresh fruit and veg at local markets or independent shops.
In the heart of Fulham, 376 families and 587 children have enjoyed £85,200-worth of fresh fruit and veg from our wonderful North End Road market, which has operated since late Victorian times. Alexandra Rose tells me that, six months after starting the project, 64% of children are meeting their five-a-day target, compared with just 7% when it began. As the Government develop their food strategy, I encourage them to consider supporting such charities to extend their work through national action.
Another issue is the accessibility of food, and I do not think this point is addressed enough. Many parts of this country are healthy food deserts. In his annual report, Professor Sir Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, said that
“families in inner-city areas are less likely to have access to healthy, affordable food options”
and as a result they will have shorter and unhealthier lives. We have to ensure that good food is available at an affordable price. I hope the food strategy will look at that, as well as at teaching basic cookery in schools—that is another important point.
Change will take time, but it can be done. It just needs the political will. I hope we will reach a position where, if Mr Horniman could come back to see us, he would be delighted. After all, we must remember that he took immense pride in the tea his family produced; it was one of the very few to be declared free of chemicals and safe to drink in the 1850s. Let us hope we can say the same about our food in the future.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this debate on the important subject of the impact of food and diet on obesity. Over the past 30 years, as has been noted, obesity has been the subject of over 700 food-related health policies in England. Yet, while successive Governments have recognised the immense challenge of obesity and have sought to tackle it through various strategies, schemes and mandates, obesity rates have remained excessively high.
Although, over the past five years we have seen adult obesity rates stabilise and the number of children who are overweight or obese fall to the lowest level since 2000, there is so much more work to do to address this issue, which is having an alarming impact on people’s health. In the UK today, more than one in 20 cancer cases are linked to excess weight, and obesity is predicted to overtake smoking as the leading preventable cause of cancer in women by 2043. It is estimated that, by 2035, the cost of treating type 2 diabetes will exceed that of treating all cancers today.
Alongside this health crisis comes a phenomenal financial cost. The NHS currently spends £6.5 billion a year on obesity-related illnesses. Indeed, the independent national food strategy cited an even larger figure of £18 billion, with diabetes care alone already accounting for nearly 10% of the NHS budget. We must act now to address this issue. We do not have another 30 years to get this right; nor can we afford another 700 policies.
We cannot just look for easy wins on this subject. Rather, we should look for a meaningful, transformative policy shift and not fall foul of previous mistakes. In the past, approaches by Governments have not always been joined up in understanding the whole food cycle, from supplier to shop shelf. Political and economic decisions have contributed to that. If we are serious about reforming the food system, the Government will have to implement a strategy that engages producers of all sizes, from small businesses to large corporations, across the supply chain, to give consumers a choice when they make their weekly shop.
Although it may seem in some respects that we now have access to more food options and choices than ever before, for many people those choices are often limited by cost. Too often the cost of healthy options is increasing while the cost of ultra-processed foods decreases. In the UK, the majority of our diets are now made up of ultra-processed foods. Growing evidence links UPFs and adverse health outcomes, so it is vital that more research is done to ensure we are making informed policy decisions.
We need to ensure that it is not just the large food manufacturers that are dominating the discussion and leading the market, and that we are creating opportunities and spaces for smaller, innovative food producers to contribute to the debate and help to provide solutions to some of the challenges we face. Part of the solution means working with our farmers, who already produce some of freshest, healthiest food to high animal welfare standards of anywhere in the world. The produce of the farmers in my constituency is second to none: Cheshire beef and dairy products are some of the most nutritious, natural and tasty on the market. We need to ensure our farmers and food producers are part of the solution, and that we strive to connect people to where our food comes from.
Just as we need a joined-up approach across the supply chain, we need a joined-up approach across Government. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Health and Social Care can publish a strong food strategy, but it will need involvement from the Treasury to ensure the path from farm to fork or supplier to shelf is supported.
I have talked about choice and the impact of food prices for families who are trying their best to make healthy choices, but alongside cost limitations are the limitations on people’s time. My husband and I both work full time and, as a mum, I know from experience that after a long day at work, all too often the easy option is to pick up some food on the way home that is convenient but perhaps not that healthy for us and our family. I know there are thousands of hard-working parents across Chester South and Eddisbury—indeed, the country—who will know what I am talking about.
We as legislators, and supermarkets as the gateway where people buy their food, can take steps to improve choice for consumers, both financially and in relation to convenience, that will help us to become a healthier nation. For instance, supermarkets could have a section with ingredients next to healthy recipes, shortening the time the consumer would need to be in the shop and encouraging them to try new and nutritious meals.
We can and must do more to address this issue. We must connect people with where their food comes from, have a frank conversation about the impacts of ultra-processed foods and deliver research to ensure we have evidence to make meaningful change. We need to support smaller businesses, working with them as they develop innovative ways to produce and market their products, and ensuring they have a voice at the table, alongside the large suppliers and supermarkets. We need to understand the challenges that families face with the costs and time constraints of busy family life, and ensure we are doing all we can to help them navigate a path to healthy, nutritious and tasty food.
In conclusion, I hope the Government will look at delivering a food strategy based on cross-party consultation that will address the food system from supplier to shelf, because the cost of obesity for individuals and for society as a whole is unsustainable and is a health crisis we cannot ignore.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this much-needed debate. I also thank the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) for sharing his testimony about how he lost 7 stone in such a short time—I tip my turban to him.
I have my own story. I lost 2 stone in two months because of what a doctor told me. Forget the nanny state: he said to me in no uncertain terms, “If you don’t lose weight, you won’t be here in a couple of years’ time.” I went home reeling from that news and did exactly what he told me to do. I lost the weight, had a fantastic body mass index and then I went back for my tests.
However, let me be clear: people cannot undo 20, 30 or 40 years of damage. If we lose somebody, we wish we could have had an extra day to say goodbye, to thank them or just speak to them one more time. Obesity, which leads to so many other diseases, robs people of five, 10 or 15 years of their lives, and means grandchildren are not able to speak to their grandparents. Why? Because those grandparents have passed away. We have to take that on board and counter it.
When I went back for my tests, I asked for an extra test, because I am one of those people who likes to be told—I am quite vain—how fit and healthy I am. I asked for an extra scan, and I got it. To my shock and horror, that extra scan revealed one of my arteries was completely blocked and the other, the left anterior descending artery, affectionately known as the “widow maker”, was 95% blocked, even though I had cycled 85 km the previous day. Very quickly, I went into Barts hospital where I underwent triple heart bypass surgery, and I lived to tell the tale. It was all because of years of decline.
While some conditions cannot be avoided, obesity can. When I say that my BMI was 27, the answer is always that BMI is not something to be relied on, but it is the best scale we have. In Ilford South, where 75% are from the Asian subcontinent, 25 is not the BMI number we should be looking at—it should be 23. I am struggling myself, because my BMI is hovering at 24. Another cultural shift is needed—it Is a cultural problem—because when people look at me, having lost 2 stone, they say, “Are you okay? You look unhealthy.”
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I chuckled to myself when the hon. Gentleman said that, because people ask me if something is seriously wrong. He emphasises the point that weight, whether thin or fat, is a stigmatised subject. Even when people are trying to get themselves healthy, they get criticism. We have to expose that and get on top of it.
Jas Athwal
I absolutely agree. People have come round to check on me and ask me whether I really am okay or if I have an underlying problem, because I have lost so much weight. The only downside to losing weight is that it is very expensive—I have needed a new wardrobe.
Obesity is the leading preventable cause of death. Imagine the prize of an extra five, 10 or 15 years with loved ones: tackling obesity can give people more time with those they love. Obesity costs the NHS billions of pounds and impacts many livelihoods. In my constituency of Ilford South, obesity rates are 10% higher than in the rest of London. My neighbours and their loved ones are struggling and suffering unnecessarily.
The obesity crisis is threefold. Access to affordable, healthy food has decreased, while the prevalence of processed food and fast-food outlets has increased. In Ilford, the number of fast-food outlets has grown by a staggering 47.1% in just the last 10 years. Nearly a third of children in my constituency are overweight. They are bombarded with adverts everywhere on their way to school. Even worse, youth clubs have dwindled, leaving many young people with fewer warm places to go after school to enjoy themselves, exercise and socialise.
The affordability of healthy food, the accessibility of unhealthy food and reduced support for young people have fostered an environment in which unhealthy habits are growing. People do not even know how to cook, which causes a crisis of obesity, robs children of the best start in life and sets them up for a lifetime of health problems. We need to be bold enough to confront the growing trend, which is why we are here today. To tackle the accessibility of unhealthy food, Redbridge council set out a local plan to ban fast food outlets 400 metres from school gates, but were they banned? They were not. The Mayor of London’s plan says the same thing. We need to give planning policies the necessary teeth to stop fast food outlets opening right outside schools, and the adverts that bombard our children on the way to and from school.
To increase the affordability of healthy food, we have to work with charities. In Redbridge, we are working with a food bank to create facilities to store fresh fruit and vegetables. Last Friday, I had the privilege of being shown the food bank’s new premises, which we had been working on for the past 18 months. I was shown the cold storage where we will store vegetables. It was mentioned earlier that food banks should be able to store vegetables, because that is the healthy way forward. To give young people a place to go after school, we led investments in local youth centres. We need a holistic approach. We need to look at not just food itself but everything in society.
On a national scale, we have to make changes to protect young people from obesity. The Government must do that by fulfilling our Labour manifesto commitment to ensure that children are no longer exposed to TV adverts for junk food. We have banned paid online junk food adverts, preventing the overexposure of young people to unhealthy, processed and fatty foods, but we can and must do more. As has been mentioned two or three times, we must move away from viewing obesity through the lens of judgment, and confront the ways we have allowed unhealthy choices to be the easiest choices. We must break down the barriers to healthy eating, prevent the manipulation and exploitation of young people, and support everyone to live healthier lives.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I commend the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) on bringing forward this important debate. It is refreshing that Members on both sides of the Chamber are all agreeing, and trying to find a way forward.
Figures show that more than a quarter of children aged four and five in Wales are measured as being overweight, with one in 10 being obese. While those figures are hugely concerning, the factors for obesity, as has been said, are incredibly complex. They include the impact of poverty, behaviours resulting from technological advances, and unhealthy foods, to name just a few. As hon. Members will know, health is a devolved matter in Wales. Obesity is rightly recognised as one of the most significant public health challenges, both in Cardiff and here in Westminster. At the start of this Senedd term, the then Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, Eluned Morgan, said:
“I can give you an absolute commitment…I’m absolutely determined that this is an area that we should focus on.”
Four or five years on from that commitment, campaigners are raising the alarm. Obesity Alliance Cymru has said that without urgent action to combat rates of obesity in Wales, our NHS will likely face additional costs of £465 million in Wales by 2050. It is therefore vital that health policy on obesity is receptive to the link between the prevalence of poverty and physical and mental wellbeing. That means resources to promote physical activity and improve health education, and more time for physical education. Plaid Cymru is proud to have secured free school meals for all primary school children in Wales. At the heart of the policy is the belief that each and every child should have access to hot nutritious meals, especially when so many rely on their school lunch as their most substantial meal of the day.
To that end, initiatives are already in place that can achieve the high standard of food produce that we all want for our constituents. Where I live in Llanarthne—it is a small rural village in the middle of nowhere, but it is the heart of Wales—the council-owned Bremenda Isaf farm has been taken over to produce vegetables for the public plate as part of the Bwyd Sir Gâr food partnership. The project proves not only that we can still achieve shorter food supply chains, which are useful for food security and resilience, but that local and Government-led farm to fork initiatives can work successfully both to support local farming and to ensure better quality, tasty food for our children and residents.
The Bremenda Isaf project could be an example to emulate across the whole UK, using public land to produce public food. The UK Government’s shared prosperity fund, which is being cut to £900 million in 2025-26 before being scrapped, was influential in making that initiative happen. I reiterate my call for any wider funding reforms to consider the importance of need-based funding, and for all funding allocations for Wales to be decided in Wales.
Research by Nesta, an innovation foundation, argues that we can reduce obesity and improve population health by improving our food environment. That means looking at the price of healthy options, portion sizes, advertising and promotions, and convenience. In other words, a holistic approach is the way forward. As hon. Members have set out, policy ideas have already been developed to put that in motion. New ideas and initiatives have challenges, but for more effective decision making, we desperately need a different mindset. Under-resourcing these initiatives will inevitably mean higher future spending on health. Now is the time to look at our local communities and learn from them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. To ensure that everybody gets in, I am setting a time limit of eight minutes.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
On that note, I will keep it short. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for bringing forward the debate. I slightly disagree with his suggestion that food is the only answer, because I think fitness plays a part, but I guess that is a slightly different discussion. Prior to becoming an MP, I was a physical training instructor in the Army, and I have worked in the fitness industry for 15 years, so I have seen at first hand the positive effect that good nutrition can have on people’s mental and physical health—it is absolutely massive.
As the House will know, I am an extremely proud Swindonian and absolutely love Swindon—it is the best place in the world, though some might disagree—but there are some facts and statistics that I am less proud of. One of them is that 36.8% of children in my constituency leave primary school overweight—a shocking statistic. They are being set up for failure later in life, for example by getting conditions such as diabetes. It is something we absolutely have to address. As Members have mentioned, when we dig a little deeper into the statistics, we see that not only are those children overweight, but more often than not they come from deprived areas. That means it is not only a health issue, but an equalities issue. That is something our Government have set out to fix, and it is something we must take seriously.
Once again, I am proud that we are having this debate. It is important that we talk about obesity and food, and I am thankful that the Government have taken forward preventative measures for care in the community first, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud for bringing the debate forward and hon. Members for taking part in it.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I commend the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing the debate and for putting himself out there by calling for a sugar and salt reformulation tax. I will add that it is not just through penalties that we will tackle diets in this country; it is also through incentives. Today I want to talk about some incentives being used in East Devon, where I represent Honiton and Sidmouth.
It was recognised a long time ago that ultra-processed foods were not only linked to obesity, but were contributing to malnutrition and poor dental health. I want to highlight the brilliant work of the charity Project Food, which is dedicated to improving diets, promoting healthier lifestyles and reducing the burden of preventable disease in the community. Project Food is linked slightly to a restaurant called River Cottage. One of the trustees, Stewart Dodd, invited me to see Project Food in October. It operates out of Axminster’s community hospital, and that is entirely fitting because the work it does is very much around public health.
Project Food is a shining example of grassroots public health action. Through free cooking demonstrations, hands-on sessions, one-to-one support and online classes, it empowers people to move away from ultra-processed food. Yet it finds it very difficult to keep up with the growing demand for its services in Devon. More families than ever are turning to Project Food for help because of the high cost of nutritious food, contrasted with the relative affordability of foods packed with sugar and palm oil.
Alarmingly, a report by the Food Foundation revealed that low-income households now need to spend up to 50% of their disposable income on food if they are to meet Government recommendations on what is a healthy diet. Over 11% of UK households experience food insecurity and, as we all know, millions are turning to food banks, as well as to ultra-processed foods, just to survive.
While the debate is principally about diet and food, we should think about some of the co-benefits of reducing sugar intake. I will point to dentistry. Fewer than half of the children in Devon saw a dentist last year. Promoting healthy eating habits could reduce the strain not only on the wider NHS and secondary care, but on dentistry. We know that tooth decay is the leading cause of hospital admissions for children aged between five and nine, so this is plainly an area where working on the reformulation of food could help save money on dentistry too.
The hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) referred earlier to Natasha’s law, which was about how allergens are illustrated on food packaging. That was extended through the calorie labelling regulations that came into effect in 2022. Those regulations have helped to prevent obesity by ensuring that when people go into a café or restaurant, they can see what it is they are eating and the calories associated with the meal they might choose.
We should also recognise that this can have a negative effect. I had a constituent come to me to talk about the calorie labelling regulations in 2022 and the effect they had had on her daughter, who suffers from anorexia. The requirement on large businesses to put calorie counts on menus had made it extremely difficult for her to go out to eat with her daughter. Her daughter would take one look at the menu and simply refuse to eat anything, and it led to the family simply not going out to eat at all. One way the Minister might consider building on those calorie labelling regulations is by requiring those same restaurants and cafés to have menus with no calorie counts on them, so that families can dine out without the fear of stressing out somebody who has an eating disorder.
To return to Project Food and how we can better support some of the community assets we have to help tackle obesity and improve diet, we should be thinking about the use of community hospitals. We have spare space in community hospitals at Axminster and Ottery Saint Mary, from where Project Food operates. I suggest that the work being carried out by Project Food would be suitable for social prescribing. It is definitely having a positive effect on the people I saw who are working with that charity. It has done some excellent work, and I suggest that its work could be scaled and implemented across the country. With that spare capacity, we could see hubs for nutrition programmes and other public health measures that support healthier communities, which would be very much in line with what the Government have been talking about in response to the Darzi report. By addressing poor nutrition head-on in the community, we can reduce inequality, improve lives and alleviate the immense pressure on our health service.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Ind)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) on getting this important debate in the House. People sometimes talk about rising levels of obesity as simply a consequence of individual choices; they say the issue is no more complex than the fact that people are choosing not to eat healthily and not to exercise regularly. But if we talk to any expert, academic or parent struggling to put food on the table, they will say that the truth is much more complicated, because rising rates of obesity are deeply tied to social and economic changes.
Over the past 30 years, obesity rates have doubled while people’s knowledge of nutrition has not declined. Instead, experts point to the changes in the food environment. Unhealthy food has become much cheaper, easier to access and more convenient, while healthy options have become more expensive, harder to access and less convenient. The facts bear that out. Today, fruit and vegetables cost twice as much per calorie as foods high in fat and sugar. To eat in line with the Government’s recommended diet, the most deprived fifth of UK households would need to spend 50% of their disposable income on food, while the richest fifth would need to spend just 11%, according to research from the Food Foundation. It is little wonder, therefore, that the most deprived fifth of households eat more than a third less fruit and vegetables compared with the wealthiest fifth. Although everyone is affected by the food environment, it does not affect everyone equally. It is harder for working-class families to afford healthy and nutritious food—that is beyond doubt.
That link between poverty and obesity is clearly seen among children. Those in the most deprived fifth of the population are more than twice as likely to be living with obesity than those in the richest fifth. Children in Knowsley, which forms part of my constituency, have some of the highest rates of obesity in the country. The fantastic director of public health at Knowsley council, Sarah McNulty, says that that is a poverty and deprivation issue.
It does not have to be this way. Instead of a food system that pumps out unhealthy food while millions struggle to put a meal on the table, we could have a system that guarantees everyone a good, healthy diet—putting an end to the scandal of hunger and food banks. That is the demand of the Right to Food campaign, which I am very proud to lead in Parliament. It seeks first and foremost to end the injustice of food poverty, but also to ensure that food is of high quality and healthy. That means everything from ensuring that high-street planning encourages healthy eating, and building a proper safety net to get people out of food banks, to introducing universal free school meals and opening community kitchens. We know the effects that those policies have in tackling food poverty and obesity. Academic studies show that in the London boroughs that have provided free school meals for all primary school pupils, the prevalence of obesity has been reduced by around 10%.
In Liverpool, co-operatives such as Food for Thought, a non-profit company that produces school meals, are waiting to go on free school meals. Many areas in Liverpool are classed as food deserts, with healthy food in short supply and unaffordable for people who are struggling to get by after the cost of living crisis and 14 years of grinding austerity. Just 24% of adults in my great city of Liverpool eat five portions of fruit and vegetables every day.
In 2019, Fans Supporting Foodbanks—an organisation we set up in 2015—created the market-style mobile food pantry model to tackle the issue of food deserts in Liverpool, which has since fed thousands of families across Liverpool and St Helens in a non-stigmatising manner, with fresh fruit and vegetables an absolutely fundamental part of the offering. I take this opportunity to place on the record my thanks to all the volunteers who have created that unique model and made it such a success; it has made such a difference to lots of communities across Liverpool.
Since 2017, the Rose vouchers for fruit and veg project has supported struggling families in Liverpool to access fruit and veg. Almost £300,000-worth of fresh fruit and veg has been bought with the vouchers, enabling almost 5,000 people to access healthy options and avoid food poverty. Such community-led solutions, which put people before profit, are one way we can help those in our communities who are struggling to access healthy and affordable food. I take this opportunity once again to thank everybody involved in those projects.
Both those fantastic schemes are sticking plasters over a gaping wound. We need systemic change. Implementing a right to food is not the art of the impossible; it is in the Government’s gift. Its funding could be underpinned by a high fat, salt and sugar levy on food producers. The remodelling of our food system into one that keeps the population and future generations healthy is a political choice. For the sake of future generations, I hope that the Government make the right choice.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for bringing this matter to the House, and everybody who has spoken so brilliantly. This debate further proves the point that the issue of diet and health is personal to so many people, and it has been incredible to hear that echoed across the House.
Food is essential for life. It is part of who we are, part of our story and, for many in this House and across the UK, part of our cultural heritage. However, so many families across the UK cannot make ends meet; they are literally struggling to put food on the table. I pay tribute to the Resurgam Trust community fridge based in the Laganview and Old Warren estate in Lisburn, and to Dee and Carol, who operate the St Vincent de Paul service at the chapel in Lisburn. I feel almost awful saying that, because people in our society should not be forced to use charity in this day and age. Food banks were not normal whenever I was growing up 30 years ago, and talking about them in this way still makes me feel really queasy.
I want to call out something that for me is an elephant in the room just now. Like all thorny societal issues, it will not be addressed and dealt with in the Health Departments here in England and in Northern Ireland. We have people who work some of the longest hours in Europe. Workers on minimum wage, and often on zero-hours contracts, go home at the end of the day to houses that do not have big kitchens and fancy utensils. They might not know how to use pasta or this, that and the other. And why should we dictate what foods people should eat? It is up to them to choose what to eat. Yes, ideally it should be healthy, but we are now in a situation where we are saying, “Well, if you use your money wisely, you can spend £20 and buy a big job lot of pasta and a bit of pasta sauce.” What people eat is up to them; what we should be doing is ensuring that they are paid well and in stable work, and then they can choose the good, nutritious and sustainable foods that they want to eat, rather than having to go to some place to beg for food just to live. [Interruption.] Sorry, this is something I feel really passionately about.
At the heart of all this is inequality. What the Resurgam Trust community fridge does well is link it all together. We are dealing with a situation in which some of the biggest issues of the day, including housing and health, are all linked. It is because we have taken things for granted. Some of the wealthiest people live in my Lagan Valley constituency—there are houses on the market at £250,000 to £1 million—but on the estates in Lisburn, what people are eating is not healthy and is not good for them. I can also list the associated health problems, which include various comorbidities, obesity, heart disease and cancer.
I really worry about the impact of ultra-processed foods, particularly on young people. We are seeing a stark rise in colorectal cancer in particular. I know that some people are reluctant to make that link, and I am not explicitly making it, but we have fundamentally changed the sorts of food that we eat. I could go and do a supermarket shop today and buy something called noodles, but they are not noodles at all. I do not know what they are made of. I was not very good at science, but I know that margarine is one molecule away from plastic. Is that the sort of stuff that we should be eating? It does not sound good to me to eat plastic. That is the bare reality of it.
We also tell people to eat their five a day. Yes, they should, but the number of pesticides and herbicides in some of our food worries me. Some people might not want to hear that. People think that they are eating healthy food, but we must consider how we process that food. I was shocked to learn about how we classify processed foods, some of which I, a relatively educated person, would have thought were unprocessed, but are not. I cannot remember which hon. Member said that ingredients are marketed as a cereal with certain vitamins, for example, which sounds great, but that actually that is nonsense. We could not put anything more unhealthy on our children’s plates.
That goes back to my earlier point: if people are short on time and money, it is because of choices that we have made in this Chamber and in chambers right across Europe and the world. We have made the choice to deprive people and families, whether they are family units, carers or people who look after children. I do not think that that choice is right. We cannot turn around now and decry the obesity epidemic whenever we are not supporting people to live and work well.
I simply ask that we look at the other external factors linked to this. Yes, it is about food, and yes, we should be doing more, but we should not be considering that in isolation. We in this House are tasked with the job of looking after every constituent in the UK. That should be as much about ensuring that they have a roof above their head as it is about ensuring that they have a choice of nutritious and affordable food because we have given them good, stable jobs. That is all I ask. I send that message strongly from my Lagan Valley constituents.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
This has been an excellent and wide-ranging debate, and I am so happy to have the opportunity to speak in it. I commend the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), who I have worked with over a number of years, for his excellent speech. It is always really hard to talk about oneself, but he did it with grace. Listening to his really thoughtful contribution today will have helped a lot of people—it has definitely helped me.
As hon. Members know, I am a huge supporter of school food. I make lots of contributions about it in this place; I believe that it should be universal, for all the reasons that I will go on to discuss. It is not only about stigma, poverty alleviation and all of that, but about the health benefits that all children eating healthy school food would bring, especially in regard to their diet and obesity.
Looking at schools up and down the country, the food that they serve is far too inconsistent. We have seen some brilliant examples across the country—we have all visited schools in our constituencies that serve a variety of salads and nutritious hot meals—but others are serving things like pizzas, burgers or chips far more often than they should be doing under the school food standards. That is damaging the health of a generation.
The report by the House of Lords Food, Diet and Obesity Committee, chaired by the wonderful Baroness Walmsley, discussed the fact that too many secondary schools in particular were serving up food that was not preparing students for the rest of their school day. As Members across the House know, this is where the school food standards should come in. However, a study by Impact on Urban Health shows significant differences between what is mandated by the school food standards, what appears on menus, and what actually ends up on plates. In fact, 60% of secondary schools have been found not to follow the school food standards at all. In other words, the school food standards exist on paper, but not on plates. That is why, across the sector and in this House, we have been calling for proper enforcement of the school food standards. This Government must end the postcode lottery in what children get to eat at lunchtime.
There is no greater priority for this Government than raising the healthiest generation of children ever. This is a matter of health: one in three children are already at risk of future food-related ill health, such as type 2 diabetes or heart disease, by the age of 10. Existing Government initiatives are already going above and beyond to combat that, and providing a free breakfast to every primary school child will ensure that pupils are starting their day nourished and ready to learn, but there is more to be done.
The Department for Education has reported that 11% of families nationally who are entitled to claim free school meals have not applied to receive them. This means that between 240,000 and 470,000 children in England—the figure seems to vary depending on who you talk to, but it is a large number—are missing out on their statutory right to a free school meal. This is due to barriers such as complex applications, language or literacy challenges, stigma and low awareness.
An auto-enrolment plan, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) in his private Member’s Bill—the Free School Meals (Automatic Registration of Eligible Children) Bill—and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) in his opening speech, would solve the problem. Many local authorities have already had massive success, but data-sharing challenges or bureaucracy should not prevent children from eating at school, especially when they are entitled to a free school meal.
Because free school meals are a statutory scheme, Government funding should already exist to provide the up to 470,000 missing children with a school lunch, so this should not be seen as a spending commitment. That funding also unlocks vital pupil premium funding. Since 2016, Sheffield city council has unlocked £3.8 million of extra pupil premium funding every single year to support 5,400 children. Small tweaks like auto-enrolment really can have huge impacts on thousands of children’s lives.
Another concern that must be addressed is the scarily low eligibility criteria for free school meals. Households must be earning less than £7,400 a year before benefits to be entitled. That leaves out up to 900,000 children who are living in poverty by any measure but are not in receipt of that crucial support. We have heard examples of children pretending to eat from empty lunchboxes, hiding in the playground because they do not want others to know that they do not have any food or money for lunch, or asking their friends for an extra sandwich for their friend who never has any food for lunch. We must bring the eligibility criteria in line with universal credit, which would provide those 900,000 children with a hot, nutritious meal at lunchtime. Surely that is the least we should be doing in one of the richest countries in the world.
In an ideal world, we would follow the example of the London Mayor and extend free school meals to all primary-age children, with the ambition of a universal offer. This would level the playing field and eliminate inequality at lunchtime, while also ensuring that all children eat healthy, nutritious meals, setting them up for a healthier life as adults with lower rates of obesity. As we have heard, that would save up to £35 billion a year. It is a win-win, surely.
These progressive steps, empowered by the new breakfast club programme, should be taken when funding allows. The results would speak for themselves, delivering on our ambitious manifesto commitment for the UK to be raising the healthiest generation of children ever. Surely they deserve no less. They are our future, after all.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank everyone for their contributions so far. In particular, I thank the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) for his contribution. It was a very personal story, and when we tell a personal story in this Chamber or anywhere else, it always carries more weight—that is not a pun, by the way. It carries a different focus, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for sharing that story. We all thank him for sharing it, because it may inspire others outside this Chamber who find his words wise and helpful.
I am happy to speak in this debate. I declare an interest as a type 2 diabetic; my story of diabetes is personal to me, but it is one that many go through. I have experienced the health problems that a fast food diet brings. When I discovered I was a type 2 diabetic back in 2008, I weighed some 17 stone. I was in the Northern Ireland Assembly. We were at the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, and I had been to see my doctor, because I had some pains that men get in certain places and I had some concern over them. Dr Mageean phoned me in Edinburgh and said, “Jim, I’ve good news for you. Do you want the good news or the bad news?” I said, “Well, Dr Mageean, give me the good news first. That’ll get me on good form.” He said, “The good news is that you’ve got a heart like an ox. The bad news is that you’re a diabetic.”
Why had I become a diabetic? I did not recognise it, because I did not know what diabetes was. I was a diabetic probably a year before the doctor told me that day. I lived on Chinese meals five nights per week and two bottles of Coke. The sugar content was extreme, and I was 17 stone. Doctor Mageean told me, “Jim, it is up to you how you handle this.” His very wise words to me were, “Jim, it is up to you what you do, but if you do not do the right thing, it will progressively get worse.” I went on a diet that day, and I lost an extreme amount of weight. Along with that, I of course had fairly high stress levels.
I was able to make those changes and I lost 4 stone in weight, which kept me stable for a while. Then I went on to the Metformin tablets, the Linagliptin tablets, the Jardiance tablets and all the other ones. In the morning I start with nine tablets and I finish the day with five. Many others will do similar things, because that is how we keep alive and how we manage it. Coffee became a substitute. I drink copious cups a day. I used to drink 12 cups of coffee a day, and I have reduced that to six, mostly in the morning, with five before 11 o’clock. There are probably side effects from drinking too much coffee as well.
I tell all these stories to make the point that the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold made. He said that we have to do it ourselves, and we do. That is how it works, although I understand some people cannot. Over the years, I have helped numerous people with gastric band operations. They have all been successful, and it has helped those people. They had special circumstances, and they were able to lose weight. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) referred to food banks, and my food bank in Newtownards can give diabetic food to those who have diabetes, and those foods can help to manage diabetes.
I remember my mum telling me when I was a child, “Always eat your carrots, and your eyesight will never go astray.” Well, it did not work for me. It was not an issue for me, because I love carrots and I love vegetables. The carrots did not do me any good, but my mum did perhaps engrain in me the necessity to eat greens—the six a day, or five a day as it was. My lifestyle was unhealthy, which led to lifelong consequences. It also means that I understand how very easy it is for convenience and a lack of time to lead to an unhealthy option, which is why I would like to focus on how we can make healthy meals more accessible.
I am aware that it can be daunting as a parent with young children to try to work out healthy options that children will eat which are also affordable and do not take too long to make. It is clear that more work needs to be done to help young families, particularly to get the skills to cook and to create good eating patterns in families of all incomes. I am really pleased to see the Minister in his place and I look forward to his answers, because he is aways constructive in his answers. My son and daughter-in-law are staying with us and they have two children—Freya four and Ezra two and a half—and, as a grandfather, I have noticed that they had their children eating their vegetables from a very early age, which helps get that focus in place at an early stage.
One of my local residents associations, Scrabo residents association, in conjunction with Ards community network, have used funding to put on classes for families to learn how to cook in a cost-effective and healthy way. Their fun, innovative and informative classes helped with budgeting and planning, and they know they were successful. However, as so often, the Government funding for that process has no longer continued. There is therefore less of an incentive for those volunteer groups in the community network to do that, which is a problem. Can the Minister give any indication of whether he and his Department are prepared to target that area to help families understand that there is a way to save money on healthy food?
The latest data for Northern Ireland shows that 27% of adults and about one in 16 children, or some 6%, are living with obesity, and the development of obesity is strongly linked to deprivation. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley referred to deprivation, and it is so important for people to have a decent wage to buy the right food to look after themselves. Between 2011-12 and 2018-19, one in three or 36% of primary year 1 children living in the most deprived areas were more likely to be overweight or obese compared with those living in the least deprived areas. That represents a 12 percentage points increase since 2012, when the figure was 24%. It is now 36% of primary year 1 children, which is a real problem for us in Northern Ireland, although I am sure those figures are replicated on the mainland. Obesity also increases the risk of developing chronic diseases such as colon cancer, high blood pressure or type 2 diabetes, and it is linked to substantial direct and indirect costs estimated to be in the order of £370 million in Northern Ireland in 2009. What are those costs today?
I look to the Minister to consider the approaches that I have referred to. As he and others know, I always try to be constructive in my comments and in describing what we have done in Northern Ireland. What is available to help communities put on the training, and help people realise that healthy eating is not just for those who can afford to shop at wholefoods and organic groceries, but for all of us, and that it can be easier to cook such food in the daily struggle of feeding our families? Obesity is a ticking time bomb; we need to defuse it with a co-ordinated and joined-up approach, and funding is the foundation of that.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
I echo earlier comments by thanking all Members who have contributed to this debate. As a new Member, it has been heartening to hear so much agreement across the House and so many colleagues putting their evidence, enthusiasm and opinions into finding a solution to this epidemic.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for introducing this debate. Unlike my hon. Friend, who has a medical degree and has become a GP, I took my medical degree and went into public health. I am a public health consultant and that is why I am here. It has been fantastic to hear everybody in this House talk in such resoundingly positive public health terms. It is past time for us to address this issue.
Many great points have been made and I do not intend to repeat them, but I would like to stress a couple of things, starting with an interesting observation about the term “obesity”. It carries with it a certain load and stigma, which as a female I very much recognise. I want to put on record that this is not about fat-shaming; this is not about how people look or how society tells us we should look. This is about our health; this is about being well and feeling well and being able to live well and thrive.
I also want to put on record something about body mass index. This is a slightly controversial subject in my area at the moment. It is a useful tool, as people have said, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) mentioned, there are different levels of BMI for different ethnicities, and also it can be a limited metric. The House might be aware of the case of a female Olympic bodybuilder being classed as obese. We need to be careful about BMI and what we are saying to people— children or adults—when we see their BMI. This is about taking health in the round, and looking at what we eat, not what we look like.
There is no debate about the evidence of obesity’s cost to our population’s health and our health system. We have heard the figures from multiple Members across the House, and £6.5 billion annually to the national health service is no small figure. We are literally eating ourselves into our sick beds, from diabetes to heart attacks, from liver disease to cancer; as we have heard, this is the second most preventable cause, after tobacco, of cancer.
I have spoken before in the House, and will continue to do so, about creating conditions for people to thrive and to make healthy choices. Today, as so many hon. Members have highlighted, we live in an obesogenic environment—an environment that promotes unhealthy eating and does not make it easy to undertake regular exercise. A less familiar term is the opposite of that, and perhaps Hansard has never heard it: a leptogenic environment promotes healthy food choices and encourages physical activity. The comments on housing and on fair pay for good work were about a leptogenic environment. We might reflect on our own environment, Madam Deputy Speaker—whether it is an obesogenic or leptogenic environment. I wonder how many of us have managed to have dinner yet this evening, and how we are feeling. That is something for the Modernisation Committee to reflect on.
To achieve a leptogenic environment we need to look at measures that create a functioning food system. As we have heard, we need to work with our farmers and food producers to produce a skilled food sector and a vibrant food economy. For our food system to allow us all to enjoy healthy food—again, we have heard this before—we need to ensure that it is accessible, affordable and attractive. We are visual creatures: what we see really influences us and our choices, and, boy, do the food organisations and the food companies know that.
On accessibility, how easy is it to buy nutritious food? We have heard Members across the House talking about their constituencies, their residents, food deserts and how for some people, when they go into a shop, the choice is not from an array of vegetables, fruits, decent carbohydrates and decent proteins, but from processed, often cheap, quite filling, nutritionally poor food. That is not making healthy food accessible.
On affordability, we have heard several times from different Members that healthy food—this is worth repeating—on average is more than twice as expensive per calorie as less healthy options. If people feeding their children across the country this week on a budget are faced with two different options, and one is cheaper and will fill their children’s stomachs, the odds are that they are likely to take that option, and there is no judgment in that at all. It is on us to make healthy food much more accessible and affordable for people.
On attractiveness, how attractive is healthy food? We have heard this evening about the marketing and branding of ultra-processed, high-fat, high-sugar, high-salt food. It is fantastic that our Labour Government and our Minister for Public Health and Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne) have taken the step to ban junk food advertisements before the watershed. That is a great step forward, but we need to be mindful of how much investment the major brands of high-fat, high-sugar and high-salt foods put into advertising. In digital advertising alone, that figure was £87.5 million. Food organisations do not put money into things if they do not make profit from them. Profit essentially remains their bottom line, not our waistlines.
These are systemic issues, but we do not need to reinvent the wheel. We need to implement the wide-ranging recommendations of the national food strategy. The last Government missed that opportunity, but as we move forward with this Government, let us look at those recommendations, many of which have been mentioned in the House this evening. They include introducing a sugar and salt reformulation tax and expanding the Healthy Start scheme.
In conclusion, we need to ensure that we in this place are legislating to make good nutrition an easy choice for all and that we are curating a healthy leptogenic environment. In that way, we will ensure that we are enabling healthy choices for all our residents and reducing obesity to a slim, historical footnote as we move forward into a healthier future for everyone.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this important debate, and I thank all the Members who have contributed so passionately. When we talk about obesity, and in particular childhood obesity, we must not overlook the structural barriers that prevent healthy choices. Several key policies could make a transformative difference, and I will draw attention to some of those tonight, but I will start by saying that every family in the UK in the 21st century should have access to affordable, healthy and nutritious food. The covid-19 pandemic contributed to an increase in household food insecurity and food poverty, widening health inequalities. Recent increases in food costs have become one of the primary contributors to the cost of living crisis. Tackling food insecurity in our communities is a step towards reducing obesity. It requires a restructuring of the whole system that takes into consideration how we produce, source, sell and prepare our food.
Early years nutrition is critical. Financial support schemes need to be expanded and increased in value. The current rates are inadequate, leaving many families unable to provide their children with a nutritious start in life. Expanding free school meals would be a game changer. The lack of a healthy, nutritious diet does not just affect physical health; it affects a child’s ability to learn and thrive. Universal access to free school meals would ensure that every child had at least one nutritious meal a day, reducing health inequalities and supporting educational attainment.
Last year, Stratford-on-Avon district council, on which I am a councillor, passed unanimously my motion to tackle food insecurity in our area. It included looking at how planning policy can help reduce unhealthy diets by, for example, encouraging community food growing, the creation of food co-operatives and limiting the spread of fast-food outlets.
I pay tribute to the Warwickshire food forum partnership, which developed a Warwickshire-wide food strategy along the priorities of access and affordability, food education and sustainable choices. I welcome the “Right to Food” campaign supported by many councils in England that are working towards making access to food a legal right, embedding food justice in their policies and calling on the Government to have the right to food enshrined in law.
Finally, we need to look at how we disincentivise unhealthy food choices that are high in calories and low in nutrients. The soft drinks industry levy has been effective, but we must close some of its loopholes by extending it to high-sugar foods and milk-based drinks. That revenue could be reinvested in public health initiatives, creating a positive cycle of preventing disease. Such measures and policies are not just about tackling obesity but about creating a healthier and fairer society. I urge the Government to make the changes that our communities so desperately need.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this important and informative debate. I will start with some statistics. Over the last seven years, Southend has seen one of the highest increases in England in the number of children living with obesity, with 22.7% of five-years-olds starting school with a weight classified as overweight or obese. That rises to 33.8% by the time they leave primary school.
The chief medical officer Professor Sir Chris Whitty found in his 2021 annual report that coastal communities were some of the worst affected by rising childhood obesity rates, along with many other preventable health harms. It is not fair that where someone lives can affect their family’s and their children’s health outcomes.
In Southend, we have seen not only that increase in obesity but the closing of sports facilities. I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) with regard to physical activity and exercise, which is also a vital component in the debate. I recently visited Hamstel infant and junior schools, whose swimming pool has unfortunately been closed down. In that scenario, students who predominantly come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds do not have access to local swimming facilities. That was yet another facility to close down, leaving children with less opportunity for physical activities. More widely, in 2021 Swim England reported that almost 2,000 swimming pools could be lost by 2030, which is simply unacceptable. The trend is not limited to swimming: since 2010, nearly 1,000 public football pitches have been lost across the UK.
Childhood obesity is a complex issue, and the closure of sports facilities is certainly not the only contributing factor to the increase. Poor diet and the cost of living crisis also play a considerable part. Poor diet is one of the biggest preventable risk factors in ill health contributing to lower life expectancy and earlier onset illness. The cost of living crisis and compounding pressures on families’ pay packets mean that children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and areas do not have the option of a healthy diet. Healthy foods are twice as expensive calorie for calorie as less healthy foods. That is simply not good enough. We need to improve health outcomes for children in Southend and in Rochford and create the conditions for them to thrive.
As many Members will know, the House of Lords inquiry into food, diet and obesity set recommendations that have been supported by key organisations such as the Obesity Health Alliance. In fact, over the past 30 years we have had 14 strategies to address obesity, containing almost 700 policy recommendations. In that time, obesity has doubled. This poses a major health risk for our country and a catastrophic cost to our NHS and workforce.
The vast majority of recommendations were not implemented under the last Government. The few that were implemented placed the burden on the individual and ignored the necessary structural changes. Our Labour Government have been clear in our mission on health and the NHS: to shift the narrative from ill health to prevention. We are already making changes. The advertising of unhealthy food will be banned across all media before 9 pm from October 2025. We could go one step further and put an end to the advertising of less healthy foods altogether.
Furthermore, we could introduce more stringent labelling and regulations on snacks, so that companies can no longer mislead parents with false taglines such as “one of your five a day” or “source of protein” on foods with huge amounts of sugar. Finally, we could investigate introducing a salt and sugar tax on food manufacturers, building on the success of the soft drinks levy. The Government could use that revenue to make healthier food cheaper, particularly for people living with food insecurity.
Our Labour Government are on a mission to improve living standards. To do that, we need to make changes where the previous Government failed. They include tackling obesity head-on, with better access to sports facilities, better protections around the marketing of unhealthy food and easing the pressure of the cost of living crisis.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
My constituency faces some of the highest levels of food-related health problems and deprivation in the country. With the second highest density of fast-food outlets in the country and high levels of poverty, many of my constituents lack access to nutritious food.
Obesity is one of the most difficult issues we face. In Blackpool, 72% of adults are overweight or living with obesity. In children of reception age, that figure is 27%, but by year 6 it is a shocking 42%. These are some of the reasons why the House of Lords Food, Diet and Obesity Committee visited Blackpool last year. Its report “Recipe for Health” highlights Blackpool not only as a critical case study, but for our potential to lead meaningful change. The report demonstrated that Blackpool is a food desert, with many areas lacking access to fresh fruits and vegetables. Instead, fast-food outlets dominate the landscape, offering cheap, high-calorie options that often are the only affordable choice for families on a budget. In fact, Blackpool is among the places where food insecurity is most deeply felt, with rising reliance on food banks and emergency food parcels.
The report stresses that communities such as Blackpool need better access to healthy and affordable food. For Blackpool, that could mean revitalising local food markets, setting up food hubs and creating partnerships between local farmers and residents to bring fresh food directly into our community. That would bypass the high prices and limited options of the supermarkets, offering a more sustainable way to source food locally.
At the same time, the report suggests reforming the food environment in Blackpool and other areas facing similar challenges, where fast-food outlets are prevalent. By limiting the number of unhealthy outlets and supporting the growth of healthier businesses, the town could make it easier for residents to make better food choices. Such small changes could have a big impact on public health.
One of the most important recommendations in the report is for food education to be a priority. In Blackpool, where diet-related illnesses are rampant, providing nutrition education could make a real difference. That could include teaching people how to cook healthier meals on a budget and offering workshops in schools to help children to understand the importance of good nutrition. Late last year, I visited Blackpool Learning Rooms, where this approach is already under way. The council-operated project has kitchens, where I met adult learners on the “Eat well, spend less” course, which runs fun and informative classes teaching the basics of cookery and budgeting.
The report also highlights the importance of local food initiatives. Projects such as community kitchens, urban farms and food co-ops are already taking root in Blackpool with the likes of At The Grange, which Committee members visited. The community centre has an on-site growing project, Grow Blackpool, and a café offering affordable and nutritious food on a housing estate that has no shop selling fresh food. Projects such as At The Grange could be the key to transforming our food system, helping people to access healthy, affordable food and creating stronger and more resilient communities.
The food landscape in Blackpool clearly needs urgent attention, but the town also holds an opportunity to lead the way in transforming our food system. The “Recipe for Health” report paints a picture of a better future, where communities like those in my constituency are healthier, more sustainable and more connected to the food we eat. Local organisations like the Blackpool Food Partnership and Blackpool food bank, alongside Jamie Oliver’s Ministry of Food, are already making strides in this direction. By working together, community groups, local authorities, businesses and entrepreneurs can create a more sustainable, equitable food system that puts health at its centre. The key is to invest in these community-led projects and ensure that everyone, no matter their income, has access to healthy, affordable food.
If Blackpool can implement the changes suggested in the Food, Diet and Obesity Committee’s report, it could serve as a model for towns across the UK. Local food hubs, healthier eating habits, better education and a shift in the food environment could change our future. It will not happen overnight, and it will not be easy, but the foundations are already there. With the right investment and support from both local and national leadership, Blackpool can become a shining example of how we can build a more sustainable food system and a healthier community.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) on securing what has been a powerful and impactful debate. It has reflected the personal experiences and relationship that people have with food, which can be complex.
My interest in this subject started as a councillor in West Lothian, when I became acutely aware of the growing financial pressures that have left people really struggling to put food on the table. My experiences with constituents experiencing hardship led me to champion the Co-operative party’s “Food Justice” campaign and initiate the set-up of the West Lothian Food Network. The network, which consists of local third sector and community groups, has evolved over the years. Initially set up just days before lockdown, it ended up providing emergency food support to those in financial hardship and experiencing social isolation during the pandemic. Today, the network is a 21-member organisation that addresses inequalities and supports those on low incomes, from rural areas and from disadvantaged groups who are at risk of poor health outcomes because of food insecurity. I put on the record my thanks to all the staff and volunteers from those organisations that have played a part in the network over the years, including West Lothian food bank. I also thank the team at Bo’ness Storehouse, which supports my constituents in that area.
With the increasing obesity gap between the most and least deprived, health inequalities are also on the rise. The reality in Scotland is startling. As we have already heard, two thirds of all adults are overweight, and a third of children start primary school at risk of being overweight. One in six Scots is on a waiting list, and there is no doubt that many will be there due to obesity and diet-related health complaints, with many more on long-term medication for conditions such as high blood pressure, osteoarthritis and type 2 diabetes.
The damage of unhealthy food does not fall evenly across the country. The vast majority of billboards for junk food advertising are targeted towards the most income-deprived communities, and fast-food outlets make up a significantly higher proportion of local food options. Again, that is something I heard time and again as a councillor. Many communities were crying out for fresh fruit and veg shops, but all they saw were more fast-food outlets opening. It has become worryingly common that communities that have the least do not have access to choice when it comes to where they shop. We have heard about food deserts. Limited transportation options further compound the problem. If someone does not drive and they live in an area that is ill-served by bus or train routes, the foods that are more likely to be on offer to them will be highly processed with less nutritional value, higher in salt, fat and sugar, and often more expensive.
The underlying pressures on time, local infrastructure and earnings impact on the freedom to choose and the ability to lead healthier lives. I am very grateful for organisations such as the Whitburn Community Development Trust and the West Lothian Foodbank, which have community gardens and take the produce from the gardens and put them directly into their pantries to support people to access nutritious, healthy food. But if you live in an area where there is no such group or community garden, and if you are struggling financially to put food on the table and you have no way to make it to a lower-cost supermarket that does have healthier options, can we really say that you have a choice?
Adults on low incomes are more than twice as likely to have diets that are high in sugar, saturated fats and salts, and low in fibre, fruit, vegetables and fish. We know that a weaker diet from a young age is detrimental to long-term development and health. That impact can be seen in our hospitals, where, as we heard, tooth decay is the most common reason for the admission of children. Lack of access to local dentists is an issue I raised at Prime Minister’s questions last week. In Scotland, we have the shameful statistic that one in four children are starting school with tooth decay.
The cost is personal and societal. The human cost of obesity can be measured in increasingly impaired mobility, slower recovery from illness and earlier physical decline. Last year, Diabetes UK reported that in Scotland the number of cases of people under 40 living with type 2 diabetes rose by almost a third between 2016 and 2022. In 2023, Frontier Economics estimated that the total economic impact of obesity in the UK is £98 billion, including costs to the NHS and social care, lost productivity, workforce inactivity and welfare payments. Diabetes care alone accounts for nearly 10% of the NHS budget. The scale of the pressure demands urgency in how we respond. The impact on the economy can be measured in lost productivity, but most importantly it reflects a really worrying trend: the shrinking working population, greater social isolation and the rise in the number of people with complex health needs.
Policy often talks of the last mile, the final few yards, to get support over the line and accessible to those who need it most. In my view, that must be the first and most essential mile. There are national changes that we can make and that we have made. I welcome the Government’s new restrictions on advertising to children, with the new watershed restriction and online advert ban as a strong first step to reduce exposure. We have to do more to make food accessible, cheaper and more available in communities where they have the least. The uprating of the sugar levy will force businesses to further innovate their products, lower the sugar content and find taste without relying on unhealthy additives. The revenue raised, as we have heard, could be used to address the gap in accessibility to healthier food at community level, particularly in those areas with the greatest challenges.
I look forward to that constructive conversation continuing across the House. Doing nothing is not an option if we are to have a healthy workforce in future, reduce health inequalities facing those with the least, and leave our children a legacy of living longer, healthier and more active lives.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this important debate. The growing prevalence of obesity is a public emergency. It is profoundly affecting not only individuals’ lives, but the economic and social fabric of our nation.
Let me clearly state that this is not a debate about willpower or individual choice; it is about the systems, environments and inequalities that shape those choices. What does it say about our country when children in areas of deprivation are twice as likely to experience obesity as their peers in wealthier communities, when children in the least well-off families eat significantly fewer fruit and vegetables, or when families with the lowest incomes are more than twice as likely to consume diets that are high in sugar, salt and fat? To me, it says that we are failing those on the lowest incomes. As a physiotherapist, I have worked with families grappling with the challenges of facing childhood obesity. I have seen the emotional toll on children who are bullied or excluded, and the frustration of parents who have no access to affordable, healthy food or safe spaces for their children to play in.
Medical practitioners are also witnessing the impact on people’s mental health. Obesity is not merely about calories in and calories out; the medical journal The Lancet has rightly described it as a “complex adaptive system”. There is a battle to be had against obesity on so many levels. It starts with Government policies on housing and education and behaviour relating to diet and exercise. There are also biological factors at play, including genetics, age and ethnicity.
The further statistics are alarming. In England, two thirds of adults live with obesity or are overweight, and 29% are severely obese. Among children, the situation is equally troubling. The weight of one in five children entering primary school is above a healthy level, and by the time they leave, the figure rises to one in three. This is compounded by societal changes and challenges: the high cost of living and of healthy food; the prevalence of products high in fat, sugar or salt; and environments saturated with fast-food outlets and inadequate green spaces.
The financial costs are staggering. Obesity-related illnesses currently cost the NHS £6.5 billion a year, a figure projected to rise to £9.7 billion by 2050. Across the economy, the broader impact, including loss of productivity, has been estimated to be £98 billion each year.
To address this multifaceted crisis, we must adopt a systematic, whole-society approach. We need key interventions to help us to deal with our obesity public health problem. We must make changes such as expanding the healthy start scheme and increasing the value of payments to reflect rising food costs; perhaps looking again at the advertising ban and considering whether we should go further; incentivising businesses to reformulate products to reduce salt, sugar and fat content; supporting after-school activities hubs to increase physical activity among children; strengthening school food standards to ensure that children have access to nutritional food; creating and maintaining safe, accessible green spaces, thus encouraging outdoor activity, reducing sedentary behaviour and improving mental health; and designing urban environments that prioritise active travel such as walking and cycling through better infrastructure—for instance, cycle lanes and pedestrian zones.
The Government should adopt a comprehensive food strategy with independent oversight from the Food Standards Agency. Targets should be set for reducing the availability of products with high levels of fat, sugar or salt, and increasing the number of healthier food options. Local authorities should be empowered with greater planning and licensing control to limit the proliferation of fast-food outlets and promote healthier eating.
Parliament has a responsibility to lead on this issue. We must move away from the medicalised paradigm that isolates obesity as an individual issue, and focus on the societal structure that underpins it. Policies must address the root causes of inequality, which drive the disproportionate impact of obesity on lower-income families. I call on the Government to enact bold, decisive measures to transform our food system and environment. This is not just about health; it is about fairness, opportunity and creating a future in which no child’s potential is limited by the circumstances of where they were born. Let us grab the opportunity to address obesity comprehensively by putting health, equality and wellbeing at the heart of our policies.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this really important debate, and for his thoughtful and incredibly insightful speech on one of the biggest health challenges that our country faces, as many Members have said. After a week’s delay, I am glad that we are now able to have this debate, and it has been great to see how much consensus there is across the House on the need to act.
As we set out in our manifesto, and as the consultation on the 10-year plan for the NHS says, we must move towards having a much sharper focus on the prevention of ill health for the sake of the long-term viability of our NHS. As other Members have said, there is a huge crisis, with growing levels of obesity putting the nation’s health at risk. In my constituency, nearly 15,000 Dartford residents meet the definition of obese. Such statistics denote immense health inequalities, with those on low incomes far more likely to be obese, as other Members have pointed out.
There are plenty of reasons why we must take action in this area. We spend £6.5 billion annually on treating obesity-related ill health, and around £10 billion a year on diabetes, with the number of type 2 diabetes diagnoses doubling over the last 15 years. Aside from the financial cost, we should surely wish for people to live longer, healthier lives.
This month I am privileged to be spending my Tuesdays and Thursdays on the Public Bill Committee for the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, a landmark piece of legislation that we will go through line by line. Among other measures, it will prevent anyone born after 1 January 2009 from purchasing tobacco. I am very pleased to see in this Chamber a number of colleagues who are also on that journey with me, including the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson). The arguments that we hear against obesity interventions today are the same ones that we heard about restricting smoking in days gone by: that it is “nanny state”, that regulatory approaches do not work, that the public will not stand for it, and that it makes things more expensive, which impacts on those who can least afford it.
One of the greatest public health legacies of the last Labour Government are their interventions on smoking. Smoking was to the last Labour Government what obesity can be to the current one. Obesity currently places a staggering burden on the NHS and the wider economy, but it will be one of the great legacies of this Government if we can turn things around and make our country healthier. Solutions are urgently needed.
I very much welcome the Government’s plans to review the sugar tax and to consider extending it to milk-based drinks. As many Members have said, however, we need to go so much further, including by taxing foods that are high in salt, fat and sugar, as recommended by the House of Lords inquiry. Manufacturers reformulated their products in the face of the soft drinks industry levy, and I see no reason why that cannot happen with a well-designed levy on foods high in fat, salt and sugar.
I very much welcome the Government’s commitment to banning advertisements for junk food aimed at children and the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to under-16s, and I look forward to working with Members of different parties to tackle this crisis. In my time in local government, I have seen how supporting less well-off families to replace unhealthy foods in their diet with fresh fruit and vegetables—such as through the programme run by the Alexandra Rose Trust, which others have mentioned tonight—has had a transformative impact on families’ physical and mental health. I urge the Government to fund voucher schemes, introduce food ambassadors to improve cooking skills, and encourage food growing as part of the solution.
As we are in Veganuary, I commend the work to increase the level of plant-based food in people’s diets. I hasten to add that I am not a vegan myself, although I do aspire to eat more healthily. Veganuary and vegan diets are good for our health and good for the planet. That could be part of the solution, and I urge the Minister and others, particularly those in local government, to consider it too.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for his persistence in securing this debate. The right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) talked in his captivating speech about the difference between adult obesity and childhood obesity. My Cheshire colleague the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) talked about choice, but of course children do not always have a choice. They are the ones I hope to speak for tonight.
In Mid Cheshire, the levels of children measuring as overweight are worryingly high. The statistics broadly track the England average, but there are some notable significant peaks and troughs, with over 38% of children in year 6 measuring as overweight in six wards out of 12. Children from the most deprived areas of England are twice as likely to be living with obesity as those from the least deprived areas, which demonstrates that persistent inequalities exist in childhood obesity. That tracks with the pattern in my constituency. Worryingly, more than half of children living with obesity go on to be obese adolescents and more than three quarters of obese adolescents become obese adults. This is certainly reflected in the levels of adult obesity locally and nationally. In my area, over 68% of adults are classed as living with overweight or with obesity, which is more than the England average of 64%.
It is sometimes too easy to reduce the issue to cold statistics. Doing so not only fails to recognise the real consequences of obesity both on individuals and on society, but overlooks its causes. We certainly cannot ignore the impact of food and diet on obesity, particularly in the context of health inequalities and the current cost of living crisis. The food choices we make are heavily influenced by our environment and socioeconomic status.
It is crucial to understand that the availability and accessibility of healthy food options are not the same for everyone. Health inequalities persist in our society, with many individuals and families facing barriers that hinder their ability to make nutritious food choices. These disparities are further exacerbated by the cost of living crisis, in which rising prices of essential goods have forced many people to prioritise affordability over nutritional value. In that environment, unhealthy processed foods often become the most accessible option, leading to a rise in obesity rates among vulnerable communities.
The consequences of obesity are profound, particularly for our children. Studies show that children struggling with obesity are at higher risk of myriad health issues including diabetes, heart disease, asthma and mental health challenges. Beyond the physical ramifications, obesity can limit their life chances. This cycle of disadvantage not only impacts their present but shapes their future, creating a lasting legacy of inequality that follows them into adulthood. The evidence could not be clearer that inequality and obesity are intrinsically linked. The repercussions from both constitute a notable source of morbidity and impaired quality of life, and their complications can have a major bearing on life expectancy.
The toll on individual health is staggering, but it is only part of the story. Beyond individual health, we must consider the wider economic and societal consequences of obesity. The costs associated with treating obesity-related illnesses strain our NHS and divert resources from other essential services. As obesity rates continue to rise, so too does the burden on our healthcare system. The annual £6.5 billion cost of obesity is projected to increase to £9.7 billion by 2050. The total cost to the UK economy, including NHS treatment costs and lost productivity, is estimated to be a staggering £98 billion per year.
We bear a collective responsibility to address the root causes of food and diet on obesity, to tackle not only the individual health implications but the implications to our wider society. To do so, we must advocate policies that promote healthier food environments, ensure equitable access to nutritious food and support families in making healthier choices, regardless of their financial situation. Education and awareness must also play a critical role in this effort. By empowering individuals with knowledge about nutrition and healthy lifestyles, we can help to break the cycle of obesity.
I am proud that this Labour Government are committed to leading on a bold food strategy. Similarly, I welcome the introduction of school breakfast clubs through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and the updates to the national planning policy framework on the siting of hot food takeaways, the promotion of increased access to green spaces and sustainable transport. Both policies will help in the fight to tackle childhood obesity, address systemic health inequalities and promote positive health outcomes. However, given the clear statistical link between poverty, inequality and childhood obesity, we must bear down on child poverty in this Parliament if we are to tackle the issue. I look forward to hearing more from the child poverty taskforce when it reports this year.
Addressing obesity is not just a moral imperative. It is critical to supporting this Government’s efforts to ensure the long-term sustainability of the NHS, to break down barriers to opportunity and to increase economic productivity. As we have heard today, the impact of food and diet on obesity is a multifaceted issue that requires our immediate attention. By implementing effective policies and working towards a healthier future, we can create a society in which everyone can thrive, free from the burdens of obesity and its associated health challenges.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
A bariatric bed is a special big, strong bed used in hospitals for extremely obese people. When I was a medical student, there was no such thing as a bariatric bed—not invented, not needed. But then, hospitals did not have food banks for their staff either. So how have we got our relationship with food into such a mess?
The epidemic of obesity is a public health emergency costing billions. Millions of our citizens are dying early. The Government simply must act. This cannot be left to the market. We did it with smoking, and now we will do it with obesity. We have no choice. We know that at the heart of the matter is high-fat, high-sugar, high-salt, factory-produced food that is often ultra-processed, cheap, convenient, tasty and very profitable for a few very large food businesses. Nor must we forget that it is our poor citizens who are most affected—those who are cash-poor, time-poor and at high risk of a poor diet.
We cannot continue like this. The Government must act to change food habits. This is not the nanny state; this is simply good government. “Smoking kills,” it says on cigarette packets. Some food kills, too, so how about “The food in this packet will kill you if it is not part of a healthy, mixed diet”? Obesity is a massive issue for surgeons, increasing morbidity and mortality. Although we can staple stomachs or inject up to 3.5 million people with anti-obesity drugs, we all know that that is not the answer. Let us use the power of Government to legislate: warnings on food packets, breakfast clubs in schools, which we have already introduced, advertising bans, tax incentives, cooking education and an end to the dependence on the cheap, unhealthy food that blights the lives of so many of our citizens. We have no choice.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way during a very interesting speech. Does he agree that the national curriculum review presents the Government with an opportunity to encourage and strengthen the healthy eating component of the relationships, sex and health education curriculum so that citizens and especially young people are empowered to make healthier decisions on eating?
Peter Prinsley
My hon. Friend’s intervention was not really an intervention, because I had reached the end of what I wished to say. Nevertheless, I thank him sincerely.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to close the debate for the Liberal Democrats. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) on securing the debate. All the contributions, including his opening speech, have been excellent and well informed.
I was particularly interested to hear about the existence of good food deserts in Blackpool South and Liverpool West Derby. Even in Shropshire, where we grow some of the most wonderful and nutritious food that can be imagined, we have a higher-than-average obesity rate: 67% of adults are overweight and 32% are medically obese. That is an interesting reflection on the availability of good food and on people’s ability to choose healthy options because of the cost of food at the supermarket. In rural areas, housing is more expensive but average wages are lower. If people cannot access public transport, as the hon. Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) pointed out, they are often forced to shop at expensive local shops and are thereby forced into buying packets of less nutritious food.
We need to deal with obesity. Two thirds of the adult population are overweight. The NHS is spending almost a tenth of its annual budget on diabetes. Obesity has a significant impact on the health and wellbeing of people who deserve better: they are three times more likely to develop colon cancer, two and half times more likely to have high blood pressure, and five times more likely to have type 2 diabetes. The history of tackling those problems is a litany of failure for all three major parties in 30 years of government because, as other hon. Members have mentioned, we have had 700 different policies on the issue over the years, with no impact. It is time for a coherent strategy to tackle the obesity crisis.
It is good to tentatively welcome the Government’s new national food strategy and their steps on junk food advertising, which are a positive move. The Liberal Democrats would like to see the Government go further, particularly on the use outdoor advertising in areas where people are particularly vulnerable to seeing it. For example, we want local authorities to be allowed to restrict outdoor advertising near schools.
I am interested in some of the suggestions that have been made about planning and fast food outlets, especially as 35.2% of children aged 10 to 11 are now overweight—a staggering 20% rise since 2015. That coincides with a 16% fall in spending on obesity-related measures in the public health grant during the same period. We welcome the Government’s proposed preventive measures. We hope that some of the large sum earmarked for health and the NHS in the recent Budget can be put into public health and prevention measures, because we want to stop people getting unhealthy in the first place rather than dealing with the problem after it occurs.
In Shropshire, one in five children aged four to five are overweight and more than one in 10 are obese. Ironically, almost half are not eating enough fruit and veg, despite the fact that they are grown all around us. The same number are not active enough. To encourage activity, we could introduce a different classification for leisure centres. Hon. Members have mentioned the importance of swimming pools and places to become fit and healthy. I know that the hon. Member for Stroud says that the food element is more important than the activity element; none the less, we should be encouraging getting fit as part of a healthy lifestyle. Will the Minister consider making leisure centres part of our critical health infrastructure so people can rely on their leisure centre staying open and can have somewhere to go if they cannot exercise in their home or their local area?
Healthy eating helps with other preventable problems, such as tooth decay. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) mentioned poor oral health, another avoidable issue that we can deal with. The importance of good oral health in care homes has recently been impressed on me by various members of the dentistry profession, because poor oral health can lead to aspirated pneumonia. That is a partially separate issue from obesity, but unhealthy and sugary snacks are being offered to people in care homes, so I wonder whether we can encourage healthier eating in those settings as well as in our schools and hospitals.
There is no getting away from the fact that obesity is intrinsically linked to inequality and deprivation. Since 2019, the cost of a weekly food shop has risen by almost a third. As I mentioned, rural areas are not excluded. In Shropshire, 14% of households are struggling with food poverty, or as I prefer to call it, poverty. There is a high risk of cost of living vulnerability for children who are in poverty.
Lots of Members spoke about the great work of their local food bank. In Shropshire, an organisation called OsNosh takes food that is due to be thrown away by the supermarkets at the end of the day but is still perfectly good to eat. The next day, it produces fantastic chef-cooked lunches that people can enjoy. If people are able to pay for those lunches, they can do so; if they are not, they do not have to. It is a wonderful way of bringing the community together to eat good food without the stigma of not being able to afford it. However, I think we all agree that reliance on the third sector to solve this problem is not really acceptable in the modern age, so lifting families out of poverty must be a priority for the Government. Our policy is for free school meals for all children in poverty, and a roll-out of free school meals to all primary schools is our ambition when funds allow. I hope that the Government also have the ambition, when funds allow, of lifting the two-child benefit cap, which would lift a quarter of a million children out of poverty.
Holiday activities and food programmes happen across the country, not just locally. In the summer, I visited a HAF programme in Oswestry at which children were offered a healthy meal, a day out of the home—often in a much safer environment than their home—and a good day of activities. The organisation that delivers that in Oswestry, the New Saints Foundation, offers it not just to children whose families cannot afford a nutritious meal at home but to all children, to remove the stigma, and give all the kids a fun day at the HAF programme. Future funding for HAF programmes is not certain, so will the Minister clarify what will happen to them? They are a really good way to ensure that children eat healthily through the holidays, as well as when they are at school and in receipt of free school meals.
The hon. Member for Stroud also mentioned labelling. I am conscious of time, so I will be fairly brief with this little anecdote. Labelling can be really misleading, even to parents who are comfortably off—I would not describe myself as the most well off—and well meaning. It was a long time ago, so I will not mention the brand, but I resorted to buying an organic brand of food for my child when we were at the puree stage of weaning. He became so addicted to it that it became really difficult to wean him off on to something much more nutritious, filling and healthy, such that I had a sleepless night every night because he was still hungry. One evening, I had a very embarrassing moment in the supermarket, almost having a breakdown because I had bumped into an old friend and the supermarket had sold out of these food pouches, and that was a complete disaster.
I found out later that although the puree was organic and had no added sugar, it was actually really high in sugar. It was essentially just pears, water and some spelt, so it was really sweet and sugary. I had inadvertently given my child something that I had expected to be healthy but was not. Good labelling would have solved that problem; I am sure that it would help many parents whose child has a single brand addiction. It was 15 years ago, and the brand may well have reformulated since then, which is why I will not mention the name, but it is something that we need to be aware of.
The right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) spoke powerfully about his own struggle with his weight, and he mentioned the use of various different types of jab to tackle obesity. I do not think that we should dismiss jabs out of hand. Clearly, they are very helpful for some people, but I really think that the Government’s emphasis needs to be on prevention, and on a public health strategy to stop people getting to the point of needing to use those drugs in the first place.
The UK should be one of the healthiest countries in the world. We have a great history of grassroots sports, the highest-quality food production imaginable, and world-leading medical research, but we are becoming sicker, and falling behind similar countries. It is time to act. We welcome the junk food advertising ban and restrictions on high-caffeine energy drinks as a really good first step. We also welcome the commitment to a national food strategy. I put in a plea for our farmers, who work to very low margins. I ask for the strategy to consider the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, and ensure that our farmers are kept in business to continue to deliver our food. Finally, please consider our calls for prevention, to give children a healthy start in life.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I should declare an interest as a children’s doctor and a farmer’s wife.
We all want to live healthy lives. It gives us a healthy life expectancy, reduces illness burden and gives us more happy years to spend with those whom we love. However, beginning in the second half of the 20th century and continuing today, the developed world has seen an unprecedented rise in obesity levels. The growth of high-calorie processed food and sugary drinks, along with our more sedentary lifestyles, has undoubtedly played a key role. In the UK, two thirds of adults are classified as overweight or obese. According to the recent House of Lords report, over a fifth of children are overweight or obese before they even start school, and by the time they leave school, that number has doubled.
As a children’s doctor, I have seen children with significant medical complications from obesity, including a child of 12 who weighed over 120 kg and a child of nine who weighed over 95 kg. As the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) said, doctors and other clinicians have a responsibility to let people know of the harms of obesity, but they do not always do so. That is partly because of time constraints and because there is not necessarily a clear path to point the individual towards. Such messages can also be received with hostility, which is another deterrent.
As hon. Members have said, obesity leads to health problems. The excess body fat disrupts the normal bodily functions, amplifying the risk of heart disease, diabetes, cancer and arthritis while weakening the body’s ability to fight infections. During the pandemic, an obese person had a 40% higher chance of dying from covid-19 than their peers of a healthy weight. The hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) spoke of the human consequences. An obese mother is more likely to suffer from complications during pregnancy. She is more likely to miss out on important life events as the child grows up, and when her grandchildren are born, she will have a lower chance of being there to enjoy them.
What is causing this obesity? At its most fundamental level, overweight and obesity are the storage of fat as surplus energy—energy consumed as food that was extra to requirements—but the reasons may be more complex. Many hon. Members have discussed the lack of affordable food, but they did not recognise or heed support for those growing our food and our fruit and veg. Instead, this Government have so far attacked our farmers with high taxes during their lifetime and at death. That will only increase the price of fruit and veg. Lincolnshire grows 20% of the country’s vegetables, but the Labour Government seek to carpet our beautiful farmland with miles and miles of solar panels, reducing the area available for growing healthy fruit and veg, increasing imports and prices.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) said, time is key. For families in which both parents are working, finding time to collect children, prepare wholesome meals from scratch, help with homework and get children to bed on time can lead to pressure to grab quick food or use packet sauces. A YouGov survey from 2022 found that a third of British people feel that they need a recipe to produce food from scratch, and one in six feel uncomfortable even with a recipe, so confidence in the kitchen needs to be improved. It is also worth remarking that genetics play a part, as can medications and medical conditions. Hormonal responses to food restriction also play a part, so once someone has gained weight once, it is not necessarily as easy as just saying, “Eat less”.
I have spent a great deal of my time in Parliament sitting on the Health and Social Care Committee, where the need for greater focus on prevention was continually raised. Nowhere better is that illustrated than on the issue of obesity. For example, Public Health England’s laudable Better Health diet campaign that ran from 2020-21 cost only 0.05% of what the NHS spends on obesity and overweight treatment annually. Healthy eating begins with education. People should know how to create healthy nutritious meals on a budget, as the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) said. I appreciate the work done by the previous Government to expand nutritional education in state schools, and I would like to mention Washingborough academy and its headteacher Jason O’Rourke, who have won awards for locally produced healthy school foods.
People also need to know what is in their food so they can make informed choices when they eat on the go. The Conservatives took action to display calorie information on menus, so that people can make informed decisions. That can also influence portion sizes. The previous Government introduced the soft drinks levy in 2018, and in 2022 we restricted promotions on foods high in salt, sugar and fat. Recent data from the NHS health survey shows that obesity rates among adults have stabilised over the past five years, and the number of overweight or obese children is now at its lowest level since 2000—although I note that those figures have continued to rise in Scotland and Wales.
Let me turn to advertising. Does advertising work? Of course it does. If I say, “The red car and the blue car had a race,” I am sure that Members of a similar age to me would know which sweet that line advertised. If I asked them which sweet would be “Just enough to give your kids a treat,” they would know exactly which one I meant. [Interruption.] The Minister is nodding—as are you, Madam Deputy Speaker. But is the problem the adverts, or is it what they are advertising? Is what they are advertising the same as or different from what they were advertising 20 years ago?
At the moment, the Government’s approach to advertising seems a little wrong-headed. Their plans to restrict the advertising of junk food before 9 pm paints with a very broad brush, and muesli, porridge and rice cakes are included under the ban. However, the NHS website says that porridge is a healthy breakfast. Does the Minister disagree with the NHS? Do the Government intend to implement a similar policy to that of Transport for London under the Mayor of London, which allows the advertising of fried chicken burgers but not of strawberries and cream? The Minister needs to think carefully about what he wants to promote as a healthy and diet and then work from there.
Before the general election, the previous Health Secretary asked the National Institute for Health and Care Research to gather evidence on the impact of ultra-processed foods on health. Have the Government developed a strategy to address the prevalence of ultra-processed foods in our diet? The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) mentioned that many such foods contain artificial ingredients. One of my concerns is that a ban or tax on high fat, salt and sugar foods causes reformulation, but not necessarily to take sugar out and make an item less sweet, for example; it can be to add sweeteners and other chemical substitutes that may also trigger addictive eating behaviours. That may be more harmful and retains the sweetness, so it does not change people’s need for that sort of food.
Members have mentioned the prospect of new pharmaceuticals such as Ozempic in tackling obesity. The Government have expressed an interest in exploring that further, and we welcome the new partnership with life science companies to consider the potential of pharmaceuticals in tackling some of the challenges facing the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) talked powerfully of his use of Wegovy to lose 5 stone, and I congratulate him on his success in doing so. One important point that he made about that class of drugs is that they are not by themselves a silver bullet; they require willpower and people need to work with not against them, as he said. They are not without potentially severe side effects, and as they might only work when an individual is using them, they may require lifelong use. We need a judicious use of intervention with pharmaceuticals, combined with the necessary education and lifestyle changes for weight loss to be sustainable in the long term.
This debate has focused on the issue of nanny state versus the freedom to choose. This is a Labour Government, so of course they are very keen for widespread state intervention, but what we need is not a list of bans and taxes but a coherent policy based on a clear understanding of what they mean by “healthy diet”; a strategy for food security that includes more home-grown food; education on diet and cooking; the removal of the stigma associated with being overweight or obese, which many Members mentioned; the avoidance of bans and taxes leading to reformulation with additives and processing; and, as obesity is such a difficult condition to reverse, the judicious use of medication. Most importantly, prevention is better than cure, so let us focus on the children.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for ensuring that this debate took place, and I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing it in the first place. I am also grateful to all Members for their valuable contributions. We have heard speeches from across the House, including from my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi), for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman), for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), for Swindon North (Will Stone), for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), for Blackpool South (Chris Webb), for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan), for Dudley (Sonia Kumar), for Dartford (Jim Dickson), for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) and for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley).
On the Opposition Benches, we heard from the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), who I have to say looks so healthy as a consequence of the medication he is taking. I remember what he looked like before—he is a shadow of his former self. We also heard from the hon. Members for Newbury (Mr Dillon), for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies), for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella), and then obviously from the Opposition spokespeople for the Liberal Democrats and the official Opposition.
The United Kingdom has an obesity crisis. It poses serious challenges to our health, adds preventable pressure on the NHS, and restricts our economic productivity. I am reassured that none of us in the Chamber today underestimates the scale or importance of the task ahead, and we all recognise the need for action. I am proud that this Labour Government have already acted on manifesto commitments in several key areas, as I will outline, but I am also aware that much more needs to be done.
Over two thirds of adults are living with excess weight, and around 36% of children are living with obesity or are overweight by the time they leave primary school. That is appalling, but while it is shocking by itself, that average hides the deep inequalities we see in obesity. Children living in poorer areas are more than twice as likely to be living with obesity than those living in the least deprived areas. That has a huge impact on our lives, increasing the risk of many serious diseases—as we have heard—as well as exacerbating mental health issues and reducing the years that we and our loved ones can expect to live in good health. Almost 22% of all working-age people are economically inactive, and much of that is due to long-term health conditions caused or exacerbated by obesity. The cost of obesity-related conditions to the NHS now stands at £11.4 billion a year, and the cost to wider society is a staggering £74 billion every year.
I am so proud that we are committed to raising the healthiest generation of children ever. That means going further on prevention and tackling the drivers of obesity. Over recent decades in the UK, food and drink that is calorie dense, nutrient poor and less healthy has become cheaper. It is vital that we ensure our policies continue to drive companies to make food and drink healthier. That is why this Government took action to uprate the soft drinks industry levy in the October Budget. That levy has already taken thousands of tonnes of sugar out of the drinks we consume every day, and I give credit to George Osborne, the Conservative Chancellor in the coalition Government, who introduced that measure. Uprating the levy is a key part of keeping it effective and continuing to drive reformulation towards healthier products.
However, this is not just about what is in our food and drinks; less healthy foods are more heavily promoted, marketed and advertised than ever before. One third of the food industry’s advertising budget is spent on marketing confectionery, snacks, desserts and soft drinks, while only around 1% of that budget is spent on marketing fruit and vegetables. It is therefore not a surprise that our children want to eat those products. One study estimated that 6.4% of UK childhood obesity is attributable to junk food TV advertising. That is why this Government have already met our manifesto commitment to lay the secondary legislation required to ensure the ban on junk food ads targeting our kids comes in from October this year. This includes a 9 pm TV watershed for the advertising of less healthy food and drink products, and a restriction on paid-for online advertising of all these products.
Jim Shannon
The Minister is giving a very comprehensive response, and it is much appreciated. One of the things I asked for in my speech—I know he will do this, but I think we could probably do it better—is to look at initiatives in each of the regions of Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales that could complement the policy driven from here. Is it the Minister’s intention to do that with the regional Administrations?
Andrew Gwynne
The advertising regulations of course cover the whole of the United Kingdom, but this Labour Government have a good working relationship with the devolved Governments in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. We have the intergovernmental ministerial meetings, and we have been liaising closely on a whole range of public health measures, including the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, directly with ministerial counterparts in the devolved Governments. I want that relationship to deepen and mature because that is good governance across the whole United Kingdom.
We know that our chances of accessing healthy food depends on where people live. Children living in less affluent areas see five times more fast-food outlets on their high streets. That is why it is so important that strengthened the new national planning policy framework. Local authorities now have clearer powers to block fast-food outlets near schools, and also where children and young people congregate, to stop the relentless targeting of children and young people by the fast-food industry. Making the healthier choice the easier choice is a major part of achieving our shift to prevention. We will continue to look at ways to support people to make and sustain changes in their diet in line with the Government’s “Eatwell Guide”.
This may be a good point at which to clarify our position on ultra-processed foods. There are concerning associations between ultra-processed foods and negative health outcomes, including obesity. However, where the evidence is not yet clear is whether the negative health outcomes are due to processing or to these products tending to be high in calories, sugar, saturated fat and salt. I want to reassure hon. Members across the House that many ultra-processed foods are already captured by the existing healthy eating advice, policy actions and regulations relating to HFSS foods. Our scientific advisory committee on nutrition continues to monitor the evidence on ultra-processed foods, and we will commission further research where needed.
In my last few minutes, I will turn to a number of the issues that have been raised. First, just to reassure the shadow Minister, porridge oats will not be banned. The majority of porridge, muesli and granola products will not be affected by the restrictions, but some less healthy versions with added sugar, chocolate or syrup could be affected. To be in scope, products must fall within one of the categories of food and drink set out in the schedule to the advertising regulations and be defined as less healthy by the 2004-05 nutrient profiling model. For example, categories include but are not limited to soft drinks with added sugar, savoury snacks such as crisps, breakfast cereals, confectionery, ice cream and pizza. Despite recent media reports, the majority of porridge products will not be affected.
The right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold made a really important point about stigma, and he is absolutely right that we really have to tackle stigma. Our genetics and our will power have not changed in the last 50 years. What has changed is the food environment and that we are bombarded with marketing for unhealthy foods. We already know that the issue is even worse in some of the poorer communities.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham and the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin mentioned accessibility to healthier affordable food. No child should live in poverty; that is why our ministerial taskforce is exploring all levers available across Government to give children the best start in life. We will tackle food insecurity by rolling out free breakfast clubs in every primary school and continuing to provide free healthy food during the holidays for children who receive free school meals. It is really important that we continue with that.
There is no silver bullet for obesity. This debate has shown that obesity is not just about health; it is about food, tax, education, business, employment, advertising and more. It is both a national challenge and a challenge within local communities. Our health mission is focused on shifting towards a more preventive approach which will benefit this agenda. In addition the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has announced an ambitious new cross-Government food strategy to work with the food industry to deliver on our goals for food security, health, affordability and the environment.
Obesity is a hugely complex challenge, but tackling it is a key part of achieving the change needed in this country. This Government are committed to taking effective action and I look forward to updating Members on what we do next.
Dr Opher
I thank the Minister and all who have spoken because this has been a genuinely interesting debate about an essential topic. I would just like to say in summary that the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) needs to go into the supermarket when she is really busy and pick up a tasty healthy snack. If the Government can get people doing that, it will be fantastic. I say to the Minister that the House is behind him being radical; it is not the time for non-intervention.
I thank all who have contributed. I missed supper and am starving, so I am going to go and have a healthy snack.
Hon. Members
Hear, hear!
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of food and diet on obesity.
Business without Debate
Crewe Railway Station
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to address this House on an issue that I am no stranger to. I want to speak today to recognise the importance of Crewe railway station not just to my constituents, but to the entirety of Cheshire East, north-west England and the nation as a whole.
Crewe station has been a linchpin of the UK rail network. It is one of the only train stations in the country that provides 360° connectivity that is unparalleled in its scope and criticality to the region. The station has 12 platforms, over 3 million passengers pass through annually, and more than 2,000 trains use the station each week. It is incredible to look at the connections and destinations we can travel to from Crewe. Passengers can directly travel to Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, London, Cardiff, Glasgow, Edinburgh and countless other destinations.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
One destination that people cannot currently get to from Crewe is Middlewich in my constituency. Middlewich is about eight and a half miles from Crewe, and its population has increased by 1,000 over the past 10 years and now stands at around 14,500. Indeed, it is the largest town in Cheshire without a railway station. Does my hon. Friend agree that as Network Rail reviews and renews the infrastructure around Crewe, provision needs to be made for additional capacity for future services, including to Middlewich?
Connor Naismith
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a strong case for his constituents in Middlewich.
Connor Naismith
It is fair to say that the opportunities that opening the station of Middlewich would present to the country and to Cheshire are exciting.
Crewe station is a genuine strategic asset for local and national infrastructure.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. Does he not agree that to meet carbon targets, connectivity is essential, and rail is needed as an integrated part of that plan? That, as well as subsequent upgrades to existing stations and frequent bus links to rail stations, all must be part of the net zero conversation.
Connor Naismith
It would not be an Adjournment debate in this place without an intervention from the hon. Gentleman, and he is correct. I will go on to say a little more about the importance of rail to our climate objectives.
The significance of Crewe train station goes beyond its enormous benefit to the rail network. It provides and has provided in its lifetime critical economic benefits.
Rachel Taylor
My hon. Friend often shares that wait at Euston station, waiting for the screen to turn from blue to green when getting on the train to Crewe, which also stops at Atherstone in my constituency. My constituents in North Warwickshire and Bedworth have had to bear the brunt of the works digging the tunnel through from Birmingham to link HS2 to the north. Does he agree that linking the HS2 network all the way to Crewe is essential for opening up economic prosperity to that area? That will make the heartache worth while for my constituents.
Connor Naismith
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I completely agree that connecting phase 1 of HS2 up to Crewe is crucial, if we are to see the real economic benefits of that project.
Aphra Brandreth
I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this Adjournment debate, and he is speaking well on this important topic. We are constituency neighbours, and while Crewe station is in his constituency, it provides vital transport links and an important boost to the local economy for many people living in my constituency. Does he agree that Crewe station is in urgent need of upgrades and that, in the light of the cancellation of phase 2 of HS2—assuming that is happening—we have an opportunity to improve existing infrastructure, such as electrifying the track between Crewe and Chester? That would do so much to benefit my constituents and pave the way for the reopening of Beeston and Tarporley station.
Connor Naismith
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention and for bringing the opportunity to work on a cross-party basis across Cheshire and the wider area to secure key benefits for our constituents. She is absolutely right to say that electrification of the line from Crewe to Chester would be transformative. It could deliver an additional £25 billion in gross value added and create more than 70,000 jobs over the next 20 years. Those are crucial benefits.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I have the pleasure of being the constituency neighbour of both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth). My hon. Friend has touched on the communities who benefit from Crewe station, including those from Madeley, Balterley and Betley, and many of my Newcastle-under-Lyme constituents use Crewe on a daily basis. Indeed, when Avanti chooses to mess up its timetable, I have to go to Crewe when I am going home.
As my hon. Friend has touched on HS2, does he agree that rebuilding trust will be really important? Many of my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme, as in Stoke-on-Trent South, have faced the brunt of the failures of HS2 to date, and many people have waited many years for compensation. So as we look to have this conversation, trust and restoring trust must be at its heart.
Connor Naismith
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right to point out some of the negative impacts of the HS2 project on his constituents and, indeed, some of my constituents. It is right that the Government have taken the necessary steps to get the mismanagement of the project under control. It is right that they continue to do that and fully engage with those negatively impacted so far.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend knows, Stoke-on-Trent sits on an offshoot of the west coast main line and provides a vital east-west link between Crewe and Derby, which also requires electrification. Does he agree that previous HS2 plans severely reduced services through Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, and that any future developments must not negatively impact this vital region for growth?
Connor Naismith
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. That is why it is crucial that those of us who are impacted by HS2 and the discussion around improved future rail infrastructure work together to get the best possible alternative plan on the table and being looked at.
I will make some progress. Within my constituency, Crewe station has strong ties to engineering and advanced manufacturing firms such Bentley and Alstom in Crewe. In the surrounding regions, many businesses exist because of the opportunities that Crewe railway station provides, enabling supply chains and employment opportunities that would otherwise be out of reach and ensuring the growth of local businesses.
Crewe railway station serves as a vital node along the west coast main line, which connects London to the midlands, the north-west and Scotland. Approximately 75% of all freight trains that use the west coast main line pass through Crewe. Again, that is testament to the paramount nature of the station.
However, while I speak openly about the amazing things that Crewe station offers to transport connectivity and our economy across the country, it is clear to both residents and experts that it faces significant challenges. The catchment area around Crewe station is seeing rapid growth because of its connectivity to major economic centres in the UK.
Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
My constituents in Alsager, Holmes Chapel, Sandbach and the surrounding villages either drive directly to Crewe or take trains and transfer there. Does my hon. Friend agree that my constituents, like his, want more reliable journeys through an improved station and, moreover, that better transport links could bring economic growth for passengers and others?
Connor Naismith
My hon. Friend is quite correct, and do not let anybody tell hon. Members that I secured the debate on narrow constituency interests. The fact that Crewe is such a central hub for connectivity means that better connections from Crewe station mean better connections for people living in Sandbach, Holmes Chapel, Alsager and others, since they are largely travelling via Crewe for major journeys. [Interruption.] Indeed, Newcastle-under-Lyme as well.
The challenges in terms of Crewe station are significant. We see growth in population due to the station’s links to those major economic centres. Its platforms are too few and too narrow to cope with projected future demand. On top of that, the entrances have limited space, and there are often leaks in the roofs, which do not cover entire platforms. Indeed, we saw an example of that on social media just before Christmas when one of the roofs caved in and there was water pouring through the ceiling, which the staff had to collect in buckets. Crewe rightly boasts of its position as a rail hub, but the condition of the station is ill befitting as a front door to a town with such a rich rail heritage.
Andrew Cooper
My hon. Friend is being extremely generous in giving way. He makes an excellent point about the state of Crewe station. I have spoken to business leaders who had been considering investing in Cheshire but have been put off by the sheer dilapidation of the station. Does he agree that, given that HS2 appears not to be coming to Crewe, we must not wait to invest in the station and bring it up to a 21st century standard?
Connor Naismith
I agree. I described the station as the front door to Crewe, but it is also the shop window for investment due to the rail heritage in the town. It is important that we use the station as an advert for jobs and investment across the town and the wider region. Whether or not HS2 ultimately comes to Crewe, that will be an important issue.
The ability of Crewe station to act as a critical transport hub has been constrained by the challenges that I have described. Even Network Rail has identified the need to improve platform capacity and length to accommodate modern stock and address concerns about accessibility and integration with other modes of transport. The challenges that Crew station faces to function effectively also limit capacity on the west coast main line, so its limitations have a cascading effect on the entire rail network, reducing reliability and increasing journey times.
The plans for HS2 would have seen Crewe form a central cog in phase 2a, connecting high-speed rail in Birmingham to the wider network as a key interchange. Projections suggested that doing so could support the creation of 100,000 jobs and provide billions to the regional economy in the short term, not to mention the logistical benefits for rail operators.
It is no secret that my view is that the last Government botched the job, as they did in so many areas. That left many communities across the north of England—perhaps none more so than the one I am proud to represent—demoralised and disillusioned that they had been left behind once again. The last Government’s decision has also meant that the modernisation of Crewe station has been put on hold, which raises even more questions about its future. It is not just Crewe station but the rail infrastructure in our country that, unfortunately, is not up to standard. That will only be exacerbated as time ticks on without crucial investment.
I am thankful to Network Rail, alongside Siemens, for recently completing a £190 million overhaul of signalling around the station over the Christmas period, for the benefit of the wider west coast main line. However, I truly believe that there is a need to go further. Should the Government not commit to phase 2, they should at least consider the many outstanding alternatives that organisations have put forward, and the position of Crewe within those plans. Projects such as Growth Track 360 and the Midlands-North West rail link are two vital pieces of work that recognise the need to invest in our railways for growth across the region, and Crewe features as an integral part of both proposals.
Investing in rail goes beyond the economic benefits, despite their substantial nature. It is also about addressing the climate crisis, getting cars and heavy goods vehicles off the road and getting modern electrified rail lines to create a transport system that is fit for the future. In 2022-23, rail contributed 1.3% of the UK’s total emissions from transport, but represented a proportionately overwhelming 9% of all passenger kilometres travelled.
Furthermore, a journey from London to Glasgow by train uses less than a third of the kilograms of CO2 of petrol cars, and around a sixth of the CO2 of the equivalent journey by aeroplane. Transport in total accounts for 27% of all greenhouse gas emissions—the largest contributor in our society—and shifting journeys from road to rail can play a crucial role in the Government meeting their climate targets. Rail travel is one of the most sustainable forms of transport. By investing in Crewe, we can invest in the electrification of the line and a green future for local transport.
I thank the House for listening to my speech and for listening to me sing the praises of my constituency’s rail heritage. I offer my apologies for bending the Minister’s ear on the subject once again, but I truly believe that transport, particularly rail, will be a central part of any effort to boost economic growth in the north. I am certain that my constituency is ready and waiting to play an active role in that.
I firmly believe that Crewe station is a national treasure. Despite the short-term constraints on public finances, which are absolutely clear and which I fully appreciate, I hope that Ministers see that, too. I gently urge the Government to recognise how critical this station could be for future infrastructure projects and alternatives to the northern leg of HS2, which can bring vast benefits to regional economic growth and improvements both to rail connectivity and to infrastructure.
The Government must take decisive action to secure the future of rail in our country. Crewe station has been the beating heart of our rail network for almost 200 years. I ask the Minister to ensure that that remains the case.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) on securing this debate. I thank him for continuing to raise the importance of Crewe as a railway station. He never needs to apologise for his advocacy. He is right that Crewe is and will remain a vital component of the rail network. After all, it was the opening of the railway station in 1837 that led Crewe to develop from a small settlement to the proud railway town that it is today.
My hon. Friend is clearly not alone today in recognising the importance of Crewe railway station. I welcome contributions from a range of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), for Congleton (Mrs Russell), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) and the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth)—not forgetting, of course, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
As my hon. Friend set out, and as other Members have confirmed, Crewe station is now a crucial transport hub, providing 360° connectivity where four regional lines converge with the west coast main line, providing long-distance links to London and Scotland and the great cities of the midlands and the north, as well as more local and regional links.
Mrs Russell
I want to take a moment to raise the issues around Sandbach station. There is no accessibility at the station, which serves approximately 20,000 people. The only route to Manchester for Sandbach residents is to take a train to Crewe, where they can change accessibly —assuming that everything is working—and then take a train back to Manchester. Does the Minister agree that this needs addressing?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to advocate for more accessible journeys on the rail network, because we want everyone to be able to travel on our railways. I am sure that my officials will have heard those comments, and I will convey them to my noble Friend Lord Hendy, the Rail Minister, as I am sure he will want to look at that.
Crewe’s location is strategically important to the railway, thanks to the connectivity that it provides for passenger, freight and engineering services. No other UK station is served by more individual train operators. With more than 470 services on a typical weekday, there are just 30 minutes between the last train of the evening and the first of the following morning. It is not surprising to hear that since its opening it has formed a critical part of the UK’s transport infrastructure and will no doubt continue to do so for future generations.
Transport is an essential part of the Government’s mission to rebuild Britain. For that reason, we committed to improving rail connectivity across the midlands and the north while working with devolved leaders, as we set out in our manifesto. The previous Government’s decision to cancel phase 2 of HS2 was met with huge disappointment by leaders and communities in Crewe and, frankly, a lot more widely. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme highlighted, the previous Government’s appalling mismanagement of HS2 has undermined trust in our ability to build new railways and perhaps in rail more broadly. For the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, it meant the end of a decade of efforts to plan the benefits that the new high-speed railway would have brought to the town. Now, with the difficult position that this Government have inherited, our immediate focus is on the safe delivery of HS2 between Birmingham and London at the lowest reasonable cost.
However, while we have been clear that we cannot reverse the previous Government’s decision to cancel phase 2 of HS2, we recognise concerns about rail capacity and connectivity between Birmingham and Manchester. We are considering a range of potential solutions that will have to be carefully balanced with the very difficult fiscal context in which we are operating. That could include optimising services, delivering smaller-scale infrastructure interventions or the proposals set out by the Mayor of Greater Manchester and the Mayor of the West Midlands for a new railway line between Birmingham and Manchester.
Adam Jogee
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. May I urge her, as she seeks to consider options on capacity, to ensure that there is real and meaningful engagement with the communities that will be impacted, as mine in Newcastle-under-Lyme and those in many other parts of north Staffordshire have been? Without that real engagement, the trust that we talked about earlier simply cannot be built.
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the work to engage local communities is vital as we develop future transport plans.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich for his passion in advocating for his constituency and ensuring that any eventual decisions take into account the role and needs of Crewe station, which plays such a vital role on the west coast main line. Of course, there are other constituencies that we need to consider, too. Those will certainly be on the Government’s mind as we consider different options. My colleague the Rail Minister had a very constructive meeting with Mayors at the end of last year; he also met my hon. Friend to discuss Crewe’s role in the proposals.
Rachel Taylor
Does the Minister agree that decisiveness is the key to delivering rail services at a reasonable cost, rather than the continual escalation in cost that was a symptom of HS2 under the previous Government? Does she also agree that in looking at connectivity between London and Manchester and increasing capacity all the way along the west coast main line, the time to act is now, because there simply are not enough trains to carry the passengers who need to travel in those directions?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the need for more capacity. The west coast main line is particularly constrained. What we know from the previous Government’s approach is that constantly chopping and changing on a project is precisely the way to lead to an escalation in costs and delays to delivery. We do not want to repeat those mistakes.
There is little that I can share with the House at this stage about the future, but I can assure all hon. Members that we will continue to take their views and those of local leaders into consideration as we develop our plans. While we recognise the uncertainty that this period of review is causing local residents, it is important that we take the necessary time not only to get this right, but to learn lessons and ensure that there is no possibility of this Government’s repeating the mistakes that characterised the last Government’s plans for major rail investment. Where they failed so miserably, we are determined finally to deliver the benefits that local communities expect. I assure all hon. Members that this Government will not tolerate poor performance on our railways and that we will hold operators to account.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is making an excellent speech. While she is looking at the future connectivity plans, may I make a pitch that she should consider connectivity between Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester airport? We do not currently have a direct service, but business leaders in Staffordshire tell me that it would be huge for our growth potential.
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I am sure that the Rail Minister will have heard him loud and clear and will consider the matter.
In the meantime, while we consider the range of proposals that have been drawn to my attention this evening, there is a clear need for interventions at Crewe station to address ageing assets. The Government have provided Network Rail with £44.1 billion for renewals, operations and maintenance in England and Wales for the period between 2024 and 2029. In turn, Network Rail has developed a programme of interventions to deliver essential renewals in the Crewe area.
I am pleased to assure hon. Members that this work will include replacement of the station’s roof and renewal of power systems, signalling and track assets such as switches and crossings. This is a significant programme amounting to over £270 million, which needed to be re-scoped and re-planned at pace to follow the last Government’s decision to cancel phase 2 of HS2. As the scope of the work develops, we will collaborate with Network Rail to identify any opportunities for investment above and beyond essential renewals. In parallel, officials in the Department for Transport are already working with Cheshire East council on better integration between transport modes at Crewe, including road and rail.
I reiterate that transport is an essential part of the Government’s mission to rebuild Britain. Crewe has played and will continue to play a central role in our railway network. We will continue to work with hon. Members, local leaders and the communities that they represent to ensure that we get the delivery of infrastructure projects right. As I have said, I welcome this debate, because it is vital that we continue to discuss our transport projects openly and transparently. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions this evening and for their continued contributions as we work to deliver the railway network that our country requires.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited Compensation Scheme Order 2024
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited Compensation Scheme Order 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris.
The draft order relates to the 2023 resolution of Silicon Valley Bank UK. It confirms that the former shareholder of SVB UK, which was the Silicon Valley Bank US parent entity, is not entitled to compensation following the transfer of the bank’s shares to HSBC UK Bank plc. The order has already been approved in the House of Lords.
In early March 2023, SVB UK experienced severe financial distress, resulting in rapid deposit outflows. That crisis, originating from its US parent entity, quickly spread to its UK subsidiary. By Friday 10 March, the Bank of England, acting as the resolution authority, declared its intention to place SVB UK into a bank insolvency procedure, absent any meaningful new information. Over the subsequent weekend, a private sector purchaser was identified. On Monday 13 March, the Bank of England exercised its power under the Banking Act 2009 to transfer the shares of SVB UK to HSBC UK Bank plc. The action was taken following consultation, with the Prudential Regulation Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority, His Majesty’s Treasury and the Bank of England reaching the judgment that the resolution conditions set out in the Banking Act had been met.
The Banking Act requires HM Treasury to make a compensation scheme order when the private sector purchaser power is exercised. This order is a mechanism to establish in law what compensation, if any, is due to former shareholders of the resolved firm. The Bank of England undertook a provisional valuation when placing SVB UK into resolution. That valuation found that SVB UK’s shareholder would not have made any recoveries had the firm been placed into a bank insolvency procedure. The shares had no value at the point that the firm was transferred and therefore no compensation is due to SVB UK’s former shareholder. The Bank of England then commissioned an independent valuation of SVB UK, which confirmed that no compensation is due to the previous shareholder of SVB UK. The order before us today confirms in law the findings of those valuations: that the former shareholder of SVB UK is not due any compensation.
I thank all staff of the PRA and the Bank of England’s resolution directorate for the swift and effective action they took regarding SVB UK, and indeed officials and Ministers at HM Treasury at the time. They worked tirelessly over the course of that weekend to deliver a solution that protected financial stability and achieved the objectives of the special resolution regime. The resolution of SVB UK shows that the UK’s resolution regime works well, as well as the importance of the UK having the necessary tools to handle bank failures effectively. The transfer of the firm to HSBC UK was a good result for SVB UK’s customers, who retained access to their money and the banking services they relied on; for taxpayers, with the firm being stabilised without any use of taxpayer support; and indeed for the UK economy, with the UK’s vibrant technology and innovation sector protected from severe disruption.
The compensation scheme order for SVB UK is a necessary step to formalise and conclude the resolution process, and to confirm that no compensation is due to the former shareholder. This decision is based on thorough valuations and adheres to the legal framework established by the Banking Act 2009. I thank the Committee for its attention and welcome any questions that the shadow Minister or other hon. Members may have regarding this matter.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to be standing opposite—albeit in opposition—the newly promoted Minister. I look forward to spending an entire week locking horns with her.
Let me start by saying that it is fantastic that we have seen some very swift action. It just goes to show that the Banking Act 2009 has worked extraordinarily well, and how efficiently the previous Government did when it came to resolving this financial problem. A huge amount of work was done by a number of people in the previous Government, including the Treasury Committee, which looked at the Financial Services Act 2012, and the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which looked at the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013. A huge amount has gone on and it is reassuring to see that when something does go wrong, the system cuts in incredibly quickly and resolves the situation very well. The Minister and I will be talking directly about bank resolution on Wednesday; it is incredibly important that we work together on this, and I think we are probably in broad agreement.
This order raises an incredibly important point about shareholders—the people who take the ultimate risk in any sort of business. Shareholders are at the bottom of the list of people who are compensated in the event of the winding-up of any privately owned institution. That is the right thing—at the end of the day, private shareholders need to take that risk—but we need to remember that they are taking the ultimate risk in any business. We in this place sometimes beat them up, because we do not necessarily like to see them make too much money, but part of the risk-reward ratio of the current system is that shareholders take a lot of risk; we should not attack them for taking good returns, given the fact that they can lose every penny of their money. The other point about shareholders is that they provide an incredibly useful service in the governance of any institution: making sure that something like this situation should not happen. There was a single shareholder in this case, but multiple shareholders do provide good scrutiny, and we need to address the tone with which we talk about them.
The instrument is absolutely right, and the Opposition recognise that the system is working extraordinarily well. We will certainly not oppose the order; it is very good that we are finally delivering the last part of the resolution. I have no more to add.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I have no wish to detain the Committee, but I do have some questions about the particular process we are discussing, not least because, as I understand it, it was the first time that the Bank of England had used its resolution powers as they currently stand. What happened has wider implications that we need to think about for the health of financial services in the City of London.
My first question is this: could the Minister confirm that there is no litigation outstanding either in the UK, or contemplated in the UK or in the United States, that this measure seeks to obviate? If that is the case, will she elaborate a little more about the decision making of the Bank of England during the process? Although she outlined what happened at a very high level, she did not fill in all the detail. For example, as I understand it, Silicon Valley Bank UK Ltd, the subsidiary, was a perfectly solvent banking entity within the UK. It applied for £1.8 billion of liquidity funding to the Bank of England when its parent was getting into trouble. A decision was made by the Bank of England at that point to deny funding to that bank. Has there been any review of that decision? Is the Treasury aware of why the funding was not made available? What assessment was made by the Bank? In future, if other banks apply for similar liquidity funding when overseas parents are in distress, what criteria will be applied so that everybody knows exactly what they are doing?
The Bank then initially made a decision to put SVB UK into an insolvency procedure—it did not immediately go for resolution—and in that insolvency procedure, obviously depositors were due to get their £85,000 as guaranteed, or £170,000 for joint accounts. But something changed over the weekend, because by the Monday, the Bank had changed its tune and was going for what has now resulted, which is the sale to HSBC for nothing. Do we know why it made that initial decision? My guess is that it changed its mind because the depositors went nuts. Lots of tech start-ups had large deposits with that SVB UK, and much of it had been money raised from shareholders. There was obviously quite a lot of political intervention, but what were the influences on the Bank’s decision making? If it changed its mind because the Treasury, the PRA or the FCA said that it should change its mind, why was its initial decision therefore deficient? What does that say about the Bank of England’s decision making?
Finally, given that that was the first time that those powers were used, I wonder whether there has been a review by the Treasury—as one might expect in such a petri dish experiment situation with such a valuable industry—as to whether what happened was overall beneficial both to the UK economy and to financial services. The Minister will understand that financial services are extremely valuable to this country and that anything that creates a sense of instability will detract from the attraction of the UK for financial services. The structure of Silicon Valley Bank, specifically—that it had a subsidiary in the UK, rather than a branch—was meant to promote the sense of stability and independence of regulation that would, in theory, have allowed it to trade independently.
All those questions need to be asked. If there has not been a review, I would be grateful if the Minister, given that she is new to the job, might acquaint herself with the issues in a little more detail and satisfy herself that this measure is not a negative for overseas banks establishing branches here, because since this situation, I cannot see —I have had a look, although I may have missed it—that any overseas bank has done so. If they have not, is this why?
Emma Reynolds
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, for his kind words—we will be spending a lot of time together this week. I also thank him for what he said about shareholders and the principle of risk and return. We know that there is a correlation between the risk taken and the return due, but that does not always work out. Proportionate regulation encourages considered risk-taking, which we are in favour of; we want to see entrepreneurship in our economy. Maybe this is a more philosophical debate that we could have on another occasion, but I agree with a lot of what he said about shareholders providing scrutiny. We certainly should not criticise them for being shareholders, because we need good shareholders for the functioning of the economy.
Let me turn to the remarks of the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire and attempt to answer all of his questions. Obviously, I was not in the Treasury that weekend—one of his colleagues was—so if he wants a very detailed description of those events, he probably should speak to the shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). That is my first recommendation.
Secondly, there is certainly no litigation in this case. It is for the Bank of England, as the independent regulator, to weigh up and balance the different trade-offs involved in this sort of decision making. I cannot speak for the Bank of England, but I point out to him that only 14% of deposits would have been covered by the financial services compensation scheme. He might think that that would have been a better eventuality.
Kit Malthouse
That is not what I am implying at all. In this instance, I think that resolution was the right thing to do. What I am saying is that the Bank of England’s first decision, on the Friday, was to go for an insolvency and only pay out 14% of the deposits. It was only after pressure was brought to bear on a supposedly independent bank over the weekend that the strategy was changed to a resolution and the bank was transferred to HSBC. In fact, the Bank of England issued a press release to the effect that it was putting the bank into the insolvency procedure, and then over the weekend changed its mind. I am asking about the integrity and quality of the Bank of England’s decision-making procedure, given that it initially proposed to do exactly what the Minister says should not have happened.
Emma Reynolds
I cannot speak for the independent Bank of England, so I gently suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he has questions or concerns about the timing of the issuing of a press release on the Friday in March 2023, he should convey them to the Bank of England.
I will take up the right hon. Gentleman’s recommendation to look into the issue more closely, but I also gently say to him that—due to the work of officials in the PRA, the Bank of England and indeed the Treasury—overall we had a good outcome, because by the Monday morning, before the markets opened, we had a smooth transfer from SVB UK into HSBC. My point is that in the end depositors were in a much better position on the Monday morning than they had been on the Friday; regardless of the choreography, we got to the right outcome in the end.
I think that there has been consideration of the resolution process, although not necessarily of the timing of the events mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, on Wednesday, myself, the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Wyre Forest—and other hon. Members here present will debate the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill on Second Reading. That Bill has already been through the Lords. It seeks to ensure that in cases such as this one, we are protecting taxpayers. Indeed, what was good about this case was that SVB UK was in a relatively good economic position, but I could envisage a situation where that was not the case, and we will discuss such issues on Wednesday.
I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Family Visas: Income Requirement
(1 day, 2 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
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 652602 relating to the income requirement for family visas.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard, on my first opportunity to present a debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I thank Shannon Korkmaz for launching this petition and starting a very important conversation that has allowed those affected to have their voices heard today. It is a great achievement that the petition gathered more than 100,000 signatures. It reads:
“We believe it’s inhumane for the Government to do this to British citizens and others entitled to family visas, and that this policy is punishing people for failing in love with someone who has a different nationality.”
The minimum income requirement for family visas was introduced in 2012, and at that time it was set at an annual income of £18,600. The coalition Government stated that the purpose of the policy was to ensure that family migrants are fully supported when integrating into the UK, while not being a burden on the taxpayer and public services. The figure of £18,600 in 2012 equated to £26,250 in December 2024, based on the Bank of England’s inflation calculator.
An individual needs a family visa to live with a family member in the UK for more than six months. The income threshold remained at £18,600 from 2012 until April 2024, when it was increased to £29,000. A person can apply for a family visa to live with a spouse, fiancé, child, parent or relative who will provide them with long-term care. Spouses on the family visa can stay in the UK for two years and nine months, while a fiancé can stay for six months. Income can be from employment or self-employment, cash savings above £16,000, money from a pension, or non-work income such as property rentals or dividends.
In April 2024, alongside a collection of other policies aimed at lowering net migration, the then Government raised the income threshold to £29,000. Their intention was to incrementally raise it to £34,500 and finally to £38,700 by early 2025, as highlighted in the petition. In response, the petitioners stated:
“Most people in the UK don’t make £38,700 per year and now may face the choice of a lifetime without their partner or leaving their own country because they fell in love and can’t meet the financial requirement for the family visa.
We believe it’s inhumane for the Government to do this to British citizens and others entitled to family visas”.
I will say more about that later.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
Many of my constituents have signed the petition, and they say that they struggle to have a family life in the UK due to the previous Government’s 55% increase in the income requirement for family visas. That includes many individuals who work in charities or in public services and are giving back to our communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that those unattainable requirements make it disproportionately difficult for some families to be together?
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. Does she agree that the right to family life, which is rightly enshrined in article 8 of the European convention on human rights, is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals are afforded? Central to this debate is systemic inequality, such as the fact that women are still paid less than men due to entrenched structural pay disparities, and that young people who are in the early stages of their careers often earn less as they build their futures.
Systemic inequality also affects those from lower-income regions such as West Yorkshire and Bradford, which I represent. The hon. Lady will be aware that the Centre for Cities released a report this morning saying that those who live in places such as West Yorkshire, including my constituency, earn £20,000 less. Does she agree that the current system being considered by the Migration Advisory Committee should be scrapped, and that a fair requirement would be one in line with the national living wage?
Irene Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; much of what he has raised is in my opening speech.
Since the petition was launched, and following the general election last summer, the Government announced that the threshold would be held at £29,000 until the Migration Advisory Committee completes a new review, which is expected to be in June 2025. However, when an e-petition reaches 10,000 signatures, it gets a Government response, as this one did in January 2024. The then Government outlined their arguments as to why the minimum income requirement should be increased to £38,700, stating that the policy was part of a larger package intended to curb immigration and net migration. They added that the minimum income requirement was set with the intention that family migrants
“could be supported at a reasonable level…and to help ensure they can participate sufficiently in everyday life to facilitate their integration into British society.”
However, in early 2023, the House of Lords published a report called “All families matter: An inquiry into family migration”. It stated that
“applicants and sponsors can feel like second-class citizens and are reluctant or unable to take full part in British society before reaching settlement.”
It summarised:
“Current migration policies are at odds with the Government’s commitment to family life.”
It further stated that the family migration rules are “complex and inconsistent”, they fail “both families and society”, and they “should be simplified”.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The hon. Member said that the rules are counterproductive to family life. Does she agree that they are also counterproductive to growing our economy? In my constituency, where I have a number of signatories, the challenge is recruiting people into in-demand areas such as hospitality, research and dentistry. The rules are stopping the economic growth that we need.
Irene Campbell
I do not disagree with those comments.
In response to the proposed policy changes, the non-profit organisation Reunite Families UK filed an application for judicial review in June 2024, supported by the Good Law Project. It argued that the rise of the minimum income requirement to £38,700 was made without analysis and in breach of critical public law duties. Many migrants’ rights groups and campaigners have been outspoken against the minimum income requirement. In relation to the legal case, Caroline Coombs, the director of Reunite Families UK, who is in the Gallery today, said:
“In the last decade, this policy has somehow continued to exist under the radar devastating countless British and settled citizens and their partners, families and children. The general public have no idea this policy exists until sadly they come up against it”.
Furthermore, Reunite Families found that the minimum income requirement can prevent integration of mixed nationality families for myriad reasons. The rising financial costs of visas and savings lead to instability, and temporary visas also make it harder to secure housing, access education and secure appropriate employment. It is important to note that those on temporary visas cannot claim benefits and can access NHS services only by paying into the NHS through the immigration health surcharge—I will say more about that later.
Many people might say that this is an anti-family policy. Increasing the minimum income requirement can create single-parent families and put an incredible stress on all members of the family, particularly children. A British citizen abroad, for example, may have to return to the UK for a variety of reasons, such as a need to care for an elderly relative still residing in the UK. If they do not already meet the minimum income requirement, they may have to return to the UK alone and wait for an indefinite amount of time to reunite their family.
It is said that many people who return to the UK are unable to gain employment immediately, but they may only begin their family visa application once six months of minimum income can be evidenced, or one year of income if they are self-employed. It is important to note that the non-British partner’s earnings are not included. If the applicant’s income drops below the threshold, the Home Office application process, which can take up to three months, must begin again.
Statistics from the Office for National Statistics show that the threshold of £38,700—I am sorry to keep repeating that figure—is unrealistic for most people living outside London and south-east England. The median annual income is £38,500 for those living in Scotland, £35,600 for those living in Wales and £34,900 for those living in Northern Ireland, so many people in valuable—indeed, essential—jobs are paid less than £38,700 annually. Yet the people who do those jobs will be penalised for wanting to marry someone of a different nationality and are left with few other options, if any, to prove that they would be able to support a partner.
For example, salaries for newly qualified teachers in England start at £31,650, for newly qualified nurses at around £30,000 and for police constables at £28,500. Also, if a store assistant at Aldi makes £12.40 an hour, that equates to £25,792 yearly, assuming that they work 40 hours a week.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is even rarer for young people who come to this country to earn £38,700, which means that most of them are excluded under the proposed threshold?
Irene Campbell
I do agree.
To continue, an executive officer working in the Department for Work and Pensions earns £29,500, while an administrative officer’s salary in the civil service starts at £23,000. Nobody in any of those groups would qualify for the proposed minimum income requirement through their salary alone.
Indeed, the Migration Observatory, an independent group at the University of Oxford, estimated that around 50% of the UK working population would be unable to qualify on earnings alone with the current income requirement of £29,000, and that 70% of the working population earn less than £38,700. In addition, the charity Reunite Families UK has emphasised that the higher threshold affects women more than men, because women are more likely to have caring responsibilities and to earn less on average, and are also less likely to work full time. The median earnings of UK women who work full time are below £38,700 across all age groups; the highest median earnings figure is £35,250 for 40 to 49-year-olds.
The Migration Observatory also pointed out that the new set of policies would mean that, in certain circumstances, British workers in the same job as migrant workers would face stricter restrictions than migrant workers. For example, health professionals in the NHS who come to the UK on a health and care worker visa would be able to bring partners who are not UK citizens with them.
It is clear that the visa rules are long and complex, with many exceptions and differing prices for all circumstances. The family visa fee is £1,846 per person if the applicant is applying from outside of the UK and £1,258 per person if the applicant is applying from inside the UK. Those fees are non-refundable, so if an application is unsuccessful, the applicant is obviously not refunded.
In addition, there is the immigration health surcharge, for which the minimum cost for two and a half years is £2,587.50 for an adult and £1,940 for a child. If people are staying in the UK for two years and nine months, the charges rise to £3,105 for an adult and £2,328 for a child, and if they are staying for five years, they rise to £5,175 for an adult and £3,880 for a child. Reunite Families UK advises that the total cost of all those fees for a family on a five-year route to settlement can be over £10,000, while the total cost on a 10-year route can be around £20,000.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that if the Government feel that some minimum income requirement is necessary or appropriate, it should never be greater than that necessary to render an immigrant unable to claim benefits, as Theresa May’s original sum was intended to do?
Irene Campbell
I am trying to interpret the question. I am not sure whether I agree—I would need to fully consider it—so I will carry on.
Imran Hussain
The hon. Lady continues to make an excellent case and she is right to focus on the extortionate fees. She mentioned the current figure of over £10,000, which ordinary working families struggle to pay or simply cannot pay. She also referred to Reunite Families UK, which does excellent work and has said that 23% of families have to wait longer than seven years to be reunited. Does she agree that that continuing injustice needs to be addressed? Those are not just stats, but real people.
Irene Campbell
I agree, and this debate is an excellent opportunity for that.
It is also important to highlight that, while applications under the work routes can be processed in just 15 working days, family visas can take anywhere from eight weeks to 12 months. Often, families report requiring specialist legal advice to navigate the system successfully and to try to avoid those long waiting periods, which obviously has a financial impact as well, although I do not have any costs for that. Delaying arrival does not decrease net migration, but it does increase the personal and financial strain on families. It could be construed that the policy effectively views a relationship ending and a family splitting up as a positive outcome, because then at least net migration figures do not rise.
A Reunite Families UK survey also found that the rules have a profound effect on children, with 92% of respondents saying that their child’s mental health had been affected. The separation that many families are forced into exacerbates such problems, putting even more pressure on the single parent. Parents report that younger children often cannot understand why the family have been separated, while older children who do understand the system become anxious for their missing parent. It could be said that those children are growing up in a society that implicitly tells them that their family are not welcome here.
Compared with those of other countries, this family visa policy appears to be unusually strict. The Migrant Integration Policy Index, which measures immigration policies in 52 countries, including all EU member states and OECD countries, ranks the UK second to bottom for family reunification policies. Many countries with strong immigration policies do not have such a high minimum income requirement for family visas. For example, Australia has no earnings threshold for family visas, and Spain and the Netherlands require yearly income to equal annual social security payments. That highlights that our current system is not the only option.
In overall numbers, the percentage of family visas in proportion to other entry visas has remained low and stable at around 5%, as the Migration Observatory’s research found last year. Additionally, the Home Office’s December 2023 policy paper, “Legal migration statement: estimated immigration impacts”, was unable to predict the exact percentage of family visas that would be affected by the change, stating only that it
“may have an impact on the number of family migrants deterred in the low tens of thousands.”
The Government have stated that there will be no further changes until the new Migration Advisory Committee review is complete, which is expected to be in June. I hope that I have outlined the complexities in this area and highlighted that other options could be considered for the family visa that would allow the Government to control net migration while still allowing the average British citizen to marry and live with the person they love. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other hon. Members and the Government response.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. I welcome the children to the Gallery—I think this is the first time that I have seen children here. The Chair is neutral in the debate, but you are all very welcome.
Right hon. and hon. Members should bob, as some of you are doing, even if you are on the speaking list, so that the Clerks have your name. At the moment, there is no time limit, but I hope that hon. Members will bear one another in mind when speaking.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate, and Shannon for starting the petition. I am grateful to be able to speak here, on behalf of the hundreds of my constituents who signed this petition, to highlight the negative impacts of the previous Government’s policy to increase income requirements for family visas. Those negative impacts have been present since the inception of this income requirement, but were made substantially worse by the increase.
We are talking about a tax on love: an ugly policy that fundamentally discriminates against migrants’ families and implies that love, and family reunification, is a privilege that people must earn enough to afford. Just last week, I was contacted by a constituent who was forced to choose between being separated from his wife and moving to her home country of Taiwan. I will quote what he wrote to me after deciding to leave:
“Now in the UK we judge people by their country of origin and the content of their wallet... If you have money then you are welcome here, if you don’t, then don’t you dare fall in love with someone foreign.”
Is that really the country we want to be? As we have just heard, around half of UK employees earn less than the current income requirement of £29,000 a year, and as job offers and prospective earnings for the non-UK citizens are not included, meeting that requirement is made even more difficult for many couples from overseas who just want to be together. That is not to mention the regional inequality factor, as average salaries differ throughout the UK, so a person’s ability to love who they love may also depend on where in the UK they live and work.
I do appreciate and welcome the Government commissioning the Migration Advisory Committee to review this horrible rule, but I note with disappointment that in the meantime the income requirement remains in place. It is clear that the intention of this policy was not to benefit UK society, or even the economy; it is simply a cruel attempt to appear tough on migration. In fact, this policy harms society and public finances. There are cases where enforced separation has caused UK citizens to be reliant on state benefits, which they would not be if their partners were allowed to live with them. There are also often costs on the NHS and social services, as the trauma of families being forced and torn apart causes long-lasting mental health issues.
Children in affected families are often aware of this policy and feel its impacts deeply. They report feeling sadness, loneliness and guilt, with some explaining that they struggle to sleep or to focus at school. Often, children are aware of the financial strain caused by this rule, and some kids told Reunite Families UK that they were trying to earn money themselves to help with costs. The impact of this policy on children and young people can last a lifetime, affecting their mental health, financial stability and sense of belonging. I wonder why! As RFUK told the Migration Advisory Committee, this has long-term impacts on people’s integration into society and their economic performance.
I reiterate that this is a cruel and nasty policy. It fundamentally discriminates against people based on who they love and how much money they make. It is unjust and it undermines its own purposes, sending an offensive message to families and their children. I urge the Government to get rid of it without delay.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this debate. I would also like to thank the more than 300 petitioners from Stroud who have made this debate possible, and the Petitions Committee for allocating parliamentary time to this crucial debate.
As we have heard, the previous Conservative Government hiked the minimum income requirement to £29,000, and were seeking to raise it even further, to £38,000, all under the guise of controlling immigration. That does not seem to have worked, but let us be clear about this policy and what it has actually achieved: it has torn families apart and inflicted hardship on ordinary people. So I welcomed my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary commissioning the Migration Advisory Committee to conduct a review of this area as soon as we entered government.
In November, I, with 25 of my colleagues, wrote to the Migration Advisory Committee calling for the family visa income requirement to be lowered to the equivalent of the full-time national living wage. That adjustment would enable thousands of families to reunite, while still supporting financial stability; it would be a compassionate shift away from the previous Government’s harsh stance. I am hopeful that the committee will come to the same conclusion.
Some people have sought to misrepresent the truth about this matter when discussing immigration. It is our duty to bring the facts to this debate. In 2024, the UK issued 3.4 million visas; 87,000 were family visas, which accounted for 7%, and the spousal visas made up even less—less than 5%. Moreover, the narrative that foreign spouses are a burden to taxpayers is fundamentally misleading. The Home Office’s own guidelines explicitly state that foreign spouses have no recourse to public funds. In fact, they contribute through taxation, national insurance and an annual immigration health surcharge of £1,035.
I also worry that the cost of enforcing this policy is greater than the financial benefits. As we have heard, families forced into single-parent situations often require more Government support. As a GP, I have been seeing a patient and their family; the children are suffering because they cannot live with both parents, which has caused a lot of mental health difficulties. This policy is not only inhumane, but economically flawed.
This debate is not just about numbers on a spreadsheet and arbitrary thresholds; it is about real human lives and love, and the human cost is immeasurable. I will highlight the case of one of my constituents, Rebecca Gray, who played a pivotal role in securing the debate by rallying her social media followers to help to get this petition over the 100,000-signature line.
In 2023, Rebecca and her husband married in Turkey and began the spouse visa application process, knowing they had to meet a savings requirement of £88,500. To achieve that, they both worked 18 hours a day, seven days a week, while living in a high-risk earthquake zone in Turkey. Despite losing 250 extended family members in the February 2023 earthquake, Rebecca persevered, but because of the UK’s rigid financial rules, they remain separated, with no certainty about when they can reunite. The cost of applying for a spouse visa is now a staggering £14,256 and increasing regularly. Rebecca is essentially exiled from her own country because she does not meet an arbitrary financial threshold.
Rebecca’s case highlights further issues with the present policy. Rebecca is having to go through the cash savings route, which means she must hold £88,500 in savings. The average 25 to 34-year-old in the UK holds about £3,500 in savings. That just goes to show that the £88,000 figure is absolutely ludicrous.
The current policy means that family reunification is a luxury; as we have heard, it is only for the very richest. The £29,000 minimum income threshold is already the highest in the world, and 75% of applicants would not be able to meet the even greater figure of £38,700 proposed by the previous Government. It is deeply unjust that many British citizens working in our NHS, our police forces and other key public services now earn too little to live with their spouse in the UK. This is a matter of basic fairness. Families belong together. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister, when the review is published, to commit to a policy that will keep families together.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening this important debate and the petitioners for succeeding in bringing the debate to the House today.
It is remarkable to be here in Westminster Hall and find such unanimity among Members from both sides of the Chamber—indeed, from all parties, it would appear. The current income requirement for family visas simply means that, in my constituency, social care positions go unfilled, the NHS struggles without the necessary workforce, and care packages are in some instances impossible to deliver, even though the funding is there. The additional money for the NHS and the overall Scottish budget is of course welcome, but money alone will not solve our problems. I remind hon. Members that the previous minimum salary threshold, before April 2024, was £18,600, so the increase brought in by the previous Government represents a significant increase in that requirement.
As has been said, would-be migrant workers are also hit by other rules, such as the extraordinary fees and the up-front health charges that provide yet another brutal barrier. It is not as though the Government’s stated intention of training local people to fill labour shortages has any hope of success. We are at virtually full employment in my constituency, but there are shortages in health and social care, in the farming and fishing sectors and in hospitality and tourism. Those are vital issues in my constituency, and I think the hon. Members for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) would agree. This utterly unacceptable position is a betrayal, and it shows how vindictive the Tories were in their ill-fated and crude attempts to control migration numbers in the post-Brexit world. Remember, if we were still in the single market, we would not have this issue with the free movement of people.
Scotland is already suffering as a result of Westminster’s Brexit and migration policies, and the old Tory and now new Labour proposals will inevitably undermine our public services. It is interesting to note that the current leader of the Labour party in Scotland claims that he is in discussion with the Westminster Government about a bespoke Scottish visa; I welcome clarification from the Minister in her speech if that is the case. As a former colleague, Stuart McDonald, so eloquently put it last April:
“The Government are basically saying to many of our children and to future generations, ‘You can fall in love with whoever you wish, but if you want to marry a non-UK national and you are not earning whatever arbitrary sum we decide, you will need to go and live somewhere else. You can have the love of your life. You can have your country and the right to live here. But you can’t have both.’ That is just not normal.”—[Official Report, 23 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 223WH.]
International students and academics make a contribution in excess of £5 billion annually to the Scottish economy. If the Government recognise the contribution of international students and academics, why would they defend this inherited policy that threatens to prevent future cohorts from making a similar contribution?
The SNP stands totally opposed to the current measures, never mind the increases or any potential increases. This is our motivation—and, it would appear, the motivation of the leader of the Scottish Labour party—for asking for devolved powers in this area. We have voted against these measures in the past, and we continue to call for immigration powers to be devolved to Scotland. I say again, for the avoidance of doubt, that money alone will not fix our problems. If the Labour Government want to reset our relationship with the European Union, here is one of the key areas to consider. We do not need simply to resist any increase in the earnings threshold; we need to bring it down.
Can the Minister defend the current salary threshold and explain its logic, given that she inherited this figure? I for one—as well as other Members and the wider public, I am certain, some of whom are watching this debate—would like to know the evidence on which it is based.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on her excellent speech. She, along with other Members present, has raised many important points. I also thank Reunite Families UK and the families we have with us today. This issue is of great importance to my constituents, and I previously worked in this area when I was a lawyer.
I will start by asking: why the £29,000 figure? That question has come up many times from my constituents. The previous Government suggested that the new threshold would prevent families from becoming a burden to the taxpayer. They did not define what a burden was, although presumably it has something to do with access to public funds. However, those who come to the UK on a spouse visa do not have access to public funds and must pay the immigration health surcharge, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned. Assuming the previous Government were referring to recourse to public funds, a couple with no children with an income of around £22,000 and eligible for £500 of housing costs would not be entitled to universal credit, so why the £29,000 figure?
In response to a petition, the previous Home Secretary made it clear that their intention was to bring the minimum income requirement in line with the minimum salary threshold for a skilled worker, with no reason or rationale for why that threshold was chosen. Leaving aside the fact that the UK financial requirement is among the highest in the world, as Members have said, 50% of UK employees earn less than that threshold. Most jobs at entry level in many industries start at the minimum wage. The minimum wage at 35 hours a week is roughly £20,000 a year, and that should be the benchmark for the minimum income requirement. It is not clear why low-income workers are being denied family reunification. As colleagues have said, are they not allowed to fall in love? Is that purely for higher earners and the wealthy? The fact that half of UK employees would be excluded by the rules demonstrates that the policy is discriminatory and disregards the fundamental human right to family reunification.
I have been given consent to share a story, but the name of the individual has been changed to give her anonymity. Sarah worked full time in the hospitality sector, and had done so for the last eight years. She raised her children, aged nine and 11, as a single mother, and she relied on her mother to help with pick-up and drop off at school. Sarah’s salary was £21,000. She went on holiday with her children and fell in love with a man while she was there. She could not uproot her children from school, and it was not viable to leave all of her family in the UK. While her income was already above minimum wage, it was not enough, so she considered different options. She did not have enough savings— she would have required £33,000—so she needed to get another part-time job, which would mean an extra 13 hours a week at minimum wage.
Sarah started to look for evening and weekend work, with the agreement that her mother would look after her children. She needed the two jobs, and she was happy to sacrifice her time with her children to ensure that she met the requirements. She got the job, but sadly her mother passed away, so she was left stranded with no childcare and no means of earning the extra income.
Let us be clear that the real reason for introducing the minimum income requirement for spouse visas was the hostile environment policy. Over the past few years, successive representatives from the Tory Government have engaged in rhetoric and developed policies laced with xenophobic, populist appeal. Phrases such as “taking back control” and “hostile environment” have created an atmosphere of resentment towards migrants. Those phrases have been used to scapegoat migrants, painting them as a threat to national identity and economic stability.
There is also an intersectional element, as the policy discriminates in terms of wealth, location, age, gender and ethnicity. It affects women more than men, and it definitely affects younger people more. In 2017, the Supreme Court recognised that sponsors who were female or from certain ethnic minority groups are disproportionately affected by the minimum income requirement.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said, we are only talking about 5% of the migration figures, but I want to stress how important it is that we get this right, as it affects people’s lives. People cannot and do not control who they fall in love with, and our policies must reflect that. Our policies should be fair, non-discriminatory and based on a proper rationale.
Imran Hussain
The hon. Lady is an expert and she makes a powerful case. A point that has not been raised is about the further complications caused by delays and bureaucracy at the Home Office. In an example from the hundreds of cases I deal with, somebody provided his wage slips, but there was a discrepancy of pennies between the money that went into his bank account and his wage slip, so the case was refused. I know that the Minister is rightly interested in this area, and I hope that she will be able to address that point. Does the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) agree that we need to address the bureaucracy, delay and complications at the Home Office?
Abtisam Mohamed
I agree with the hon. Member that many cases have been delayed as a result of incompetence and staff not being trained properly. The constant churn in the Home Office has meant that people are just treated as numbers and not as real human beings who have families who need to be reunited.
People cannot control who they do or do not fall in love with. Our polices should be fair, and currently they are not. They should not be discriminatory. They should be based on a proper rationale, not plucked out of thin air. Colleagues have made excellent points about bringing the income threshold in line with minimum wage—that should be the lowest benchmark—so that regardless of their income, people should meet the threshold.
I said earlier that 50% of employees do not meet the income requirement. We should do everything we can to ensure that everyone who is in work and paid the minimum wage is able to meet the requirements.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate.
I have a speech written, but it is always interesting just to speak my mind. Prior to my election as Member of Parliament, when I was a councillor I had hundreds of constituents contact me about the relative increase to an income of £29,000. Many constituents were concerned that they could not bring their spouses to the UK because they would not meet the threshold, and many were having to work more than one job. As hon. Members have rightly said, people working in certain sectors would simply not be able to meet the threshold.
Apart from that, there is a disparity when we look at where people are earning. Incomes in London are substantially greater than in the rest of the country, but that in itself is unfair because we all know that expenses in bigger cities are far greater. Someone earning £30,000 in Birmingham would be able to retain, say, £15,000, whereas someone earning £40,000 in London may only be able to retain £5,000 as a contribution towards the spouse and the marriage working out in the UK.
There is an enormous disparity but, let us face it, this is not about having a spouse or a family to provide for. If it were, the Government would be at real odds. If it is about affordability, what do we pay a couple in the UK over the age of 25? I think it is about £600 a month. Obviously there are housing costs associated too, but there is simply no comparison.
This policy was driven by the last Government to feed into the narrative that they were doing something about immigration. They were going to curtail the amount of people coming in, and the one way they could do that was to increase the threshold. That argument does not succeed either, however, because people who are wealthier or have assets can still marry and bring their spouses into the UK. This policy would harshly affect countless British citizens who have chosen to marry partners from abroad.
Stats from the Office for National Statistics clearly identify that the median annual salary in the UK falls well below the benchmark, so this will be impossible. People will have to choose between living with their loved ones in the UK or leaving the country. They may find themselves in the very difficult position of having to leave family, work and so on, to go to a country where they cannot get a job or do not have the skills or experience to take on employment. There are enormous difficulties.
This proposal is a punitive measure against those who have committed no crime other than falling in love. We know that love has no borders, especially in a world of social media. So many young people go on to social media because it is a global environment where people fall in love all the time. This policy will impact so many people. The Home Office, which is tasked with protecting and supporting our citizens, should not be placing barriers between family members; it should support and facilitate their union.
In seeking to protect the integrity of our borders, we must not lose sight of the integrity of our family values. I urge the Government to reconsider these draconian measures, remember their duty to the people they serve, and ensure that policy reflects both economic reality and the enduring importance of family unity. Let us not punish our citizens for their choice of partners; instead, let us support them in building their family lives, regardless of nationality.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on her very capable speech introducing the debate.
I speak today in recognition of the strength of the representations that I have received from constituents; I thank all those who took the time to write to me ahead of this debate. I accept—as, I think, all my constituents do —that all Governments face the challenge of striking the right balance between a fair and rules-based immigration system and the human right to respect for family life, but we are here today because the 2012 system does not strike the right balance. The results can be arbitrary, unfair and distressing for families.
As has been said, family life and love cannot be neatly divided by borders. The House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee report said that the family visa system can be “complex and inconsistent”, and drew attention to the processing delays and decisions that are sometimes very hard for constituents to understand, as other hon. Members have ably highlighted.
There are a number of examples of unfairness in the policies and practices that this Government have inherited. The inflexibility of the cut-off takes no account of variations in earnings across the country. There is affluence in my constituency, but by and large wages are low and we have not fully recovered from the closure of the Longbridge plant 20 years ago. In a ranking of all constituencies by average income, Birmingham Northfield is 35th from the bottom.
In my constituency, the average full-time employee’s salary is about £31,000, but that does not take account of the self-employed, whose earnings tend to be lower. That figure is almost £3,000 lower than in Birmingham as a whole, almost £4,000 lower than in the west midlands overall and more than £6,000, or 16%, lower than the average for the UK. More than half of people in work are below the current threshold, and that would rise to more than 70% under the former Government’s plans.
The £29,000 threshold is already an extremely challenging barrier for many families to meet because the jobs are just not available. I have constituents who work two or more jobs in an effort to meet that threshold, at great personal cost. There is a clear risk that if the inherited plans proceed, the right to respect for family life will become the preserve of a fortunate few, concentrated in just a few neighbourhoods within the city of Birmingham.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) made the point well: the previous Government confused income with skill. It has been the stated ambition of successive Governments to attract highly skilled migrant workers. Two of the constituents who contacted me today hold doctorates, including in shortage occupation areas, but, due to a combination of altruism in their choice of career and family circumstances, they do not have large incomes. One of them, Dr Gillian Thies, is in the Public Gallery. She fought for years for her husband, Patrick, who is also with us, and their children to be allowed to join the rest of the family in Birmingham. The applications were initially refused and were granted only in 2018, after significant political and press attention.
Patrick is now a senior physician associate at the Royal Orthopaedic hospital, and his application was strongly supported by the NHS. Indeed, his work in the UK is of ongoing benefit to patients and the wider community, but Gillian and he had to fight to bring their children to the UK from America; distressingly, their adopted children—two young teenagers—were turned around and put on a plane at Heathrow. They are now heavily involved in the Reunite Families UK campaign. I want to place on the record an appreciation of how they have responded to their ordeal: by working to benefit others who find themselves in comparable situations today.
Gillian and Patrick are not alone in Northfield. Another of my constituents estimates that he has spent £50,000 to try to resolve his wife’s case, which he says is an exceptionally generous subsidy to airlines, hotels and lawyers. Would it not be better for the economy if that money could be spent in south Birmingham instead?
I welcome the Government’s decision to ask the Migration Advisory Committee to look again at this policy. I hope that the review, and the Government’s response to it, will take account of the House of Lords Committee’s recommendation that the financial requirement should be revisited to become more flexible and to focus on the likelihood of the future income of the family unit, rather than solely on the sponsor’s past income. The review should also take wider account of a family’s whole circumstances and of the differences in labour markets and local wages, and focus on improving the administration of applications so that fewer families are left in limbo for so long and the system is ultimately fairer and more compassionate.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I extend my thanks to the petitioners, those who have organised the petition, Reunite Families UK and the Petitions Committee for facilitating this very important debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening it. I congratulate her on setting out the arguments and issues in a most comprehensive and understandable fashion. I want to highlight a particular case that affects my constituent, but first I want to say a few general words to supplement and complement the existing contributions, which have all been absolutely excellent.
The sharp increase in the minimum income requirement for family visas is not an ill-judged policy; it is a cruel and discriminatory policy. It makes it painfully difficult for many British citizens to live and work in the UK with their foreign-born spouses, causing completely unnecessary emotional suffering and economic strain on families. Since the policy was last debated, a plethora of evidence has highlighted its disproportionate impact on women, single mothers and those working in relatively low-wage regional economies outside London.
When the previous shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), raised concerns about the lack of justification for the dramatic minimum income requirement increase from £18,600 to £29,000, it became clear that the decision was not grounded in evidence, but seemed to be, in the words of my hon. Friend,
“plucked out of thin air”. —[Official Report, 23 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 237WH.]
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Would my hon. Friend agree that an underlying problem is not only the size of the proposed increase, but the arbitrary nature of the level? As has been mentioned, perhaps it is linked to the skilled workers level, but that seems to be an arbitrary figure as well. Would he agree that we need to ensure that people out there have faith in the system by ensuring that the levels at which it is set are not arbitrary?
Grahame Morris
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention; he is absolutely correct. Although I am pleased and delighted that the Government have commissioned a Migration Advisory Committee review, which represents a step forward towards evidence-based policy making, the harm caused in the meantime cannot be ignored. The review is due in June, but in the interim thousands of families are still separated.
The policy disproportionately affects many groups, including, as I have said, women and single parents—often mothers with caring responsibilities, particularly those outside London and the south-east, which is a particular concern. It affects regions where wages are low, such as in Wales and Scotland. In regions such as the north-east, where median annual earnings are £15,000 lower than those in London, many hard-working families simply cannot meet the £29,000 per annum threshold. These regional disparities exacerbate existing inequalities and penalise those who simply do not earn as much. The Migration Observatory’s 2023 research shows that 16% of British men working as employees do not earn enough to sponsor a spouse visa, but for women the figure skyrockets to 35%. That means that over a third of British women are currently ineligible to apply for a spousal visa should they need to do so.
I have permission to share the story of my constituent Lindsay Thompson, who contacted me last year. She has been married to her husband Orlando for six years. He still lives in Jamaica owing to the Home Office policy. He did not meet their son until the little boy was two years old because of the pandemic and travel bans, compounded by their inability to meet the mandatory visa threshold. Lindsay is a dedicated mother. She works tirelessly to provide for her son. She has applied for and secured multiple promotions at work and now only just earns £29,000 a year. She must sustain that income for six months before being eligible to apply for a visa. She lives in constant fear that the Government will raise the threshold even further to the £38,700 proposed by the Conservative party.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. Many of my Slough constituents have contacted me about this very issue. Many families simply want to be together in the UK to get on with their lives. I appreciate what my hon. Friend just said about the Government looking at the £29,000 threshold being looked into by the Migration Advisory Committee. Does he not agree that the hangover from the previous Conservative Government, who wanted to increase the threshold to an exorbitant £38,700 in early 2025, is extremely unfair, especially given that the UK average wage is way beneath that?
Grahame Morris
Absolutely. My hon. Friend reinforces previous comments and interventions. He is absolutely correct. That arbitrary threshold is worse for individuals who live in relatively low wage economies such as my constituency and others. Within regions there are areas of low wages, too, as has been highlighted by other hon. Friends.
The emotional toll of the policy on parents and children is immense, with long-term impacts on mental health and wellbeing. We must recognise the policy’s human cost. Families like Lindsay’s deserve better. Everyone has the right to a family life, whether they live in London or Easington in County Durham. It is unacceptable that regional and gender disparities in pay continue to determine whether families can live together. The policy was conceived as a desperate attempt by the previous Conservative Government to reduce immigration. However, experts and campaigners consistently argue that raising the threshold has had a minimal impact on net migration figures. What it does succeed in doing is tearing families apart and inflicting unnecessary suffering.
When the MAC review is published, I urge the Minister to give full weight to the evidence of disproportionate harm caused by this policy, and to consider the voices of campaigners, charities and affected families, who have called for a compassionate approach to immigration policy. I politely remind her that this is a Tory legacy policy that can be reversed if there is the political will, so let us ensure that no family is left behind, and that our policies reflect fairness and respect the right to family life.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, for my first contribution to a Westminster Hall debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on introducing this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and congratulate Shannon on bringing the petition forward.
I want to highlight the difficulty that various sectors are having in attracting and retaining workers, the risk that increasing the income requirement places on those sectors, the situation it puts families in, and the importance of accessible family visas for attracting people to the country. Young, happy, united and economically productive families are the building blocks of what we should define as a good economy.
First, I welcome the Government’s quick decision to hold off on further increases to the minimum income requirement and to allow the Migration Advisory Committee to assess the impact of the requirement. We should be led by evidence and proper process, not forced into knee-jerk reactions to the broken migration system, which is still reeling from the hammer blow of the Tories’ botched Brexit deal and other factors.
The current system punishes those on lower and middle incomes who have done nothing except fall in love with somebody from another country. That not only affects families but risks exacerbating employment and skills challenges across the economy. In fairness, when the initial decision to introduce a minimum income requirement was made in 2012, there was a public consultation and detailed analysis by the MAC, but no such analysis was done when the most recent changes were implemented, leaving the full economic effects unclear.
We know, however, that there are workforce shortages across all our constituencies in industries as diverse as housekeeping, hospitality management, bricklaying, carpentry, plumbing, manufacturing and data analysis—to name a few that have approached me as their constituency MP. According to the Fraser of Allander Institute up the road, one in four employers reported unfilled vacancies last year.
It is also important to note that the skilled worker visa eligible occupations list does not cover all the areas facing worker shortages or all the sectors under pressure. A quick look at one recruitment website through which many young people trawl regularly—though I admit I have not done so since June—shows that jobs paying below £29,000 constitute a significant proportion of the work in those industries facing staff shortages. Raising the threshold to £38,700 would substantially exacerbate that.
It is difficult to see how the increase in the income requirement would not deter people from making the UK their home. In my experience of working in hospitality, workers from abroad were often of immense value to that part of the economy, especially in providing longevity to businesses that often deal with a high staff turnover.
A system that denies that ability to long-term partners also means that children often have to deal with one parent in the UK and one permanently abroad. Not only is that incredibly challenging personally for the child, but it limits opportunities, with a parent being forced to raise their child in a single-parent household without the support of their partner who is abroad. That places unnecessary financial and emotional pressure on them, at a time when we should be supporting everyone in our community to live and work well.
My final point is about the importance of attracting people to live in the United Kingdom. When family reunification is made so difficult for people on low and middle incomes, it sends the message that they are not welcome. I know from my inbox how hard the process can be. One constituent has been waiting for six years to obtain a visa for their spouse, and they commented that they were left exasperated by an uncontactable and uncommunicative Home Office. Six years: I can only imagine if that were my spouse, brother, son, nephew, niece or friend. We are deterring young and happy families under the Tories’ previous policies.
That negative sentiment is reflected in the fact that the Migration Integration Policy Index ranks the UK as second to bottom of 56 countries for ease of family reunification, which should be a gauntlet for us to pick up and improve on. Alongside the tricky business—I acknowledge that it is tricky—of balancing migration policy, we should welcome families who are ready to contribute to our society and build their lives here.
In summary, any further increases to the minimum income requirement for family visas would worsen skills shortages in vital industries such as hospitality, construction and healthcare, while also making it more difficult for families to stay united. The Government’s recent decision to hold off on further increases is a welcome step, and I urge them to consider the economic impact of the changes and the disruption that they would cause to families, workers and businesses when making any future decisions.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I start by acknowledging the more than 100,000 people who have signed this petition nationally, including almost 200 people in my constituency, and I particularly thank Shannon for starting it. They have come together to call for a fairer and more compassionate approach to family visas. This issue deeply affects families across our country and we must address it with care and urgency.
The Liberal Democrats believe that the immigration system should work for everyone. We want to make sure that it works for our country and for our economy while treating everyone with dignity and respect. That means that the current system must change because, sadly, the previous Conservative Government’s changes to the income requirements for family visas fell far short of that goal.
The decision to raise the minimum income threshold for a sponsoring partner to £29,000 a year and to propose further increases to nearly £39,000 a year has rightly caused widespread fear and anxiety for families. We ought to feel concerned for them and the countless people who have been left feeling uncertain about their futures or forced to make impossible decisions about their lives.
More than 10 hon. Members have spoken in this debate. I have heard that the policy is a tax on love and that it rips families apart, but I have not heard anyone speak in favour of it—I am pleased to say—which shows that the system is broken and needs changing. We must acknowledge the humanity of the situation: those arbitrary thresholds fail to take into account the many families who simply cannot meet them through no fault of their own. They disproportionately affect women, people in lower paid but essential jobs, and those living outside London and the south-east, where wages are often lower.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
We have heard a lot about sector-specific issues, and about regional inequalities and inequalities of race and gender, but does my hon. Friend agree that there is also an issue for people with disabilities? My constituent is an armed forces veteran who now suffers from PTSD and a range of other disabilities that leave him able to work only part time, which would massively hamper his ability to hit any threshold. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure that the system that works for everyone and gives back to the people who have served our country?
Mr Forster
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who highlights that the policy has an impact on disabled and vulnerable veterans. The Government must acknowledge that and take it into account as they change the system to ensure that they support those people. He makes a valid point in support of his constituents.
Given that no one has said that they support the current policy, why did the Conservative Government make that move to cause so much disparity and hurt? Putting the threshold so artificially high prevents British citizens on lower incomes sponsoring their foreign spouse or partner moving to the UK. It does not save money—it hurts our financial system and our economy—but it is there to make them look tough on immigration. Everyone can see through it. Roughly half of UK employees earn less than £29,000 a year, so I am disappointed and surprised that the Conservatives, who often say that they are the party of traditional family values, trashed our family values in this country by introducing this policy and breaking up families.
The Government’s own Migration Advisory Committee is now reviewing those financial requirements. Although we welcome the pause on further rises, families need certainty, and they need it now. We need to know that they will not be torn apart by policies that prioritise the system over compassion; we need to protect them. We must ask ourselves what kind of country we want to live in—one that values the bonds of family or one that tears those bonds apart based on arbitrary numbers and a statistical threshold picked out of thin air. Do we follow hard data or do we follow the love that our constituents feel for each other?
The Liberal Democrats are committed to reversing the unfair increases in income thresholds for family visas. Families should not have to live in fear of being separated. They deserve stability and the opportunity to build their lives together in the UK. I urge the Government to act swiftly, to halt any further increases and to ensure that family visa requirements are fair and proportionate. Families matter. No one should have to choose between their loved ones and their home.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), the Petitions Committee and the 101,321 members of the public who have requested that we debate this topic. Those 100,000 people have asked us to discuss this policy because, as many hon. Members have movingly pointed out, it can be overwhelmingly important to those it affects. There are few things in life and in human nature more powerful than the desire to be with those you love. To be separated from your husband or wife by a national border is no small thing. Indeed, for those it is happening to it can feel like everything.
The role of Government is to determine what is right for the country, not for any one person, couple or family, so we must place this discussion in its national context: managing overall migration to Britain. The public have consistently asked successive Governments to lower migration. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) has said, the last Government, like Governments before them, promised to do exactly that, but, again like the Governments before them, did not deliver. Migration has been far too high for the last two decades and remains so.
The issue of migration is not just about quantity. It should be a fundamental principle of our system that people who come to this country do not cost more than they contribute; what they pay in tax should at least cover the costs of the public services that they use. The policy that we are debating was implemented by a Conservative Government as part of an attempt to cut migration and to ensure that those who come here do not represent a net fiscal cost. Clearly, it was not enough, but it was a step in the right direction.
In delaying reform, the new Government seem to be making the same mistakes as previous Governments. To refer again to the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex, we in Westminster
“cannot pretend that immigration comes only with benefits and no costs”.
This is all too clear to the country. People can see it in their wages, which are stagnating because they are being undercut, and they can see it in their rent soaring, in how hard it is for their children to get on the housing ladder, in the cohesion of their communities and in the pressure on their GPs, dentists and infrastructure.
Tom Gordon
I am slightly surprised. The hon. Lady raised a number of points about her own Government’s record and what they were unable to deliver, so does she not find it a little jarring that she is now preaching to this Government about what they should do?
Katie Lam
It is the job of the Opposition to hold the Government to account, whoever is in government. As I have acknowledged, these are mistakes that we made, so very few people are as well qualified to suggest what behaviour could be avoided in the future. That is part of our job and our duty to the public.
Seamus Logan
I appreciate the humane remarks that the hon. Lady made at the beginning of her speech, but is she not now guilty of continuing to slur migrant workers who come to this country as representing a net fiscal drain on the economy? These workers contribute to our economy, and they represent a contribution to its growth.
Katie Lam
It is far from a slur. I will come on to more statistical analysis of fiscal costs in a moment, but if a migrant to this country represents a fiscal cost, that is a fact, not an insult. This Labour Government, as we know, have also committed to lowering migration. We do not know by how much or when, so I would be grateful if the Minister could enlighten us on that.
The hon. Members for Stroud (Dr Opher) and for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) pointed out that spousal and partner visas accounted for only 5% of visas issued last year, but 58,000 people is still a huge number, and it is only our—to quote the Prime Minister—“sky-high” level of overall migration that makes it seem small. In fact, it is almost as much as the entire cumulative net migration to Britain for the 25 years leading up to 1997. In the past four years, more people have moved to the UK under a spousal visa than live in Exeter, Ipswich or Blackpool, and that number is rising sharply. There is some indication that, as the previous Government tightened the rules around dependants and salary thresholds for work visas, people turned to the family route instead. Numbers in the second quarter of 2024 were up a third on the same time in 2023 and were four times as high as in the second quarter of 2022.
It is worth remembering that any and every Briton can marry any foreign citizen who can get a visa here. This country has issued some 5 million visas in the past five years, so the system is hardly stringent. The question is not, “Should British citizens be able to bring their foreign spouses to the UK?” It is, “Does it benefit the country as a whole for British citizens on lower salaries to bring foreign spouses here who are unable to get a visa any other way?” By definition, those spouses fall outside the already excessively broad conditions that we have set for being able to come to this country in their own right. I hope it is some comfort to the constituent of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) to hear that there is no minimum income requirement if a spouse is disabled or on personal independence payment.
The hon. Members for Stroud, for Sheffield Central and for North Ayrshire and Arran reminded us that those coming here have no immediate right to welfare support. That implies that there are no costs to that migration, but that is wrong. After five years, a person who has come here on a family visa can apply for indefinite leave to remain. If they get it—95% of ILR applicants are successful—they qualify for welfare, social housing, NHS care and everything else, and that costs money. The salary threshold exists because people who move to this country—even those who are spouses of citizens—must be able to sustain themselves financially within their family, or the whole system will fall to pieces, even more than it already has.
Ayoub Khan
On the point about what a spouse costs the state in terms of public services, surely the income generated by the working spouse would mean that they are not entitled to receive benefits of any kind.
Katie Lam
As I just explained, if the person has been here for five years and applies for indefinite leave to remain, and it is granted—as almost all indefinite leave to remain applications are—they are entitled to full welfare, social housing, NHS care and everything else the state provides to its citizens.
That point about indefinite leave to remain is especially relevant to family visas. Ten years after arrival, only 7%, or one in 14, of those who come here on student visas, and 21%, or one in five, of those who came on work visas, have ILR. For family visas, it is 83%, or five out of every six people. That is why the Migration Advisory Committee’s initial impact assessment of the policy found £500 million in welfare cost savings and £500 million more in public service savings from the introduction of the £18,000 minimum income requirement, and that was when far fewer people were using that route to come here.
But the cost-benefit analysis that counts is not that of the Migration Advisory Committee, but that of the British people. They want mass migration to end, and they are sick of broken promises. The numbers must come down across the whole system. The last Government were therefore right to introduce this reform, and it does not bode well that this Prime Minister, for all his talk, decided at the first opportunity to back out of it.
Katie Lam
As I have said, the policy was nothing like enough to reduce immigration. It was a step in the right direction, but it was deeply insufficient. Migration has the effect of increasing GDP in raw terms because more people are here but, on GDP per capita, most evidence indicates that it weakens our economy over the medium term.
On this reform and the many others required to our migration system, the Government must make difficult decisions. Those decisions may be painful, especially in the short term, for individual people, families or businesses, or the cost of the public service workforce. But that is the only way for any Government’s actions to match their words. The public have had enough.
Can the Minister confirm that the Government remain fully committed to bringing down migration? Can she confirm exactly what that means, by how much they will bring down the numbers and when, and that the Government understand that it must happen—indeed, can only happen—where it involves making hard and upsetting choices for the good of our country? With that in mind, can the Minister confirm whether it is the Government’s intention to maintain this policy? If they will not make that commitment today, can they at least commit to the fundamental principle behind it—that those who come here, or bring others here, should be able to support themselves financially and not represent a net cost to the state over the long term? Does the Minister therefore agree that the salary threshold should increase to whatever level is necessary to ensure that that is the case?
Finally, I am conscious that those who have been granted indefinite leave to remain are then able to sponsor a spouse. Can the Minister tell us how many migrants on skilled worker visas, care worker visas and shortage occupation lists—I believe that amounts to 2 million visas since the start of 2021—the Home Office expects to apply for ILR when eligible? How many spousal visa applications does the Department then expect to receive from those people? Further, based on demographic, level of income and number of dependants, what do the Government expect that to cost? What discussions are being held between the Home Secretary, the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions on how these pressures will be met?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank all those from across the Chamber who have contributed to this important debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for moving the motion on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I also thank Shannon who started the petition and the over 100,000 people who signed it. The petition was concluded before the general election, but it has been brought forward for debate in the House.
It is important to address the point raised by the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) about the delays in Home Office cases. That is a separate matter from the one we are discussing. However, I will say that we inherited a Home Office with utterly chaotic systems. The huge amount—£700 million—spent on the Rwanda scheme and the diversion of caseworkers have partly contributed to the chaos that we have seen across a number of visa routes. I hope that we are starting to bring that under some control, so that applications can be processed more swiftly and people are not left waiting as long as they have been.
It is also important to make the point that migration has always been a part of our nation’s history. For generations, people have travelled here from all over the world to contribute to our economy, study in our universities, work in our public services and be part of our communities. Indeed, British citizens also continue to travel across the world and may choose to make their home abroad. We recognise and value the contribution that legal migration makes to our country, but as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), and all those across the House will be aware, we have said that net migration, which reached record highs under the last Government—over 900,000 in the year ending June 2023—is unsustainable. It needs to come down, and we have made that commitment. However, there has been a broader conversation in the contributions from Members across the House. I will endeavour to respond to the specific points raised, but first I want to set out the background to the minimum income requirement, or the MIR. I will set out how it came about and what our position is now.
As we know, appendix FM was brought into the immigration rules in 2012 to set out the requirements for family members wishing to come to or stay in the UK on the basis of their relationship with a family member who is British or settled here. It also brought the MIR into the immigration rules, with the aim of ensuring that family migrants could be supported at a reasonable level by their sponsoring family member so that, as has been raised, there was no unreasonable burden on the British taxpayer and to help to ensure that they had the independence and means to participate sufficiently in everyday life, to support themselves and to facilitate integration into Britain.
The right to family life is a qualified right, and the family immigration rules, including the MIR, carefully balance that right against the legitimate aim of protecting the economic wellbeing of the UK. Expecting family migrants and their sponsors to be financially independent is reasonable to both them and the taxpayer. In 2017, the Supreme Court agreed that this principle strikes a fair balance between the interests of those wishing to sponsor a partner to settle in the UK and the community in general.
When the MIR was introduced as part of the changes to the immigration rules, it was set at £18,600, following advice from the Migration Advisory Committee. At that time, the figure represented the level of income that a family could receive at which point they would cease to be eligible for income support. Between its introduction and April 2024, it was not increased in line with inflation or real wages or adjusted in the light of rising numbers of migrants using the route. The previous Government then decided to raise the MIR to bring it in line with the median income for skilled workers, which is currently £38,700. The decision was made without consultation and without the benefit of advice from the Migration Advisory Committee.
Shortly afterwards, the Conservative Government decided to implement the rise incrementally. The first increase, to £29,000, took place in April 2024, and no further changes have yet taken place. It is our view that any change must be underpinned by a solid evidence base and form part of a system that is fair, clear and consistent. To achieve that, as has been mentioned, the Home Secretary has commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to review the financial requirements in the family immigration rules. That includes the level of the MIR and how it can be met.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
A number of Members have raised concerns about the discrepancies in incomes and average earnings across different regions and nations of the UK. Can the Minister give us an assurance that the Migration Advisory Committee will look at those?
Seema Malhotra
Indeed, that is what we would expect.
The Migration Advisory Committee has already completed a call for evidence. It may be of interest to the House that that call for evidence, which gathered the views of stakeholders and those affected by changes to family rules and closed on 11 December, saw more than 2,000 responses—a record for a Migration Advisory Committee consultation. The comments received will inform the review being conducted by the Migration Advisory Committee. I am sure that many interested Members and their constituents will have taken part in that opportunity to provide views, because, as has been mentioned, a rich evidence base is essential to ensure that effective recommendations can be made.
The Migration Advisory Committee has also commissioned two pieces of research to independent research contractors: a survey with a sample of applicants to the family visa, and qualitative reviews with people who applied and those who were not able to apply. Fieldwork will start in the next few weeks, and further information can be found on gov.uk. The Migration Advisory Committee is an independent body, and I know that the review will be robust and transparent, considering the impact on family life, children, equalities and regional variations in income. It is expected that the MAC will issue its report in the summer, and we will carefully consider its recommendations before making any further changes.
I will address a few of the points raised by hon. Members from across the House. Some hon. Members called for us to scrap the MIR altogether. However, as I said, it is a long-established principle that family life in the UK must be on a basis that balances the needs of the family and those of the UK taxpayer, and that also enables family migrants to integrate into British life. The family immigration rules are flexible and contain safeguards to protect the right to family life.
It is worth highlighting a few of the safeguards that are currently in the rules, because that will inform some of the hon. Members who made contributions today. Those who cannot meet the core requirements of the rules, including the MIR, may still be granted leave if they have exceptional circumstances that mean refusing their application would be unjustifiably harsh. That takes into account the impact on children and considers their best interests. It is in accordance with our obligations under article 8 of the European convention on human rights. Where someone is granted leave on the basis of exceptional circumstances, they are placed on a longer, 10-year route to settlement, which is granted in four tranches of 30-month periods, with a fifth application for indefinite leave to remain.
The rules recognise that some sponsors will have reduced earning capacity as a result of disability or caring for someone with a disability. Therefore, an applicant whose sponsor is in receipt of certain specified disability-related benefits or allowances is exempt from meeting the MIR. Instead, they must meet a requirement for adequate maintenance, demonstrating that they can support themselves and their family without relying on public funds.
Tom Gordon
The Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), mentioned the point about personal independence payments. Obviously, not everybody who has a disability is eligible for every benefit; there are certain thresholds and requirements in order to get those statuses, and the conditions of people with disabilities might vary and change. How does that factor into what the Minister is saying?
Seema Malhotra
I am sure that those issues will have been raised in the responses that have come to the Migration Advisory Committee. It is right that the MAC is reviewing how the current financial requirements are operating, including looking at the impact on family units. It is important to mention that both the immigration fees and the immigration health surcharge may be waived based on what the applicant can afford.
I will briefly mention those who work for His Majesty’s armed forces in relation to the immigration rules. I note that the previous Government laid immigration rules in March 2024 that brought the MIR for His Majesty’s armed forces, including the Brigade of Gurkhas and the Royal Air Force partner route, in line with the armed forces salary threshold on completion of training, which was £23,496 for the 2023-24 financial year. That no longer includes an additional income requirement to sponsor a child. Tethering the MIR to the armed forces salary threshold takes into account the unique nature of their service, the armed forces covenant and the recruitment and retention of the armed forces in order to maintain national security.
Seema Malhotra
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber at the start of the debate.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman came in quite late.
Seema Malhotra
As always, the hon. Gentleman is welcome to catch me after the debate.
In relation to impact assessments, the previous Government published some initial analysis, which was referenced in the debate, on the volume impacts of the first stage of the minimum income requirement increase in December 2023, when the decision was announced. They committed to publishing the full analysis in the impact assessment, but that was not done when the rules changed or when the general election took place.
Impact assessments are important to enable scrutiny of the impact of the increase of the MIR. That is why we published the regulatory and equalities impact assessments for net migration measures under the previous Government in September and paused any further increases while the Migration Advisory Committee reviews the financial requirements in the family immigration rules. Once the MAC report has been received, a further equalities impact assessment will be completed to inform any further changes that are made.
To conclude, I thank hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. The Government’s position is clear: we support the right to family life and value the contribution that those from overseas make to our economy, public services and civic life. We recognise that that needs to be balanced as part of a fair, managed and controlled migration system.
Seamus Logan
The hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), speaking for the Opposition, described the public’s perception of these rules as being of great concern, as if there were a homogeneous view across the country. We know that is not the case: there is a different view in Scotland. During my speech I asked the Minister to confirm whether the leader of the Labour party in Scotland was in discussions with the Government regarding a bespoke Scottish visa. She has not answered that question yet, but I hope she will. Perhaps she can also confirm whether that might extend to partner visas as well.
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Member is right that views vary, but, in line with how the public see immigration, it is important that there should be a fair system that is controlled and well managed. It is extremely important for us to ensure we have controls around our system and not the utter chaos we saw under the last Government. Frankly, to say one thing and be doing almost the opposite is exactly what drives cynicism with politics and with control over immigration and our public services.
On the questions that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) has raised, I should say that I am in contact with a number of Members of the Scottish Parliament and other colleagues in the Scottish Parliament. The hon. Member will know our position because it is his colleagues who have raised the issue there. We will not be devolving immigration policy, because the issues that Scotland faces are the same issues faced in other areas. They also relate to labour market issues, whether that be pay, controls or conditions. It is important that we understand the issues, which is why I will visit Scotland in the near future. It is important to hear at first hand from those around the country, as we must have an immigration system that works for all parts of the United Kingdom.
The migration system and the MIR is an important issue. I recognise the concerns raised by hon. Members on different sides today and in the many pieces of correspondence I have received on this topic from Members, many of whom are here today. We must understand the impact of any potential further changes and ensure that policy in this area has a firm evidence base. I look forward to receiving the Migration Advisory Committee’s recommendations in the summer, which I am sure will inform the next steps we take and the debate in Parliament and across the country.
Irene Campbell
This debate has shown how important it is that families affected by the policy have answers soon with regards to their future in the UK. We have already heard the consequences of the long waiting times on families, particularly their children. I am proud to have represented this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. First, I thank the staff on the Petitions Committee for their assistance and hard work in preparing for the debate. I thank all the groups whose work I have been able to cite in the debate, particularly Migration Observatory, Reunite Families UK and Citizens Advice for their guidance and extensive research. Many thanks once again to Shannon for starting the petition.
We have had the privilege of hearing from Members contributing to this debate with varying views and ideas. It is clear that this is an issue important to constituents and that the minimum income requirement has a profound effect on families all over the UK. Finally, I thank the Minister for her response and for giving this debate the time and care it deserves. We are all looking forward to the new Migration Advisory Committee review this year and the guidance it will provide to the Government and all those affected by the minimum income requirement.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 652602 relating to the income requirement for family visas.
Written Statements
Higher Education Student Support
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
The Government announced on 4 November a significant package of measures to support students and stabilise the university sector.
We need to put our world-leading higher education sector on a secure footing in order to face the challenges of the next decade. Maximum fees for the 2025-26 academic year will increase by forecast inflation, 3.1%, providing additional financial help for higher education providers after seven years of frozen fees, which have resulted in their value falling by an estimated 28%.
The 3.1% increase to maximum fees for 2025-26 will help cement higher education providers’ roles as engines of growth in the heart of communities across the country and will mean they can continue to deliver high-quality education that boosts the life chances of those who choose this path.
Maximum tuition fees for a standard full-time course and the subsidised up-front loans available to students to pay their tuition will be increased by 3.1% to £9,535 for a standard full-time course; to £11,440 for a full-time accelerated course and to £7,145 for a part-time course for the 2025-26 academic year.
The increase in maximum tuition fees for 2025-26 applies to new and continuing students; however, higher education providers are autonomous and responsible for setting their own fees up to the maximum amounts.
In deciding whether or not to increase fees, providers will want to ensure that they can continue to deliver courses which are fit for purpose and help students achieve their ambitions. For continuing students, providers will also depend on their individual contracts with students, and providers will wish to make their own legal assessment of contracts when considering fee increases.
From the start of the 2025-26 academic year, a lower maximum fee limit of £5,760 is being introduced for foundation years in classroom-based subjects. A lower tuition fee loan limit of £5,760 is also being introduced to match the new tuition fee limit. We recognise the important role that foundation years play in promoting access to higher education, but we believe they can be delivered more efficiently, at lower costs to students.
Students will receive additional support for their living costs in 2025-26, with the largest cash increases for students from low-income families. This approach ensures that the most support is targeted at the poorest students, while keeping the student finance system financially sustainable.
Maximum undergraduate loans for living costs will be increased by forecast inflation, 3.1%, in 2025-26 with as much as £414 additional support for students on the lowest incomes who need the most help.
I am also announcing today further changes to student support for the 2025-26 academic year that will benefit students.
Maximum disabled students’ allowance for students with disabilities undertaking full-time and part-time undergraduate courses in 2025-26 will increase by 3.1%. Maximum grants for students with child or adult dependants who are attending full-time undergraduate courses will also increase by 3.1% in 2025-26.
We are also increasing support for students undertaking postgraduate courses in 2025-26.
Maximum loans for students starting master’s degree and doctoral degree courses from 1 August 2025 onwards will be increased by 3.1% in 2025-26. The same increase will apply to the maximum disabled students’ allowance for postgraduate students with disabilities in 2025-26.
Bereaved partners and children of Gurkhas and Hong Kong military veterans discharged before 1997 who have been granted indefinite leave to enter or indefinite leave to remain will not be subject to the three-year ordinary residence requirement but will instead need to be ordinarily resident in England on the course start date to qualify for student support and home fee status. This change is being introduced as these students may find it difficult to meet the normal ordinary residence requirements for student support and home fee status.
We will expect the higher education sector to demonstrate that, in return for the increased investment that we are asking students to make, they deliver the very best outcomes both for those students and for the country.
We have set out our five priorities for reform of the higher education system and will work in partnership with the sector over the coming months to shape the changes to Government policy that will be needed to support this reform. We will expect our higher education providers to:
Play a stronger role in expanding access and improving outcomes for disadvantaged students.
Make a stronger contribution to economic growth.
Play a greater civic role in their communities.
Raise the bar further on teaching standards, to maintain and improve our world-leading reputation and drive out poor practice.
Drive a sustained efficiency and reform programme.
We will then set out this Government’s plan for higher education reform by this summer.
Looking forward to the 2026-27 academic year, the lifelong learning entitlement (LLE) will deliver transformational change to the current student finance system by broadening access to high-quality, flexible education and training. The LLE will launch in 2026-27 for courses starting from January 2027.
Further details of the student support package for 2025-26 are set out in the document “Higher Education Fees and Student Support for 2025-26: Details”.
I have laid regulations implementing changes to maximum fees for undergraduates in 2025-26 on 20 January.
Alongside the regulations, we are publishing impact assessments on the changes to maximum fees for 2025-26 which draw on the Office for Students’ independent analysis of the wider financial pressures facing the higher education sector as well as an equality impact assessment of changes to fees and student support for 2025-26.
I also plan to lay further regulations implementing changes to student support for undergraduates and postgraduates for 2025-26 in February. Regulations are subject to parliamentary procedure.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2025-01-20/HCWS372/
[HCWS372]
Energy Company Obligation 4 and Great British Insulation Scheme
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
This statement will be made at a later date.
[HCWS373]
eVisa Consultation Response
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
The transition to eVisas is a key element of our move to a digital, streamlined UK border and immigration system, replacing physical immigration documents with digital proof of immigration status.
Most physical biometric immigration documents (BIDs), in the form of biometric residence permits (BRPs), expired on 31 December 2024. We are encouraging all foreign national status holders to register for a UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) account to access their eVisa. This transition began with the EU settlement scheme and many foreign nationals now coming to the UK will already have an eVisa. The transition to digital BIDs (eVisas) needs to be reflected in the “Code of Practice about the sanctions for non-compliance with the biometric registration regulations”, which was last updated in 2015.
Holders of eVisas will be able to evidence their identity and status by creating a UKVI account “share-code” which they can provide to third parties, such as employers. At times, key account information such as facial images and name changes will need to be updated. Keeping this information up to date is a requirement set out in the Immigration (Biometric Registration) Regulations 2008. Failing to comply with these requirements may result in the Secretary of State imposing sanctions on the individual. These requirements and the way sanctions will operate are outlined in the code of practice.
We have revised the existing code of practice and consulted on the changes through a 12-week public consultation exercise between July and October 2023. This consultation included an online survey, two in-person engagement events and two virtual events. We also conducted a further round of engagement in November 2024 with a variety of stakeholders to ensure that the code of practice does not disproportionately impact vulnerable individuals and there are enough support mechanisms in place. Feedback from the consultation exercise and further engagement has been reflected in the revised code of practice. We are now ready to publish the Government’s response to the consultation. A copy of the consultation response and the revised code of practice will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS370]
Rough Sleeping Winter Pressures Funding 2024-25
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)
I am pleased to announce to the House that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has announced additional funding to local authorities to support people sleeping rough this winter.
On 6 November, I set out £10 million of rough sleeping winter pressures funding to local authorities across England. Today, my Department has increased this by a further £20 million.
The decision to provide additional funding underlines our commitment to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping, and the significant pressures local authorities face. I have written to council leaders asking them to use this additional funding to safeguard people who are particularly vulnerable and at risk of sleeping rough this winter; and to encourage further join-up between councils and their local community and voluntary sector partnerships.
This £20 million allocation has been made available to 250 local authorities with the greatest rough sleeping pressures and across all London boroughs. The funding will support a range of services, including finding solutions for vulnerable people sleeping rough long term and supporting them with sustaining a life away from the streets. It will also continue to fund specialist support to vulnerable groups such as veterans, care leavers and victims of domestic abuse who are sleeping rough. Allocations will be published on www.gov.uk.
The Government are committed to getting us back on track to ending homelessness. This winter pressures funding for 2024-25 will enable local authorities to act to save lives.
[HCWS371]
Grand Committee
Electricity Capacity Mechanism (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That the Grand Committee do consider the Electricity Capacity Mechanism (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, this instrument was laid before the House on 18 November 2024. It seeks to revoke and alter several provisions in assimilated Regulation (EU) 2019/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the internal market for electricity, relating to the capacity market. For ease, I will refer to this as the assimilated electricity regulation. The instrument makes targeted, technical amendments which are intended to support the continued operation of the capacity market, Great Britain’s main mechanism for ensuring security of electricity supply. It does not introduce any practical changes to the operation of the capacity market.
Before outlining the specific provisions of this draft instrument, I will briefly provide some context. Great Britain’s electricity capacity market was introduced in 2014 and is designed to ensure that sufficient electrical capacity is operational and on the system to meet future predicted demand, thereby maintaining security of supply. The capacity market scheme provides all forms of existing and new-build capacity with the right incentives to be on the system to deliver when needed. It covers different types of electrical capacity, including generation, storage, consumer-led flexibility and interconnection capacity.
Through capacity market auctions held annually one year and four years ahead of delivery, the aim is to secure the capacity needed to meet future peak demand under a range of scenarios. This is based on advice from the capacity market delivery body—the National Energy System Operator. Capacity providers which are successful in the auctions are awarded capacity agreements, which range in duration from one to 15 years.
The capacity market was introduced in 2014. Since then, it has contributed to investment in just under 19 gigawatts of new, flexible capacity needed to replace older, less efficient plant as we transition to a net-zero economy. The capacity market was originally approved under European Union state aid rules for a period of 10 years. Following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, a requirement in EU law for approval of up to 10 years was brought into domestic law as part of the assimilated electricity regulation. To date, the capacity market has been successful in ensuring that Great Britain has sufficient electrical capacity to meet demand and continues to be required to maintain security of supply and provide confidence to investors.
On the detail of the instrument, it revokes and alters a number of provisions relating to capacity mechanisms in the assimilated electricity regulation, including Article 21.8, which requires that
“Capacity mechanisms shall be temporary”
and
“shall be approved … for no longer than 10 years”,
and other references to such mechanisms being temporary. The instrument also revokes provisions that either are no longer considered to be necessary or require minor correction following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. We are seeking to make these changes so that our post-EU exit legal framework reflects the continuation of current arrangements for maintaining a secure electricity supply, since there remains an ongoing need for the capacity market to ensure sufficient investment in reliable electricity capacity.
Furthermore, following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, the domestic subsidy control regime was introduced. The subsidy control regime does not require subsidy schemes to be granted an approval or limited for a specified period. Therefore, the approval requirement in the assimilated electricity regulation does not reflect our post-EU exit arrangements. Of course, it is important that we keep the capacity market under review and there are multiple controls set out in domestic legislation, all of which will be retained. This includes a statutory requirement for my department to review the capacity market regulations every five years, which provides an opportunity to review the need for the scheme. Ofgem also undertakes an independent five-yearly review of the capacity market rules. Furthermore, the Secretary of State can decide not to hold a capacity market auction. These embedded controls all remain as part of the wider domestic capacity market legislative framework.
In conclusion, this draft instrument revokes and alters certain provisions related to the capacity mechanism in the assimilated electricity regulation. This includes a requirement for an approval lasting no more than 10 years, as well as references to capacity mechanisms being of a temporary nature. These changes are being made to ensure that our domestic legislative arrangements reflect the continuation of the capacity market, which is Great Britain’s main mechanism for ensuring electricity security of supply. I beg to move.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I want to use this as an opportunity simply to ask a question of the Minister. Why do we not take the advice of Professor Dieter Helm, in his review of energy policy, which was that instead of us providing the capacity mechanism centrally, we require anyone providing electricity into the system—wind generator, solar generator or whatever—from an intermittent source to provide firm power, in other words to pay for some capacity for the times when the wind is not blowing? If that were done, this whole arrangement would be unnecessary. We would have a much clearer idea of the total cost of intermittent energy if the supplier were also paying for some of the back-up capacity that is necessary to meet the occasions when intermittency prevents delivery of the power.
The only argument I have heard against this is that, if you do it wind farm by wind farm, the aggregate amount of capacity would be statistically greater than is necessary to meet the fact that some wind farms will be producing when others are not, but that surely can be overcome by saying that a certain statistical proportion of the necessary capacity should attach to any intermittent generator. Then we would have a more rational, more credible and more manageable system than the one that we have under these regulations.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, this instrument revokes and alters several provisions of the assimilated EU regulations relating to the internal electricity capacity market. The draft regulations make changes necessary for the operation of the capacity market following our withdrawal from the European Union and they revoke the 10-year approval requirements. We do not oppose these changes—I just say that to start with.
Our electricity capacity market was introduced in 2014. The measure is designed to ensure that maximum output is always available and thus that we can maintain sufficient electricity capacity to meet future predicted demand, always ensuring the security of electricity supply. As we have heard, the capacity market covers generation, storage, consumer-led flexibility and interconnector capacity. It is about ensuring the security of this supply at all times. Auctions are held annually, one year and four years ahead of delivery, to ensure that we have supply when we need it and can meet future peak demand in a range of scenarios, based on advice from the capacity market delivery body, the National Energy System Operator.
The capacity market was originally approved when we were part of the EU and was made under the European Union’s state aid rules for a period of 10 years. Following our withdrawal, this requirement was brought in and enshrined in our domestic law as part of the assimilated electricity regulations. The capacity market will continue to be required to maintain the security of supply and investor confidence. This market will be of even greater importance as we seek to decarbonise our electricity generation by 2030 and, at the same time, see an ever-growing increase in electricity demand. The draft regulations revoke the requirement that
“Capacity mechanisms shall be temporary”
and
“shall be approved … for no longer than 10 years”,
and other references to such mechanisms being temporary. The draft instrument also revokes several provisions that require minor correction. As I said, we do not oppose the recommendations in the instrument, but I wanted briefly also to turn to some broader points.
As we seek to reach net-zero carbon generation by 2030 and beyond, the Government have a continued dependency on unabated gas and propose that carbon capture and storage should be used as a key part of our energy mix. Indeed, the clean power 2030 plan has around 35 gigawatts of unabated gas on standby for security of supply, and this requirement for gas capacity will remain throughout the early 2030s until more low-carbon dispatchable power comes on board to replace it. Although required, back-up reserve gas generation that is used intermittently and only when necessary is also very expensive, understandably. The Government have agreed to invest some £22 billion over the next 25 years in carbon capture technology to help make sure that we can have this unabated gas without adding to our greenhouse gas emissions.
The week before last there was a debate in the Chamber on the Science and Technology Committee’s report on long-term energy storage. We have also had a couple of Questions about the Russian shadow fleet and the attack on Baltic power cables. Of course, renewable energy is not always reliable, and everybody knows that it needs to be backed up by a wide variety of other sources to help ensure the security of supply. On that basis, can I ask the Minister about the Government’s proposed energy mix going forward to net zero and beyond? I am a little concerned that we continue to have this requirement: it is basically solar, wind and dispatchable gas backed by CCS and nuclear. Will the Minister say a word about how the Government will keep this mix under continuous review? I encourage them to invest in alternative renewable technologies, such as wave, tidal and geothermal, that are able to provide the dispatchable power that we need. What is the Government’s thinking on that?
We must also ensure that all the wind energy we generate is available and can be used. As I said, there is also a need to radically increase our medium and long-term energy storage, which is available to help us get through periods when other sources of renewable energy are not on tap. I hope that the reforms to the capacity market already announced will help make that happen. More must also be done to reduce demand; as the Government know, the best energy is the energy we never use.
Turning to this SI, I note that, as the Explanatory Memorandum says,
“there is a requirement to review the Electricity Capacity Regulations … at least every five years to determine whether they are meeting their objectives and remain fit for purpose”,
and I note that the Minister said the Government will continue to keep the controls in place. As we are going through such a rapid period of change, we welcome the fact that the Government have brought forward the plan to decarbonise our power generation by five years, but what consideration have they given to the need to review these mechanisms more than every five years? What might trigger that? What is the Government’s thinking on those matters?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, these regulations represent an essential step in ensuring the continued security of electricity supply in Great Britain. This SI builds on the work initiated by the previous Conservative Government, which reviewed electricity market arrangements in 2022. The task in hand is to amend the existing provisions of the Energy Act 2013 following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union and align our national electricity market with the post-Brexit reality. These amendments are crucial to ensure that the capacity market can continue to operate effectively and flexibly in a changed regulatory environment.
As we transition towards a low-carbon energy future, securing a reliable electricity supply requires robust mechanisms that incentivise investment in reliable and flexible energy sources. The amendments introduced by these regulations are intended to bolster the capacity market’s role in supporting the security and reliability of electricity supply in a period of evolving energy needs and shifting market conditions.
These changes enable the UK to pursue an independent course, while ensuring that the capacity market continues to provide the stability and security our energy grid requires. By revoking outdated EU provisions, the UK can define its own market mechanisms that better reflect national priorities, including transition to a low-carbon energy future and enhancing energy resilience across Great Britain.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this short but none the less interesting debate. As we move to a clean power system and closer to achieving net zero, it will be critical to ensure we have adequate flexible electricity capacity that can be ramped up quickly when renewable generation is low, such as on dark, still days.
We believe the capacity market remains an effective insurance mechanism for security of electricity supply, providing revenue certainty to market participants and a secure and affordable electricity supply that families and businesses can rely on. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Offord, for his general support for the regulations. I certainly acknowledge that a lot of the groundwork was undertaken by the previous Government, as he suggested. I can also assure him that we as a department will continue to provide oversight of the way the arrangements will operate.
As for the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, the noble Lord, Lord Offord, referred to the REMA consultation, which we have debated as well. I think that Professor Helm’s proposals were considered by the previous Government, who decided not to take them forward. My understanding is that there was thought to be insufficient evidence that putting responsibility for procuring flexibility on generators, which would mean decisions being taken at a project rather than a system level, would lead to a low-cost capacity mix. Many respondents also expressed concern that this option would increase risks on renewable generators, leading to higher strike prices and overall system cost without the compensating benefits of efficiency or security of supply. We remain of the view that the current system is probably the best way to manage the issues that I have referred to.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his support. The question of reviews was also implicit in the question from the noble Lord, Lord Offord, and alongside the five-year reviews, each year an assessment is made of the required capacity to meet the expected level of peak demand in four years’ time. The majority of the predicted capacity required is secured well in advance. A proportion of capacity requirement is secured one year in advance, based on latest demand forecasts, so it is a continuous process, if you like.
We keep the capacity market mechanism itself under constant review and consult regularly on amendments and incremental reforms. In late 2024 we consulted on a number of changes to the capacity market to ensure security of supply and enable flexible capacity to decarbonise. We hope this will ensure that supply can meet demand as we transition to net zero.
As for the comment about the mix of technologies going forward, the report by NESO and my department’s clean power action plan set out our view of the technologies by around 2030. We will rely on unabated gas as the main mature, reliable technology capable of filling that role at the moment. We expect that the amount of unabated gas we need will reduce as we deploy more low-carbon technologies. Our aim is to move gas into a reserve role, used primarily to ensure security of supply.
The noble Earl also mentioned tidal and other technologies, and we remain open to those possibilities. He may know that I am meeting the noble Lord, Lord Alton—tomorrow, I think—to discuss tidal, so we are not ruling out the use of those technologies. I am grateful to noble Lords.
Clean Heat Market Mechanism Regulations 2024
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That the Grand Committee do consider the Clean Heat Market Mechanism Regulations 2024.
Relevant document: 10th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move that these regulations, which were laid before the House on 21 November 2024, be approved. The instrument forms an important part of the Government’s commitment to make the UK a clean energy superpower and deliver warmer homes. It is the Government’s mission to make energy affordable and to strengthen the UK’s energy security. By supporting heat pump manufacturing and encouraging innovation, we are giving more consumers the choice to make the transition to low-carbon, high-efficiency heating.
With over 80% of homes using fossil fuel gas for heating, there is a huge opportunity to deliver affordable and efficient heating and protect consumers from the costly vagaries of international gas markets while reducing a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Heat pumps, which are on average three times more efficient than a gas boiler, are suitable for the overwhelming majority of UK homes, and they have a role of paramount importance role to play in delivering this ambition. That is why in November last year the Government announced a range of first policy steps under our warm homes plan, alongside investment in training and British manufacturing capability, to make it easier and more affordable for consumers to make the switch to a heat pump.
The clean heat market mechanism will provide industry with the stability and confidence to scale up and invest in the heat pump supply chain. It will also ensure that British businesses can benefit from the transition to low-carbon heating as they create future-proofed skilled jobs. Importantly, the scheme protects consumer choice in when and how to upgrade to clean and efficient heating, while providing industry with the encouragement to develop a wider range of products and services for consumers to choose from as the transition gathers pace. Neither this scheme nor any other requires home owners to remove or replace their boiler against their will. For their part, we know that businesses are ready to drive innovation, build relationships with installers across the country and continue to make heat pumps more affordable and more accessible to home owners.
Today’s statutory instrument establishes the scheme from 1 April this year, setting its rules, parameters and timelines under enabling powers established in the Energy Act 2023. The scheme is designed to accelerate deployment of heat pumps, thereby driving down energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions from buildings. It complements, and is complemented by, a range of other policies, such as grant funding for heat pump installations through the boiler upgrade scheme and other schemes; investment in British manufacturing through the heat pump investment accelerator competition; and support for installer training through the heat training grant, to provide wraparound support for a transformation of the low-carbon heating market over time.
The scheme sets a requirement for heating appliance manufacturers to achieve the sale and installation of a proportion of heat pumps relative to their gas and oil boiler sales or to acquire equivalent credits from other heat pump manufacturers. For the first year of the scheme, starting this April, this is set at 6% of relevant boiler sales. The record number of heat pumps installed last year, a full 43% growth in certified installations in 2024 versus the previous year, would suggest that it is right to support the development of a thriving UK heat pump market and that the target of 6% is entirely achievable—and there is no reason to believe that there will be any undue costs faced by manufacturers.
The proposals for the scheme were subject to three rounds of public consultation—two under the last Government, in late 2021 and mid-2023, then a third in mid-2024. These consultations sought views on, among other things, scheme targets, technologies in scope, credit trading and scheme administration. A wide range of organisations, representative and trade bodies and industry professionals, as well as individual members of the public, responded on each occasion.
The Government are committed to working in partnership with industry on delivering the warm homes plan, and since coming into office have been engaging with market actors from across the supply chain to consider views on the right mix of policies and other enabling actions needed to support the expansion of the UK heat pump market that is needed. The Government have also taken steps to provide appliance manufacturers with more time and space to adapt to the introduction of this mechanism, scale up supply chains and expand heat pump operations. This includes a decision to reduce the payment in lieu for any missing heat pump credits to £500 for the first year, which is a change from the £3,000 previously proposed.
We will continue to engage closely with industry both on considerations related to the future evolution of the clean heat market mechanism and, more broadly, on the development and delivery of the warm homes plan so that we can put the UK’s world-leading businesses at the heart of leading the transformation of the heating market. The clean heat market mechanism is an important part of the framework that the Government are putting in place to support a much-needed acceleration in our transition to low-carbon heating, strengthening our energy independence and delivering warmer homes for all. I beg to move.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, here we have it: 32 pages of regulation to introduce something that some would consider a mere mouse in terms of its impact on this market. After all, it introduces a £500 fine for selling each excess gas boiler, relative to the proportion that is prescribed in the regulation. That £500 is actually quite big relative to the cost of a gas boiler, which is typically around a couple of thousand pounds, even though it is relatively small relative to the cost of a heat pump. None the less, I ask the Minister this: will that £500 fine, which then becomes a marketable instrument, be available to importers? If I have correctly understood how the system will work, someone who exports to this country heat pumps from abroad could sell the certificate that this measure will give them to a domestic producer who has not sold enough electric heat pumps for up to £500—that is a jolly nice subsidy for importers of heat pumps into this country, even if it is not massive.
It is expected that this measure will raise the number of heat pumps sold from roughly 40,500 last year, nearly 3% of the boiler market, to 77,000 pumps—6% of the expected market this year. That is not a huge increase. The Minister said that last year, without the benefit of this measure, the number of heat pumps sold increased substantially. So it will not be a huge increase in the coming year. Why do we think this measure is necessary if these things are proving so attractive and the market is growing anyway? Can the Minister confirm that the 6% target is what is introduced, and that it will continue and persist unless and until he introduces, via further legislation—I also ask him to confirm that this will require further legislation—a higher target?
Failing the introduction of a higher target, any future growth in the market will depend on hopes on the cost of heat pumps coming down as manufacturers find more efficient ways of making them. When I was still in the House of Commons I had a meeting with Octopus Energy, which reckoned that the materials involved in making a heat pump cost about £2,000. Obviously, a huge amount of processing goes into making a heat pump, but it suggested that the potential for bringing down the cost over time was significant. One hopes that will happen. Failing that, the only other thing—we are stuck with the 6% target and this £500 fine—will be the lure of subsidies for consumers to buy heat pumps instead of fossil fuel boilers.
The costs and benefits of the whole procedure are spelled out in the impact assessment. It says the net present value of the costs involved is £195 million. The benefits were put at £220 million, of which those that result from the main purpose of the operation, to reduce carbon, were less than the costs. The total benefit is above the costs only if you allow for the impact it will have on cleaner air. As well as reducing the amount of CO2, which is a very clean thing that we breathe all the time, the reduction in the other impurities put in the air by fossil fuels just about brings it to a net benefit. We are talking about the costs and benefits being roughly the same order of magnitude. Once again, an almost religious fanaticism, which does not take the costs and benefits into account, is driving this policy.
I will make a few observations about the situation in France, because I have a house in France and I observe what is happening there. Two of my French neighbours have installed heat pumps. One in a comparatively small cottage cost over €20,000—not for the pump but for the insulation—all paid by the French taxpayer. Bully for him. Another friend has a rather more substantial old house. It cost the French taxpayer €100,000 to install the heat pump and the necessary insulation. In his case, it would not work for a year because the installers were so busy—because it is free to users—that they would not come back and tell him how to make it work. It took him a long time to find anyone who would. I noticed, when I went round to enjoy his hospitality over the new year, that he had wood fires burning as well.
I sincerely hope that we do not go down the path of subsidising something at the huge costs that the French taxpayer is having to absorb, when the costs and benefits of the whole process, even without subsidies, are so marginal. We do not want to put ourselves as near bankruptcy as the French state is.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the contents of the regulations before us. I am afraid that I share some of the scepticism of my noble friend Lord Lilley. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for referring to the warm homes scheme. He is aware of my disappointment that the discount is not going to be revisited, and I say that as honorary president of National Energy Action.
My understanding is that the heat pumps that are the subject of this measure simply are not as efficient as oil-fired central heating. I say that as where I live in the north of England, it is all oil-fired central heating; we are off grid and we cannot use gas. I walked past a surgery in the north of England that did not have just one heat pump; it had fitted three heat pumps, which probably means that one heat pump was not sufficient to generate the heat required.
My understanding—and I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, could confirm this—is that, without log fires or some other secondary heating, heat pumps heat only to a top temperature of about 16 degrees. If you are retrofitting an existing building, as many of the windows may not be able to accommodate the size of the heat pump or the radiators that connect to it, substantial renovation may be required.
Furthermore, I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which highlighted that the starting point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, of around 40,500 installations per year is—in its word, at paragraph 56 of its 10th report—“ambitious”. The department expects the scheme to help ensure the installation of at least 77,000 heat pumps a year in existing homes between 2024-25 and 2028-29. I ask the Minister a simple question: is that feasible and realistic?
My noble friend Lord Lilley quoted £2,000 as the cost of an ordinary boiler. I recently got two quotes for a boiler. The boiler itself was not the issue. For the fitting, even that of an oil-fired boiler, you are looking at something in the region of £8,000 to £10,000. I repeat: if you live off-grid in a very rural area, it would be nice to think that heat pumps were an alternative, but, given the state of the current market, I just do not see them as feasible if they heat up to only 16 degrees when, in just the past two weeks, we have regularly had temperatures of freezing or down to minus 10. With those few remarks, I press the Minister to comment on these queries.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we are supportive of these regulations and the other actions that this Government have already taken—particularly in removing the outdated 1-metre rule on the requirement for planning permission—since coming into office. We are hopeful that, taken together with the other measures that the Government talk about, these measures will help us begin to make progress towards the target of 600,000 heat pumps by 2028 and help us to fulfil the need to meet these same figures every year going forward.
There are both supply-side actions and demand-side actions in this SI. We feel that the combination makes some valuable reforms. Most of all we welcome the work that has been done with industry after listening to concerns, making some much-needed reforms and finding ways forward on these issues. Our worry, though, is that, as welcome as these changes in the regulations are, they may not be sufficient in and of themselves to deal with the scale of the problem. In making this point, I quote the conclusion of the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has already been mentioned:
“The DESNZ expects the scheme to help ensure the installation of at least 77,000 heat pumps a year in existing homes between 2024/25 and 2028/29. We consider this, from a starting point of around 40,500 installations per year, to be ambitious”.
Before I turn to the SI, judging by the debate on this measure in the other House, a little background information would be useful.
These regulations amend and reform a system that the Conservative Government brought in but mainly failed to make work in practice. The last Government compounded these problems by failing to work alongside and with industry and others in order to find amendments to the proposals, such that industry itself was prepared fully to support them and get behind them. These problems then led to further internal discussions about the policy itself, which further derailed progress. This problem meant that the implementation never really got resolved and, as a result, we are a long way behind on these targets. In short, the Conservatives had clear targets for the installation of heat pumps but failed to deliver them.
I give this background only because the Conservative Opposition spokesperson appeared to disown or not acknowledge that this is a reform of their policy. It may be that the Conservative policy has changed. If that is the case, I hope that the Conservative spokesman can make that clear.
Lord Lilley (Con)
They are of course three times more efficient on average—though not necessarily in cold weather. But electricity is four times as expensive as gas per therm.
Earl Russell (LD)
I welcome the intervention and will come back to the noble Lord on his point. During this transition, it will take a huge effort across government and beyond—and beyond the scope of this instrument—to meet the scale of these changes.
The regulations establish the new UK-wide heat market mechanism to promote the development of the market for retrofit installations of heat pumps in existing buildings. The CHMM is to launch on 1 April 2025 and run for an initial period of four years. In the interests of time, I will not go on too much, but there are two big changes from previous proposals. First, they propose to reduce the payment in lieu of any missing heat pump credits to £500 from the first year from the £3,000 proposed by the previous Government. Secondly, the period over which boiler sales are counted has been delayed to give the obligated parties more time to prepare. The Government have said:
“As set out in the consultation response published in November … 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”.—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 13/1/25; col. 4.]
The big change is that the new Minister has engaged and listened to industry and has managed to make some of the adjustments required by working in partnership. This approach has been welcomed by industry. Removing penalties and allowing more time is pivotal to finding common solutions. The approach of giving manufacturers more time to scale up the supply chain and expand sales without penalising customers is good and needs to continue while hitting some very ambitious and fast-approaching targets.
The ongoing relations with manufacturers and industry are clearly key to delivering this policy. How do the Government intend to continue these better relations while making sure that targets are met and that unnecessary costs are not passed on to consumers? I want to make it clear that this is not a boiler tax. The Conservatives, when this was their policy, were very keen that those words were not used to describe it.
Review mechanisms and relations with industry are crucial to delivering this policy. I note that any adjustments would require further legislation and that would change the whole impact assessment. Any increases in the target in future schemes would require further secondary legislation. I note that the Government have said that they will not force consumers and that this is about working in partnership. My worry is about the confidence that the Government have in the ability to deliver the volume of heat pumps required in the time available.
I would like briefly to ask the Minister about some wider points. The cost of getting a heat pump is still a barrier to entry. I welcome the fact that the Government have continued the £7,500 grant, which, to their credit, the Conservatives not only introduced but increased. Since that increase, we have had a remarkable uptake in the number of heat pumps. But, as we have heard, installing a heat pump is about a system-wide change. It is more than just installing a heat pump; often it involves under-floor heating and changing radiators. On average, this seems to be costing consumers at least an additional £5,000.
We have had some conversations as part of the GB Energy Bill about green mortgages. Are the Government considering finding ways that the additional costs, not just of heat pumps but other renewable energy technology, can be added to mortgages? Quality and innovation are clearly important as well, as is making sure that these are good-quality products.
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, intervened on electricity market reform, and to some extent I agree with him. Our electricity is still very expensive—some of the most expensive in Europe. The Government’s policy is to get people away from gas and on to electricity. What plans do they have to make sure that electricity is affordable and to introduce social tariffs for those struggling to pay their bills?
On disinformation, misinformation and ignorance, according to the Government’s own policy document, only 51% of people in the UK know about heat pumps. There is disinformation and misinformation in this space—for example, that heat pumps do not warm our homes enough—so it is important that the Government have a strong public information campaign for the take-up of heat pumps, about what they are, how they work and what they do.
Finally, heat pumps can save the average household £300 a year, so they would go a long way towards Labour meeting its manifesto pledge. I wish the Government well, but these things are complicated.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, the clean heat market mechanism represents a clumsy attempt by the Government to impose unrealistic and burdensome targets on the heating industry. While the overarching goal of reducing carbon emissions and decarbonising heating in the UK is commendable, the regulatory approach taken here is flawed.
The mechanism requires that major boiler manufacturers—those selling more than 20,000 gas boilers or 1,000 oil boilers annually—must ensure that at least 6% of their sales consist of heat pumps by 2025-26. Although heat pumps, which run on electricity rather than gas, are often hailed as a cleaner alternative, these regulations fail to consider the practical challenges faced by both manufacturers and consumers.
This mechanism promises market certainty, investment in low-carbon technologies and a reduction in heat pump costs through increased competition. However, these lofty claims are undermined by overly ambitious targets, coupled with the Government’s failure to address the considerable barriers faced by consumers. Far from facilitating a smooth transition, these regulations risk causing significant disruption to the industry.
Set to run from April 2025 to March 2029, the scheme faces growing doubts about its ability to meet its long-term target of 600,000 heat pumps sold annually by 2028. This concern is further exacerbated by the fact that heat pump sales remain alarmingly low, with both the National Audit Office and the House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee warning that current sales levels are far too low to meet the proposed targets.
Returning to the effects of this SI, this initiative imposes stringent sales targets on large boiler manufacturers, forcing them to meet heat pump quotas. If these quotas are not met, manufacturers will face damaging fines, in some cases of £3,000 for every heat pump missed. Although manufacturers can carry forward up to 35% of their annual target to the following year, this strain on the industry cannot be overstated. When the original plans for the CHMM were first announced in 2024, some manufacturers pre-emptively raised their prices to account for the anticipated fines, only to lower them after the previous Conservative Government pragmatically delayed the scheme in March to allow the industry more time to prepare. Will this Government consider doing the same?
Furthermore, it is not only the industry that will face a financial burden from these regulations; the most pressing concern is the significant impact on consumers. Although environmentally beneficial, heat pumps remain expensive for many households, with installation costs ranging from £6,500 to £11,500. This is not just a challenge; it is a significant obstacle. Many families are already struggling with the cost of living, and these regulations threaten to impose yet another financial burden. The Government cannot continue to ignore the stark reality that these high costs will place heat pumps well beyond the reach of many ordinary households unless substantial and sustained financial support is provided.
The burden of financing such an expensive transition should not fall squarely and only on consumers. Despite the grants available through the energy company obligation and the boiler upgrade scheme, which offer up to £7,500 in England and Wales, the high upfront cost of heat pumps remains a significant barrier. This policy risks making a greener future inaccessible to those who need it the most.
Moreover, it is essential to question whether the Government have adequately considered the industry’s capacity to meet these targets. The regulation requires major manufacturers to ensure that a specific proportion of their boiler sales, 6%, consist of heat pumps. However, given that the heat pump market is still in its early stages, with many manufacturers struggling to scale up production, where is the recognition of this challenge?
Lastly, the proposed scheme risks undermining the very people it aims to help. The Government’s approach, imposing fines on manufacturers that fail to meet the sales targets, could lead to price hikes for consumers. There is already evidence that some manufacturers have raised prices, as has been said before, and if that trend continues it will not be the manufacturers that bear the cost; it will simply be passed on to the consumer.
In conclusion, although the Government may be well meaning, the clean heat market mechanism, as it stands, is flawed and could have serious unintended consequences for consumers, manufacturers and the wider heating industry. It is vital that the Government reconsider this approach, provide proper financial support for consumers and work with the industry to ensure that the transition to low-carbon heating is both achievable and affordable.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting debate. The noble Lord, Lord Offord, says that although he understands the intent behind the regulations, we are clumsy and have overambitious targets. He asks us to repeat his Government’s actions in delaying or not going ahead with implementation. We are not going to do that. We are confident that we have a scheme that is practical. As a new Government, we have engaged in extensive discussions with industry.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was critical of us for reducing the level of the fine. The fact that we have done so shows that we are concerned about ensuring that we introduce this in an evolutionary way, which is why we have started with the fines at the level we have set. We are confident that industry can rise to the challenge. The noble Lord, Lord Offord, said that sales of heat pumps were disappointing. I thought he might have said that in the last year, 2024, sales had an encouraging increase. We want to build on that with the incentivisation for householders plus the introduction of potential fines for manufacturers, although overall we think that manufacturers will be able to rise to that challenge.
On the issue of cost, which a number of noble Lords raised, of course heat pumps cost more money than gas boilers, but as when one introduces most new technologies, or extends them, the price will come down. We think it will fall significantly, making pumps a more attractive and affordable options for UK households. As noble Lords have referred to, at the moment we are funding installations to kick-start the market, for example through schemes such as the boiler upgrade scheme and the warm homes local grant.
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, asked whether non-UK manufacturers of heat pumps could earn and sell credits under the scheme. The intention here is that any manufacturer of heat pumps sold on the UK market acquires credits and can make them available to other parties in the scheme. Of course, there is no obligation on manufacturers to acquire those credits; this is one of the various options available to them. In parallel, the Government are supporting the expansion of UK heat pump manufacturing through the heat pump investment accelerator competition. The noble Lord is absolutely right that further legislation would be required to revise targets for future years of the scheme.
The instrument today sets a target for the first year. This would roll over to year 2 if there were no amendment by further legislation. Here, the Government have committed to consult further this year, before setting targets for future years, and then returning to the House if we wanted to change the target. I hope this reassures noble Lords that we are fully engaged with industry. We will obviously discuss the implications carefully before we come back with any further proposals.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for letting me intervene and for answering a number of my questions. On his point about costs coming down, is he suggesting that they will come down in Britain because they are artificially high to start with, or because we will discover technological ways of producing it that have not been found in continental countries, where they already have large-volume manufacturing? That is one thing.
Could the Minister also respond to another point I made, admittedly in rather garbled form, so I can excuse him for not replying? The correct figures in his document are that the costs of this process are £195 million, while the benefits from reduced carbon emissions are £187 million—less than the costs—but, fortunately, that is supplemented by £34 million of benefits from cleaner air. The whole thing is pretty marginal. Could he comment on the marginality of the cost benefits of this extraordinary regulation?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, surely the point is this: we have to decarbonise our home stock. At the moment, 80% of homes use gas for heating so, as part of our plans towards decarbonisation and moving on to net zero, this is an essential mechanism that we need to take forward. As for the cost-benefit analysis, I do expect the cost of the heat pumps to come down in relative terms, in future. I am not prepared to engage with the noble Lord on the exact whys and wherefores of how that might happen. I just look in history—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
No. The noble Lord referred earlier to mystical or quasi-religious belief. I regard myself as a high church Anglican atheist, and I do not bring a fervour to this from belief; I think that the rational response to what we are doing, and to the risk of climate change, is so huge that we have to use these kinds of mechanisms and do something about housing and the current use of gas. This is the way that we think we need to go forward, but we will keep it under review and look closely at costs, manufacturing capacity in this country and the public’s ability to ensure that they have good installations. Overall, I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024.
Relevant document: 11th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. (special attention drawn to the instrument).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to transitioning the UK to a circular economy. We want to finally move away from the linear “take, make, throw” model, which we know causes harm to our environment and our society, and towards an economy that keeps our valuable resources in use for longer. A deposit return scheme for drinks containers is a strong example of the circular economy in action. It is a critical first step.
Deposit return schemes are a well-established and proven method and over 50 schemes are already in place, including in Germany, Sweden and the Republic of Ireland. A DRS incentivises consumers to return and recycle their drinks containers and means that valuable materials are collected, recycled and made back into new drinks containers—a truly circular loop.
The deposit return scheme is one of the three core pillars of the packaging reforms, alongside the extended producer responsibility for packaging and the simpler recycling programme for England. Together, it is estimated that these packaging reforms will support 21,000 jobs in our nations and regions and help stimulate more than £10 billion of investment in recycling capability over the next decade. They are also estimated to deliver carbon savings of over 46 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2035—valued at more than £10 billion in carbon benefits.
At its heart, the deposit return scheme is a key environmental policy that will tackle the scourge of littered drinks containers, protect our beaches and countryside, preserve our wildlife and restore pride in our local communities. The benefits of the DRS in reducing littering cannot be overstated. Each year in the UK, approximately 4 billion plastic bottles and 2.5 billion metal drinks containers are not recycled. Instead, they are disposed of in general waste or littered.
We are all familiar with the destructive impact of litter. In recent years, we have seen littered drinks containers blight our marine environment, but it does not stop there. According to a recent report from Keep Britain Tidy, littered drinks bottles and cans along our roadsides are killing millions of our native mammals every year. This is devastating our rarest and most important small mammals such as shrews, bank voles and wood mice. We must act to protect our natural environment.
A deposit return scheme established under this instrument will also promote a fairer society. Obligations will be placed on drinks producers to ensure that containers are collected and recycled. This is consistent with the well-established “polluter pays” principle. We have set an ambitious target for the scheme to collect 90% of in-scope containers by the third year of operation.
Laid in draft before the House on 25 November 2024, this instrument establishes, in England and Northern Ireland, a deposit return scheme for drinks containers. Under a deposit return scheme, a person who is supplied with a drink in a container that is in scope of the instrument pays a deposit that can be redeemed when it is returned for recycling. The scheme design in this instrument is informed by well-established international examples and extensive industry experience. Many of our industry partners have shared their experiences delivering these schemes across the world. The scheme will be centrally managed by an industry-led, not-for-profit organisation called the deposit management organisation.
This instrument applies to England and Northern Ireland, but my officials have worked closely with the Scottish Government, who are amending their existing legislation to launch simultaneously across England, Northern Ireland and Scotland in October 2027. The Welsh Government have withdrawn from the four-nation DRS approach. However, we remain in close working partnership with them as they make decisions regarding a DRS in Wales. We are keen to keep the door open to provide as much interoperability of schemes across the UK as possible.
Before I turn to the detail of the instrument, I acknowledge the work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which draws this instrument to the special attention of the House on the grounds that it is politically or legally important and gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House. The committee highlighted questions on the scheme’s application in Scotland and Wales; the exclusion of glass; the deposit level; interactions with the extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme; and the set-up of the deposit management organisation. The committee also highlighted correspondence received from the Wildlife and Countryside Link, which is supportive of the legislation in principle but raised questions about ensuring a comprehensive return point network; the exclusion of glass; monitoring and review mechanisms; and enabling reuse.
I now draw Members’ attention to the obligations introduced by this instrument. It sets out the scope of the scheme and places obligations on drinks producers, importers and retailers. Producers of drinks in plastic and metal containers from 150 millilitres to 3 litres will be obliged to label products and charge a deposit when supplying the drink into England and Northern Ireland. They must also pay the deposit to the deposit management organisation, along with the producer fees to fund the scheme. Retailers across England and Northern Ireland will be obliged to participate in the scheme by charging a deposit on plastic and metal drinks containers then taking the containers back and refunding the deposit. They are also required to pass the collected containers to the deposit management organisation for recycling and to display information to consumers so that they understand how the scheme works. These obligations on producers and retailers across England and Northern Ireland will start from October 2027, when the scheme is launched.
To administer the scheme, this instrument requires the appointment of the deposit management organisation. It allows for certain provisions to come into force on the day after the instrument is made. These are necessary for the appointment of the deposit management organisation and the establishment of the administrative arrangements in advance of the scheme launching. The deposit management organisation, which will be appointed in April 2025, will be obliged to meet collection targets, pay return point operators for collecting the containers, recycle the collected containers and pay national enforcement authorities.
The instrument provides powers for the deposit management organisation to set deposit levels, prescribe labelling, interact with other schemes, set producer fees, calculate handling fees for return points and exempt some retailers from hosting a return point. Under the “polluter pays” principle, it is the responsibility of businesses to bear the costs of managing the packaging that they place on the market. Through specific return point exemptions based on store size, proximity to another return point and suitable premises grounds, this instrument also protects small businesses across England and Northern Ireland, which are vital to our high streets and are the backbone of our economy.
Finally, this instrument makes provision for monitoring and enforcement activities by the Environment Agency and local authority trading standards to ensure that mandated businesses and the deposit management organisation are compliant.
In conclusion, the need for a deposit return scheme is plain to see. This scheme will not only improve recycling rates and provide better-quality material for recycling but make a difference to people’s daily lives. It will encourage people to see waste as a valuable resource and, by reducing litter, it will improve local communities. With this scheme, we can turn back the plastic tide. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the instrument before us. I support its contents but I want to clarify a couple of issues.
Can the Minister clarify the situation in Wales? I understand her to say that the scheme will not be offered in Wales and that the Government are no longer engaging with Wales. Do they have a commitment from Wales? I just want to clarify that because, obviously, the situation in Scotland is welcome.
I am grateful to both Coca-Cola and the Food and Drink Federation for their briefings and preparation for today; I am an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Food and Drink, which is why I asked them for a briefing. They welcome the concept but, in their view, it is important that it is rolled out across the United Kingdom.
The Minister referred to other jurisdictions. I am familiar with how the scheme operates in Denmark; it has had rather perverse consequences. I sometimes feel as though I could pay for my whole Danish holiday if I went around collecting all the bottles and cans left after picnics in parks across Copenhagen and took them back. The deposit—it is called Pant—is actually set at quite a high level, so it would be helpful to know what level the Minister and the Government have in mind. Obviously, it has to be set at a level that is affordable for the consumer, ensuring that they are willing to go back and return a container to the place where it was bought.
Obviously, we must have a deposit management organisation on side. Who will be the deposit management organisation in England? Will it be the supermarket? As consumers, we are concerned about the impact this will have on small convenience stores, which will perhaps not have the facilities to take these returned bottles or whatever after use. It would be helpful to have clarification on what the costs will be and who will provide the service, because they are going to require a very large facility to accommodate the containers being returned.
Coca-Cola is keen to see the DRS—the deposit return scheme—considered as part of the extended producer responsibility. Is that something the Minister can confirm this afternoon?
The Minister concluded by saying that the monitoring and enforcement will be done by, among others, trading standards and local authorities. Are the Government convinced that they will have the resources to do this? Obviously, it is an additional responsibility over and above what they are currently doing in relation to food standards and other commitments.
Finally, if glass is to be excluded at this time, when do the Government envisage glass being included? As I understand it, glass is included in most other jurisdictions, so a big chunk of deposit returns will be excluded if glass is not included.
With those few queries, I lend my support to the scheme.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for presenting the case for the deposit return scheme. I declare my interest as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in your Lordships’ House. I welcome this SI and agree with my noble friend that it will make a major contribution to the reduction of littering. Numerous cans and other types of litter are strewn across the countryside and nobody appears to take responsibility, apart from local neighbourhoods that engage in their own collection schemes. I laud them for doing so.
I have some questions in relation to Northern Ireland. Normally this would be a devolved measure. I suppose that the UK Government were trying to ensure that there was a collective approach on the part of the Government and the devolved nations and regions. Perhaps my noble friend could explain the purpose of including the devolved nations and regions. Also, will the money collected from this scheme in Northern Ireland go to the Treasury, or will it go to the Department of Finance, where it can be invested in local schemes, and into the general exchequer for the delivery of lots of different types of service? I am well aware of the value of the plastic bag scheme in reducing litter but also in terms of the money. It has added to the portfolio of money available for the enhancement of services.
Secondly, I have a couple of questions in relation to Wales, which, I note, has not signed up to this scheme. How can the interoperability of the four UK schemes and the avoidance of unique identifiers in the Welsh market be assured? With Welsh proposals not yet published, how can the October 2027 introduction date be assured to avoid material switching under the EPR scheme? Will the Government ensure that the divergence of the Welsh scheme does not impact the governance of the UK, Northern Ireland and Scotland deposit return scheme and the appointment of a scheme administrator?
Those are the issues that most interest me in this SI, which I strongly support.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I echo the comments made by the two previous contributors on compliance for small businesses, which is crucial. It is all very well for large companies to say, “Yes, we support these schemes”, but the burden will often fall heavily on the small retailer, in one form or another. I should start with a mea culpa, in that I was head of personnel for Coca-Cola when it introduced the first ever plastic bottles into this country, so it is all my fault. For the benefit of my noble friend next to me, in particular, the first plastic bottles produced in this country were made in a factory in Leeds—a bottling plant in Pudsey.
I therefore also have a memory of glass bottles and the system that worked then. The glass bottle return system had gone out of operation in most parts of the country when plastic bottles were introduced. At the risk of being accused of regionalism or being rude about the Scots, that system lasted longer in Scotland because that part of the country returned their products to the retailers to reclaim the deposits available.
Lord Hayward (Con)
It is important to small businesses and, because we are talking about companies that operate worldwide, both producers and retailers. How closely will our system meet that of the other countries that the Minister identified? I am aware that there are negotiations in other parts of Europe on some form of return system; it would clearly be better for all concerned if there is either a common or a virtually common system. That is particularly the case for Northern Ireland versus Eire, as many of the products will move from one side of the border to the other.
My concerns are about why glass is excluded, the international basis of the operation and its similarity with others, and small businesses that will carry a burden in one form or another. Given the experiences that I witnessed in my previous role for many years—I should add that I later went on to become head of the British Soft Drinks Association, and therefore saw operations not only from Coca-Cola’s side but for waters and fruit juices—it is important that this works across the whole country. I recognise and expect that the returns will operate much better in some places than in others.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this statutory instrument. It is vital to ensure that, as a country, we reduce our waste and engage the consumer fully in the process. As the Explanatory Memorandum clearly states, the power to introduce a DRS was enshrined in the Environment Act 2021, nearly four years ago, but the issue was being debated as early as 2019, with Defra running two public consultations. The first gave 84% support from those participating; the second, 83%, so why has it taken so long to get to this position? I do not wish to be impolite to the Minister, as she has been in post for only a short time, but it has to be said that there was a lot of pratting about by the previous Government. This is, of course, a technical term.
The scheme is to be run by a direct management organisation—a DMO—and this will take another two and a half years to get up and running, so will not start until October 2027. They say that Rome was not built in a day, but I despair at the leisurely timeframe. Meanwhile, the country is knee-deep in waste.
I welcome the application of civil penalties to drinks producers that do not comply, but it would make a big difference if civil penalties were applied to individual consumers who carelessly discard their drinks containers around the countryside. I am not convinced that the carrot of a returned deposit will alone change behaviour; there needs to be a stick element as well.
Despite a not-for-profit DMO being set up to administer the scheme, local authority trading standards departments will be involved in monitoring and enforcement, along with the Environment Agency. As the Minister knows, local authorities are underfunded, with social care swallowing their budgets at an alarming rate. Do the Government intend to produce additional funding for local authorities trading standards to carry out this not inconsiderable extra work?
Despite the Explanatory Memorandum referring to the instrument enacting the “polluter pays” principle from the Environment Act, I can hardly be excited about the fact that it has taken so long to reach this point, as 2021 has disappeared over the horizon. The first Defra consultation was in February 2019, six years ago. That first consultation response was published within four months. The next consultation in March 2021 was not published until January 2023, nearly 18 months after it closed. The responses showed that 83% of respondents were in favour of a DRS. Was Defra waiting for a 100% response before it acted?
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I begin by commiserating with the Minister on the enormous amount of work she has to handle in this House. The Commons have four Ministers carving up the legislation between them, but the noble Baroness has to do the whole shooting match on her own—to use an unwoke term, probably. Last Monday we were into the details of free-range egg definitions in this Room, while on Thursday it was just a simple little thing like saving the world from destruction. Today it is one of the most difficult and complex instruments we have seen for some time, with 108 regulations and seven schedules—97 pages of controversial detail. In the last debate I heard my noble friend Lord Lilley complain that the heat pumps regulations ran to 32 pages—he should be so lucky.
If I were to comment on or ask questions on every section and subsection that concerns me, it would be an hour-long speech—I will not do that to the Minister or the Committee. Even so, I still have a lot to ask, but I have notified the Minister about my questions since clarity is more important today than trying to put one over on the Minister. I am a recycling enthusiast but not a fanatic, and I hope I am realistic. When I heard my noble friend Lord Hayward talk about the Scottish experience, I interjected to say “A thruppenny bit”, because I recall that if, as a 10 year-old boy in the Highlands in the early 1960s, you collected the glass lemonade bottles with their bakelite screw-on tops, you could get a thruppenny bit back every time. I had a nice little business going collecting those bottles, although admittedly some of them were probably not capable of being refilled. In the terms of the current legislation, they were a bit soiled. But it was a good little business—and I am probably the only person in this Room who did recycling at that age and at that time.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I am afraid that my noble friend is showing his age, because the deposit went from a thruppenny bit to 6p and then to a shilling—so to be able to recall the thruppenny bit collections displays an age that I am not sure he wishes to do.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
Because I had engaged some others to help with collecting the bottles, to whom I paid 1.5p while I took the thruppenny bit, I was put out of business prematurely before I could collect the 6p.
The last Government started this in 2019 with their first consultation, and there have been two more since, as well as various workshops and draft regulations like these. The fact that we did not lay those regs for approval was not through lack of belief in recycling but because there were still far too many loose ends to tie up. I am one of the 84% of consumers who like the concept of this, but I am deeply worried about the detail—just like the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. We saw the Scottish SNP Government, with their usual fanatical incompetence, rush into this then have to pull back. My principal concern is that this may be one more recycling initiative too far at the moment.
First, we have just done the EPR, which will force all manufacturers of glass, plastic, cans, paper and cardboard to do more recycling. Then, on 3 February, we are due to have the regs on consumer recycling, whereby we will allow all cans, glass and plastic to go into one bin, which will boost recycling. I am totally in favour of that, as long as paper and card are kept clean and pure in a separate bin. In March, the commercial simpler recycling scheme will come in, which will boost commercial recycling. With all that going on, why do we need a scheme to take back empty drinks containers to the shops when it is easier and cheaper to do it at home? It is not just me who is concerned. WRAP said in its response that it is difficult to understand the full impact of deposit return schemes on local authorities before they go live and before adaptations to the EPR and simpler recycling are known.
The Explanatory Memorandum says that we looked at foreign deposit return schemes, and the enthusiasts all cite Germany, which has a phenomenal 98% return rate for its DRS. That is fantastic, but let us look at the German history of this. Germany started a refillable bottle scheme in the 1950s, then had initial legislation on recycling in 1991 and gave a big boost to it in 1996. In 2003, it introduced yet more legislation to introduce DRS for single-use containers and there was a big change in 2006 when it legislated to make all retail outlets take back other shops’ bottles. That encouraged deposit return schemes to take off. One year later, the German company TOMRA sold over 9,000 reverse vending machines, of which 25% of return locations in Germany have one. Incidentally, TOMRA was created way back in 1972 to handle refillable bottles.
Germany is still tweaking it. Only in 2022 did it bring in a DRS for alcoholic drinks, juices and nectars in single-use plastic bottles and cans, as well as milk-based drinks in cans. I can only assume, to borrow the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, that the Germans were faffing around for the last 50 years before coming to the present scheme. They have been at it a long time, slowly adding to the legislation as experience, technology and acceptance grew. Their success has depended on three things: first, 42% of all beverages in Germany are filled in refillable containers, and they get a 98% return rate on that; secondly, they have over the years built 135,000 return locations; and the third aspect is the German mentality. That is not a jibe at an alleged Teutonic tendency that orders will be obeyed but comes from the fact that the Germans have been doing this deposit return scheme for about 50 years. It is their modus operandi, and they know little else. The main pick-up from their kerbside collection is lightweight stuff such as wastepaper and card.
Thus, we have to look at this from the point of view of the English and Northern Irish householder. We are used to separating waste into different bags and bins—far too many in some council areas—for kerbside collection and to taking plastic, card, glass and paper to big recycling bins. Norway launched its DRS in 1996 after 10 years of discussion, development and testing. I presume that it was also “faffing around” in taking 10 years to get it right. We have neither 10 years of testing nor 30 to 50 years of experience of DRS and I fear that the Government are biting off more than they can chew here, especially with all the other recycling initiatives.
Let us look at a few of my many queries. Wales has already been mentioned. Retailers and importers working in Wales will face the practical difficulties of operating under different schemes—separation of stock, unique label identifiers and new accounting systems. How can the interoperability of the four UK schemes and an avoidance of unique identifiers in the Welsh market be assured? With Welsh proposals not yet published, how can an October 2027 introduction date be assured, to avoid material switching under the EPR scheme? Are the UK Government considering a United Kingdom Internal Market Act exemption for the Welsh DRS? Will they ensure that the divergence of the Welsh scheme does not impact the governance of the UK-Northern Ireland-Scotland DRS on the appointment of a scheme administrator?
A unique approach in Wales threatens seamless intra-UK trading and risks delaying the October 2027 start date. The Welsh Government will not publish their proposals for their scheme until spring and they plan additional initiatives, such as glass reuse and refill schemes. It looks like Wales wants to do in two years a full-on German scheme that took the Germans 50 years to perfect. Unless the Government can persuade the Welsh Labour Government to fall in with the rest of the UK, I would be loath to support this whole scheme in England and Northern Ireland, much as I like the concept of it.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have made valuable contributions and asked extensive questions in this debate today. I will do my best to address as many questions as I am able.
First, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked a large number of questions. I shall start with his question on why we need a scheme to take back empty drinks containers to the shops, when it will be easier for us just to carry on doing it at home. I shall explain the rationale for introducing a DRS alongside existing recycling collections. In the UK, despite having kerbside recycling systems that collect plastic and metal drinks containers, recycling rates for these materials have stagnated at around 70%, and they continue to represent a high proportion of litter by volume, at 55%. By introducing a DRS, we create a separate waste stream which can improve the quality of drinks containers collected for recycling by collecting them separately from other recyclable materials. Comparable international examples have shown that alongside kerbside recycling systems, a DRS can offer unique benefits to recycling rates and quality, and to littering, by offering a true circularity of the material, meaning that used bottles and cans will be made directly into new products.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about Germany. We believe that the German scheme is a good example of a DRS which has scaled up and matured since it was implemented in 2003. We can learn from an awful lot from the experiences in scaling up a scheme such as Germany’s, but there is also a lot we can learn from deposit return schemes launching more recently, which offer more up-to-date learnings in how you can successfully implement a DRS from scratch in today’s world. This has included engagement with other recently launched schemes in the Republic of Ireland and Slovakia, while drawing on direct experience across many of the European schemes—those in Latvia and Sweden, as well as Germany. As was said, the deposit return scheme in England, Northern Ireland and Scotland will launch in October 2027 and we do not intend to deviate from that, because we want to see the environmental benefits being made.
A number of noble Lords asked specifically about Wales and the interoperability of the four UK schemes. We recognise that this is a challenge and that industry has specific concerns. We are working through the detail with industry, including through facilitating meetings across our devolved nations to understand potential solutions. We are listening to industry’s views to see where we can support and ensure that DRS is successful across England, Northern Ireland and Scotland. But in practical terms, the regulations also allow the deposit management organisation to work in an interoperable way with any other deposit return schemes, so when Wales proceeds with setting up a DRS, the deposit management organisation can work alongside a Welsh scheme administrator. How a scheme works in Wales will of course be for the Welsh Government to determine, but we want to continue to work with Wales and industry as we progress our DRS.
There is currently nothing that prevents DRS items produced in England, Northern Ireland and Scotland being sold in Wales, including those items labelled as part of a DRS. Businesses will need to take this into account when considering how this works for their product lines and supply chains. Any labelling requirements will be a matter for the DMO to provide detail and guidance on.
The pEPR regulations include an exemption for plastic and metal drinks containers across the UK as these materials are going to be captured through the DRS in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland when it goes live in 2027. Glass drinks containers across the UK will, as we have heard, be subject to the pEPR fees from January 2025. Because the future scope of the Welsh scheme is not yet confirmed, we want to work closely with the Welsh Government to ensure that the DRS and pEPR work effectively right across the four nations. Once we have the detail of the Welsh scheme confirmed, we can consider whether any further amendments to the pEPR regulations will be required.
Lord Hayward (Con)
In referring to locations in and around Westminster, the Minister said that they were close to 100 square metres and would therefore be required to operate the scheme. That is not quite my understanding from what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said. Could I clarify whether shops and other outlets below that figure will be required to offer those facilities?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Could I add a rider? Will there not be a de minimis rule? I asked about the size of stores; surely there will be a de minimis rule below which stores will not be required to participate.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I have further information around size, which I will come to. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, referred to all the shops selling drinks containers in the Westminster area being bigger than 100 square metres. The regulations set out that supermarkets and convenience stores will be required to host a return point unless they are subject to an exemption, which would be given if they did not meet that size and had applied for that exemption—that is how it is set up—or they could opt in. So takeaways are not included, but they could opt in, as the idea is to have a bit of flexibility in the regulations. I think that is correct.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
The takeaway joints—the Prets and Leons of this world—do not sell groceries, but people buy cans of drink from them to take away. Irrespective of size, are they included or are they not grocery retailers?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
No—as I said, takeaways such as those will not be required to host a deposit return point, but they can opt in if they choose to do so. Automatic exemptions also do not currently apply to rural stores, as we need to ensure that there is sufficient return point coverage for all consumers, regardless of where they live. However, rural businesses are still able to apply to the deposit management organisation for a return point exemption, based on store size, proximity to another return point and suitable premises—for example, if they cannot adapt their premises to host a return point. There are grounds around what premises look like that permit them to apply for an exemption. I hope that has helped to clarify that point.
It is critical that we have sufficient return points such that consumers can take things back to get their deposits back. We also need to minimise the demands placed on businesses wherever possible, particularly on the local businesses that are essential to rural communities. Return point obligations will be kept under review as the scheme becomes more established, because this is clearly complicated, so we need to watch it as it is implemented. We need to ensure that the network is appropriate, is accessible and does not overly burden rural businesses. Coming back to the noble Lord’s final remarks, the DMO, with due regard to work already conducted by the ONS, will help retailers determine whether they are in an urban or rural area. They will not just have to read the regulations, as he pointed out.
I was asked whether hospitality venues, airports and railway stations can host voluntary return points. Under the regulations, other types of organisations that sell in-scope drinks containers, including hospitality venues, food-to-go stores, schools, hospitals, gyms, sports centres and community centres, will not be mandated to host a return point, although all could operate one voluntarily if they wanted to. Grocery retailers in locations such as airports and railway stations will be obliged to host return points in the same way that any other grocery retailer would be. In practice, we expect these businesses to be pragmatic when considering how to host a return point, which may be best achieved by having a centralised return point that operates on behalf of all the retailers in that area. The regulations contain provisions for exemptions and strategic mapping of return points to ensure that the deposit management organisation can work with businesses in high-footfall areas to deliver appropriate return point accessibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked how the Government define “same” in the definition of low-volume products and how we police the potential for cheating, as he put it. The deposit management organisation will work with producers to help them determine whether a product should be regarded as a low-volume drink. The producer will need to clearly demonstrate how the product constitutes a new product line, with relevant branding and labelling for the drink. The low-volume exemption is designed to support the smallest producers and, due to the cost of labelling production processes, it is highly unlikely that larger producers will be able to take advantage of this measure through the creation of multiple product lines.
I was asked about consumer research on how well a varied deposit would be received by consumers. There was a consultation in 2021; this included consideration of a variable and fixed deposit level, with many respondents agreeing that the DMO should be responsible for determining whether to adopt fixed or variable deposits. It also discussed how it could be varied with respect to many elements, such as material or container size. Our consumer research suggested a preference for simplicity in introducing a DRS, but recently the Republic of Ireland successfully launched a DRS with a variable deposit, based on the size of the container.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked how a deposit level is set appropriately. The deposit management organisation, as I said before, will be responsible for setting that level. It is incentivised to balance the need to ensure that returns are at the targeted level with the need to ensure that products remain affordable. We have commissioned research that showed that an effective deposit level is typically around 15p to 25p. This aligns with international precedents. For example, the DRS that launched in Ireland last year has a 15 cent and 25 cent variable deposit level based on volume. We are confident that the risks of a deposit level being too high or low are being managed, and we have sufficient levers in place to mitigate it being set at a level which impacts consumer affordability. But, as a last resort, Ministers also retain the power to remove the deposit management organisation and take control of the scheme under certain conditions.
I was asked who keeps the deposit if I buy a drink from a shop but recycle it at home. Consumers must return the container to a return point to redeem the deposit. Any financial surplus made by the scheme, for example through unredeemed deposits, will be reinvested into the scheme to fund the overall running costs. Again, this is in line with international schemes. I hope that answers my noble friend Lady Ritchie’s question about where the money goes.
However, for material which is recycled in kerbside collection, we anticipate that the deposit management organisation will work closely with local authorities to ensure that as much material as possible is returned via return points, and to help meet collection targets and keep material within the closed-loop model of the DRS. Local authorities and, where relevant, waste operators will be able to separate out containers and redeem the deposit on them, provided they meet the criteria for return.
Noble Lords asked specifically about Tetra Paks. The deposit return scheme focuses on containers made wholly or mainly from PET, aluminium or steel. This material can easily be recycled through the closed-loop system and reused by producers to make new containers. Unlike PET, aluminium and steel, which are collected from all local authority kerbside collections, just 64% of local authorities in 2022 collected beverage cartons. As the noble Lord said, that does not happen in our area. But with the introduction of simpler recycling, beverage cartons will be collected from all kerbsides. Therefore, Tetra Paks and other material combinations which are harder to recycle will be captured by the pEPR legislation and associated fees.
A number of noble Lords asked about the exclusion of glass. As was rightly pointed out, England, Northern Ireland and Scotland will not be including glass when the DRS is introduced. The Government’s position is that glass would add considerable upfront cost and create complex challenges to the delivery of DRS, particularly for the hospitality and retail sectors, as well as disproportionately impact small breweries, and be inconvenient for consumers due to its weight and potential for breakage in transit to a return point. Glass drinks containers across the UK are included in the scope of the extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme to make sure that they are appropriately and efficiently recycled. Additionally, the glass recycling targets within the packaging scheme have been increased from 83% to 85%, but we are also considering how reuse systems could be developed in the future.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I asked specifically about the Minister’s point on monitoring and enforcement by local authorities. Will they have the resources to do that going forward?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We want, as we bring the scheme in, to work closely with local authorities to be aware of any impacts on them and to ensure that they have the resources they need to manage the scheme effectively. I shall move on because I have been speaking for a long time.
Implementation timelines came up. The Government are not faffing around. Some people think that we are moving too quickly while others think that we are moving too slowly, but there is a scale to this challenge and a lot of effort from industry will be required to deliver the DRS. We believe that our timeline will provide the industry with the amount of time that it needs to implement the scheme properly. It assumes 12 months for the DMO to scale up, to make key decisions and to make the relevant appointments in its delivery partners, then 18 months of practical implementation time. That is why this timeline, which was agreed with industry and represents international best practice, has come in.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about costs of set-up and implementation. Following an impact assessment last year, we updated the previous figures, but it is important to consider that some costs will be compensated through the retailer handling fee, paid by the DMO. There are also benefits from increased footfall. Obviously, some costs could be passed on to consumers, but international evidence suggests that this would be relatively minor and well within the scope of the normal cost variations in the sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about the impact on small businesses. There are exemptions for small retailers, as I mentioned earlier. The DMO will be required to consult with businesses of all sizes before it makes any of the key scheme decisions, such as on fees.
My noble friend Lady Ritchie asked about Northern Ireland. The Environment Act, under which this statutory instrument is established, provides powers for the Secretary of State to legislate on behalf of Wales and Northern Ireland, with their consent. On Northern Ireland, DAERA asked Defra to legislate on its behalf, which is why we are including Northern Ireland in the legislation.
I have been talking for some time. I hope that I have covered most of the questions asked by noble Lords; a lot of questions were asked. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, that Defra is determined to make this work; I thank her for her support for these regulations. I hope that I have answered most of the questions asked and trust that noble Lords accept the need for this instrument.
Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements etc.) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Grand Committee do consider the Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements etc.) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 12th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before Parliament on 4 December 2024 and will be made under powers conferred by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, also known as the REUL Act. They are an example of the UK making use of the freedom gained from the UK’s departure from the European Union.
This legislation amends Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93, which sets out the rules for allocation of airport slots. In taking these amendments forward, we are moving ahead before the European Union. Slot allocation rules apply only at what are known as co-ordinated airports, where capacity at the airport is unable to meet demand for slots at those airports. Nine airports are now covered by these rules, including the main London airports of City, Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton and Stansted, as well as Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester and Leeds Bradford.
The regulations will update the definition of a new entrant air carrier—or airline, as most of us would refer to it—for slot allocation purposes. This will allow air carriers with a small presence at a co-ordinated airport the opportunity to benefit from greater priority in the allocation of airport slots from the slot pool, prior to the start of the summer or winter scheduling seasons. This change not only aligns UK regulations with international guidelines but has the potential to provide more choice for consumers in terms of routes, destinations and the carriers they can fly with.
In addition, the regulations will amend assimilated EU law to enable the UK to respond in the event of a pandemic, epidemic or other outbreak of disease, such as was experienced during the Covid-19 pandemic. It will remove the need for emergency legislation to provide alleviation from slot usage rules, as was the case during the Covid-19 pandemic, in order to protect consumers, the environment and the aviation sector.
Noble Lords will be aware that co-ordinated airports are the UK’s busiest airports and that gaining a slot at them can be a challenge. It is not uncommon for air carriers to have to spend several years on the waiting list before being allocated a slot. Added to this, the current new entrant definition restricts new entrant carriers from being able to obtain enough slots for the number of daily rotations necessary to make a route commercially viable. Pursuing the necessary number of slots results in them losing their new entrant status and the benefits that come with it.
This hampers competition, which is why my department wants to update the definition of a new entrant. This seemingly small change is the difference between a new entrant air carrier being able to successfully establish and maintain a service and having to give up after a few years. The revised definition of a new entrant also brings the UK’s legislation in line with the Worldwide Airport Slot Guidelines, which provide the air transport industry worldwide with a single set of standards for the management of airport slots at co-ordinated airports.
Regulation 95/93 sets out that air carriers must operate their airport slots 80% of the time in order to retain the right to those same slots the following year. This is known as the 80:20, or the “use it or lose it”, rule. Under normal circumstances, the 80:20 rule helps encourage the efficient use of airport capacity while allowing air carriers a degree of flexibility in their operations. However, throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, the 80:20 rule was waived to avoid environmentally damaging and financially costly flights with few or no passengers—so-called ghost flights. Using powers afforded to the Government in the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021—known as the ATMUA Act—a full waiver from the 80:20 rule was initially provided. However, as the industry recovered from the pandemic, usage ratios and other measures set out in that Act were amended, allowing a managed return to business-as-usual operations as demand for aviation recovered.
Due to the unpredictability of the Covid-19 pandemic, the powers granted under the ATMUA Act were necessarily time-limited; they expired in the summer of 2024. However, the experience of Covid-19 has shown that a permanent provision for slot alleviation relating to a pandemic, epidemic or other outbreak of disease is needed. This is to provide a means by which a collapse in aviation demand because of an event of a similar magnitude to Covid-19 can be managed as part of normal operations by the UK’s airport slot co-ordinator. Without this provision, if a health crisis similar to Covid-19 were to occur, the Government would need to bring forward further primary legislation, as was done through the ATMUA Act, in order to enable alleviation from the 80:20 rule.
Turning to the content of the statutory instrument, this draft instrument will amend Regulation 95/93 to change the definition of a new entrant carrier. The purpose of the new entrant rule is to stimulate competition. New entrant carriers are given priority in the allocation of slots, as the regulation requires that 50% of slots shall first be allocated to new entrants unless the requests made by new entrants are less than 50%. Currently, an air carrier is a new entrant if it has fewer than five slots at an airport on a given day. Under this instrument, a new entrant is defined as a carrier that holds fewer than seven slots at an airport. The update to the new entrant rule is designed to enhance the presence of new entrant carriers at slot co-ordinated airports.
As I said, the instrument will also build on previous regulations that provided carriers with slot alleviation during the Covid-19 pandemic by introducing a permanent provision for carriers in order to obtain slot alleviation where there are government-imposed measures relating to a pandemic, epidemic or other outbreak of disease, provided that certain conditions are fulfilled. This will put in place a much simpler process by which an event such as Covid-19 can be managed for slot co-ordination purposes.
In conclusion, in this instrument, the Government have recognised the need to update the definition of a new entrant and to provide additional reasons for allowing alleviation from slot usage rules in order to protect the aviation sector from the potential impact of another pandemic occurring, however remote that possibility might or might not appear. The provisions in the instrument were subject to consultation with the aviation sector in 2023 and received strong support from across industry. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee flagged these regulations as an instrument of interest but did not make any adverse comments. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments did not report this instrument. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting these measures. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I want to make a shortish contribution. First, in general, I welcome these proposals. I declare my interest as a former director of Newcastle Airport, which is of course not on the list of co-ordinated airports because of the lack of congestion—I think that is the term used. I am also a private pilot so I have a particular interest in the way in which this interesting phenomenon of slots has developed over the years.
It seems to me that, in terms of their balance sheets, quite a lot of airlines would not be able to operate unless they had slots as part of the asset base, which isa little unreal and unacceptable. In my opinion, that also puts pressure on obtaining slots out of the pool—or, indeed, in any other way possible. Airport Coordination Limited, which is the organisation that decides on the allocation of slots, therefore has a difficult job, particularly in areas where the return of slots from airlines is quite a difficult situation. Obviously, there are far too few slots relating to all the airports on the list of co-ordinated airports.
Interestingly, although Leeds Bradford Airport is now included as a co-ordinated airport, it certainly does not appear in much of the evidence that I have read in relation to ghost flights, and so on. Will the Minister let me know whether Leeds Bradford Airport has been a late entrant on this list? I would be interested to know.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I have been following these issues for some years, and I find myself in broad agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. He mentioned air traffic control and the fact that restrictions are regularly placed on flights coming in and out of Heathrow, in some cases because of the absence of qualified staff.
I welcome the end of ghost flights, which were a nonsense not only environmentally but economically for the airlines. It was ridiculous having flights with half a dozen people, or none, going around, so that is a perfectly sensible provision. However, I want to draw it to the Minister’s attention that on two occasions I brought the Airports (Amendment) Bill to this House. It passed through this House twice. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who was the Minister at the time, said that the problem, from the Government’s point of view, was that because of our membership of the European Union, we were not able to address the matter that I was raising.
That matter was the slots at London airports. Let us face it—Heathrow is the primary national hub, though I accept that other London airports are important—but there is no requirement to ensure that the main regional airports have access to Heathrow. We in Northern Ireland do not have much in the way of an alternative; in fairness, Boris Johnson promised us a bridge, but that has gone the way of all flesh so, in practical terms, we are left primarily with one way of getting here. You can get a ferry—but that can take a couple of days.
This applies to Edinburgh, Glasgow and Manchester. The Secretary of State does not have the ability to guarantee that the main regional airports have access. This is all to do with national connectivity. The primary clause in my Bill was:
“The Secretary of State may give to any airport operator a direction requiring him (according to the circumstances of the case) to do, or not to do, a particular thing specified in the direction, if the Secretary of State considers it necessary to give such a direction in the interests of ensuring sufficient national air infrastructure between hub and regional airports”.
It was to give the Secretary of State a power to deal with this. Even if competition is improved by these regulations, which I would support, that has nothing to do with where those slots are allocated. Maybe they are allocated to an airline, but they can fly anywhere. There is still a gap here. Now that we are not bound by the European regulation, will the Minister reflect on this? I appreciate that it is not in these proposals, but I am sure that he can see the rationale of ensuring this.
At the moment, we are well served—I have no issue with that. There are a number of airlines, albeit the competition has narrowed recently—but we are entirely at the mercy of the airlines. We have no ability to ensure that they travel on that route. It is a bit like the 80:20 rule; most of the time it works fine, but there could be circumstances in which it does not. We can also see that competition is limited and our fares are high, so there is a link to the consumer. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, made that point; the consultation was wide, but consumer interests perhaps did not dominate to the extent that they should have.
I broadly support these proposals, but I ask the Minister to consider that with his department, because there is no guarantee that our key regions will have access, particularly to Heathrow. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State should have that power.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I will speak about the Northern Ireland aspect of this. Any legislative changes aimed at increasing competition in the airline industry and allowing smaller airlines to enter the market are to be welcomed. However, I am sure I speak for all Northern Ireland Peers when I say that more competition—and many more services, particularly between Belfast and London—is not a luxury but an absolute necessity. We have no other means of getting here other than the ferry.
Getting flights at short notice and at an affordable price is becoming difficult to the point of impossibility. As we know, parliamentary business changes all the time and being able to contribute to debates and attend other meetings is a duty on all of us. However, there are times when there are simply not enough airline seats for noble Lords and elected representatives in another place to get to Westminster, and that is not acceptable.
I raised this matter several times in the past Parliament, only to be told by Ministers and the Government that there was not a problem. I am afraid that there is a problem. As I said previously, and I say it again today, I urge the Ministers and their officials to please take my concerns seriously and work with airlines and airports to ensure that air connectivity between Great Britain and Northern Ireland is swiftly and significantly improved. The problem that I highlight also impacts on businesspeople wishing to travel across the Irish Sea. Failure to address the issue will continue to have a detrimental impact on the Northern Ireland economy until more services are created.
Although most of the provisions in this legislation are UK-wide, some do not extent to Northern Ireland. In his reply, can the Minister clarify which specific aspects of the regulations do not apply to Northern Ireland, and why? Is there any link between these exemptions and the continued diversification of rules and regulations between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, caused by the imposition of an Irish Sea border? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this statutory instrument, which amends airport slots. I thank the civil servants who spoke to me on Friday to provide more detail to the background, and the Minister for the opening statement. Put simply, these slots provide the permission to use airport infrastructure on a specific date and time for take-off or landing, and they apply, as the Minister has outlined, to congested airports in the UK only.
The first change is logical—it is putting in place rules to cover scenarios such as a pandemic. Slot alleviation was granted on a temporary basis during Covid to prevent flights running empty in order that airlines could keep their slots. These new rules would cover any government-imposed measures whereby passenger travel would be significantly reduced. I am pleased to read that nine out of 10 respondents supported this, and it makes clear sense. Perhaps the Minister could advise whether this is something that is also being implemented in the EU or in other countries post pandemic.
The second area is an amendment to the definition of a new entrant carrier from an airline that has fewer than five slots at an airport on a day to one that has seven. My key question when reading the statutory instrument was where the demand has come from to raise this number to seven. Why do the Government want to make this change? I could not see anywhere that the airline industry was clamouring for it. Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that
“some respondents felt that the suggested change to fewer than seven slots was too small to have a tangible effect on competition and wanted a higher threshold”.
What conversations has the department had with the airline industry? Is there any consensus or appetite for the definition of a new entrant carrier to include a higher number of slots?
Conversely, is there a concern that while raising the slot threshold to seven could make it easier for new entrants, it might also limit opportunities for smaller carriers? Surely we need to ensure safeguards and encourage broader market diversity. Perhaps the Minister can clarify how the Government will ensure that the allocation of slots increases choice for passengers.
What conversations has the department had with the EU about its plans in this area? While I understand that this change would bring UK legislation in line with international guidelines, which were updated in 2020, in these areas it is often sensible to be aligned with our nearest neighbours, and it would be good to understand where the EU is in this particular field. In my view, it is not an area where divergence is necessarily needed.
I would appreciate some responses from the Minister to these questions—but, overall, the statutory instrument is acceptable in its current form.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I reiterate the words of my noble friend Lord Kirkhope and the noble Lord, Lord Empey. Many years ago I used to do business with National Air Traffic Services. As noble Lords have highlighted, that body does an excellent job—often in the background, but it plays a crucial role.
The regulation of airport slot allocation is an important aspect of maintaining the efficient operation of the UK’s busiest airports, which are often constrained by capacity. This statutory instrument implements measures raised in the previous Government’s consultation on airport slot allocation.
In line with the International Air Transport Association’s guidelines, the core objective of airport slot co-ordination is to optimise the use of available airport infrastructure, benefiting consumers and industry alike. Airport slots are allocated by independent co-ordinators to airlines for their planned operations, particularly at level 3 airports such as London Heathrow, London Gatwick and others where demand consistently exceeds available capacity.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their consideration of these draft regulations. I will attempt to respond to as many of the specific points raised as I can.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, asked about Leeds Bradford Airport. It is a late entrant, entered in 2024, and is subject to slot allocations only in the summer months. The noble Lord also asked how the 80:20 rule is administered. The answer is that, if under 80% of flights over the entire season are not used, they are lost. For desperate circumstances other than Covid, the regulations already have some alleviation, but this statutory instrument adds to them in respect of Covid. I will come back to the change from five to seven slots in answering some other points.
The noble Lord made a serious point about consumer interest in consultation. The Competition and Markets Authority was consulted and supported all the changes. The Civil Aviation Authority was also consulted because it has consumer protection obligations; it, too, fully supported this measure.
The noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Rogan, mentioned the provision of adequate services to Northern Ireland from Great Britain. From some previous work that I did on the union connectivity review, I know that this is a subject of much concern—and, occasionally, criticism—in Northern Ireland. Recently, I answered a Question in your Lordships’ House about the cancellation of an early flight from Belfast to London; that cancellation seems to have been astonishingly ill advised from the point of view of the airline operator, judging by the number of noble Lords and Members of the other place who were inconvenienced by it. So I understand the noble Lords’ points and the previous proposals for Bills in this direction.
The noble Lord suggested a more fundamental review of slot allocation system; such a wider reform would need primary legislation. The previous Government consulted on this from December 2023 to March 2024, and the current Government are now considering the need for wider slot reform; I am sure that the specific availability of slots from Northern Ireland will be part of that consideration.
I draw to the attention of both noble Lords the fact that, as I noted in the union connectivity review, the Government have a public service obligation and support flights from Derry/Londonderry to London precisely to make sure that there is connectivity from Northern Ireland to London.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, made two points about the extent to which the European Union is in advance of or behind these changes. In both cases, we are making these changes in advance of the EU making similar changes in respect of both Covid and the minimum slot allocation. On her point about moving from five to seven slots, that move is certainly helpful to consumers because, as other noble Lords have noted, increasing the number gives an opportunity for new services to support themselves in viability and, therefore, to be more permanent. So the answer to that question is that it will help. On whether the number is the right one, there was certainly consensus that the number should be increased but little consensus about what it should be, so bringing ourselves in line with international legislation seems, frankly, a pretty sensible thing to do.
The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, asked whether new entrants can be protected in some way. Of course, I raised in my original speech that new entrant carriers are given priority in the allocation of slots, as the regulation requires that 50% of the slots shall first be allocated to new entrants unless the requests from them are less than 50%. That seems a sensible provision to allow new entrants a first opportunity here.
Lastly, the noble Earl asked how the Government will ensure that the provisions for severe disruption are used only in exceptional circumstances. In respect of something like a pandemic, it is pretty clear that the provisions have to be drastic. There are other provisions in existing regulations for alleviation, which will continue to apply.
I hope that I have covered all the points made by noble Lords on this proposed statutory instrument. I conclude by saying that it will make two permanent changes to Regulation 95/93, reducing barriers to entry at UK airports and making the slot allocation system more resilient. This instrument is putting the UK on the front foot; as I said, we are now in advance of the European Union on both of this measure’s substantial subject matters. I commend this instrument to the Committee.
Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the Grand Committee do consider the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations will ensure that those who remain eligible to be registered on the electoral register but did not respond to the last electoral canvass can remain registered while attempts are made to contact them. Strengthening and encouraging participation in our democracy is an essential part of a strong democracy, which is why this Government committed to doing so in our manifesto.
It may be helpful to provide some context. In GB, the annual canvass requires most registered individuals simply to confirm that their circumstances have not changed in order to remain on the register. However, in Northern Ireland, there is no annual process; rather, the independent Chief Electoral Officer—the CEO—is required to conduct a canvass at least every 10 years. This requires all eligible individuals to respond by completing a full new application form or risk being removed from the register.
All registered individuals who fail to complete a new application are removed from the register at the end of the canvass period unless, having cross-checked their registration record with other government data, the CEO is satisfied that the entry remains valid. In these circumstances, under the existing law, the non-responder can be retained on the register, becoming a retained elector for up to three years.
Under the existing legislation, and following the last canvass in 2021, there are 87,000 retained electors—around 6% of the total electorate. Without the changes in this statutory instrument, they will all be removed from the register on 1 February 2025. The CEO’s assessment is that almost all of these retained electors remain eligible to vote. The view of the CEO and the Electoral Commission is that this loss of otherwise eligible electors would negatively impact the quality of the electoral register in Northern Ireland and potentially disenfranchise electors. The Government agree with this assessment.
To avoid this outcome, these regulations extend the retention period from three years to six years. Crucially, they provide a framework to audit the retained electors annually. It also stipulates the required engagements needed to encourage re-registration. We are satisfied that the extension from three years to six years is reasonable; additional data is available to the CEO, and improvements in data science since the legislation was made mean that the data is of a much higher quality than it was when the canvass retention provisions were previously set. The CEO has made it clear that he has full confidence in the quality of the data available to him, and that this provides him with confidence in determining eligibility in terms of both retention and, where warranted, removals. This instrument provides a framework for these engagement processes to take place.
The CEO will for the first time be required to conduct a residence audit every year to check the residence details of retained registrants against the external data streams available. The CEO regularly checks and verifies entries on the register against the external data to which he has access. These regulations will formalise the process in respect of retained electors and will set out the steps to be taken to encourage re-registration. Where the audit raises a question as to residence at a registered address, a removal warning notice must be sent.
If an elector does not re-register within 28 days of a notice, they will be removed from the register where, on the basis of the audit, the CEO remains satisfied no further action will be taken in years 1 to 3. In years 4 and 5, where the CEO is satisfied that retained electors remain resident, they will be sent a household notice showing which electors in the household must re-register or risk removal. They will not at this stage be removed. Given that three years have already elapsed since the 2021 canvass, the current retained cohort will start this new framework in year 4 and be subject to the provisions relating to years 4 to 6 of the scheme.
I turn to final year notices. In the sixth and final year, all remaining retained electors will be sent up to three notices informing them that, if they do not re-register, they will be removed. If they fail to respond, they will be removed from the register. This is in line with the primary legislation, which is clear that non-respondents may not be retained indefinitely.
The central purpose of these processes is to ensure that reasonable efforts are made to prevent the loss of eligible electors from the register. The CEO and the Electoral Commission have supported the development of this framework; I thank them for their engagement. His Majesty’s Government will work hard to strengthen our democracy by encouraging participation in the democratic process. These regulations are a first step towards that.
I beg to move.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction. I note that within it she observed that the processes for registration differ between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is for specific reasons in terms of the system, which is somewhat different in Northern Ireland from that applying in Great Britain. However, the process suggested here is substantially more elongated than what would apply within Great Britain. I can understand why this is, given the difference in processes, but I am not convinced that it is absolutely necessary so to do. I am not against these regulations because, given the circumstances, they make sense, but I am making a comparison with Great Britain.
I understand that there is a capacity to register online. At the last general election, 3 million people across the whole United Kingdom took advantage of that, only for half of them to be told that they were already registered, because there is no read-only access to the electoral roll in this country. I am talking here about the United Kingdom and commenting on a decision of the previous Government. It is striking that they would not introduce read-only access to the electoral roll, despite the fact that in Ireland they have one and it only cost them £6 million. There are alternatives in tackling the issue of people who do not respond.
The route which has been gone down of accessibility, with the capacity for individuals to register online for elections, is one we should give serious consideration to. I know there are alternatives such as automatic registration, which is being considered and advocated. I am not convinced of that route. While I can understand why this is being proposed in these circumstances, it would be sensible if we acknowledged—across the whole of the United Kingdom—the position whereby people can register simply for an election and then participate. They are the people who will be willing to participate. We are asking for a fairly lengthy and costly process to be undertaken, when people who fail to respond are more likely to be those who do not participate in elections anyway.
I have made a few brief comments in broad terms, contrasting the processes in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I understand why this is being done on this occasion but online registration is a much better system, from which we could all operate.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I would welcome some clarity from the Minister on two aspects of these regulations.
First, we are keen to know how many checks the Government expect the Electoral Office to carry out on individual voters to ensure that they are genuinely resident in a Northern Ireland household before giving them a vote. It is a simple fact, and one which some noble Lords may not be aware of, that we currently have people living in the Republic of Ireland but with a registered address in Northern Ireland, often that of a relative. Not only does this give them a vote in Northern Ireland; it also allows them to register with a GP and receive free National Health Service care in the Province, courtesy of the British taxpayer. This situation has been allowed to develop because the Electoral Office seems simply to take the word of those who complete the canvass forms, without conducting any additional checks. Can the Minister advise the Committee how His Majesty’s Government intend to address this situation, which I am sure she will agree is unacceptable?
Secondly, in our view, the application process for absent votes is open to serious abuse. As the Minister will be aware, to obtain a postal or proxy vote under these regulations, the applicant will need a digital registration number and their national insurance number. However, those details are now in the possession of some of the political parties standing for election in Northern Ireland, with few checks on their signatures. What assurances can she offer us to counter the very real threat of votes being stolen or misused under these rules?
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for presenting this statutory instrument and declare an interest as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House.
Elections are undoubtedly fundamental to our democracy, no more so than in Northern Ireland, where I have participated in district council, Assembly and Westminster parliamentary elections. They are fundamental to strengthening our democracy and, as the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, referred to, they have also been subject to abuse. Some of our political parties in Northern Ireland, along with their candidates, have been subjected to that abuse through voter fraud. That area requires further investigation.
I support this SI because it provides an opportunity for the retained voters—some 87,000 people—to remain on the register for a further three years. However, I exhort those people, after all the hard work that political parties do, to ensure that they have contacted the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland headquarters in Belfast to verify their presence and say whether it is actual or not. What level of consultation has taken place with political parties regarding the retained electors and the welcome extension? What is the breakdown among the 18 constituencies in Northern Ireland?
In further legislation, statutory photographic voter identification needs to be made tougher and, maybe, more transparent, as some of us who were candidates found to our cost. People who wanted to vote at a parliamentary election in June 2017 told me that they had turned up at 7 am with their proper identification, but their votes had already been taken by others. How did that happen when there was photographic ID? There needs to be greater protection against electoral fraud.
While I welcome and participated in online registration, I would like to find out what percentage of the electorate take up online registration and how successful it has been in the make-up of the register. Bear in mind that some people are transient and move from one house to another; they are entitled to vote, but there is a need for an exhortation to them to clarify their position directly with the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland to prevent electoral officers having to do this type of work.
I would also support any attempt in forthcoming legislation to lower the age of voting from 18 to 16, because I believe that that would build a democratic base among young people in understanding the role of politics in our society.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, every vote counts. That is one of the things that we hear regularly coming up to an election, particularly in Northern Ireland. I am well aware of that because, in my former constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, at one stage an election was won by four votes. When it went to court, three votes were excluded, so it was won by one vote. I have been in contests with very narrow margins.
Quite a lot of illegal activity goes on at election time in Northern Ireland, believe it or not. One case concerned a polling station in Garrison, County Fermanagh, which was kept open for an extra 20 minutes by a group of supporters of a political party to allow their people to get in and provide extra votes for their candidate.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I support this statutory instrument. It is very important that we try to ensure that as many as people as possible vote in Northern Ireland, and indeed the rest of the United Kingdom—
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
Legally—I will come to that in a moment. Therefore, these regulations are absolutely right. We need to ensure that turnout is up, and that people vote and are encouraged to vote. I am quite attracted by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, about the increased use of registering online, which is very sensible in this digital age. However, I agree with noble Lords who have spoken about the difficulties one encounters in Northern Ireland because of fraud and intimidation.
One of the first shocks I had when I became a Minister in Northern Ireland was to meet with the—very famous—chief electoral officer, who announced the referendum result in 1998. He came to my office in Millbank with a suitcase, which he plonked on my desk. He opened it up, and there were between 200 and 300 votes, every one of which was illegal. Obviously, we knew that this was going on, but to have it from the horse’s mouth, so to speak, concentrated the mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, was right about the closeness of results in Northern Ireland, not just for the general election but for local government elections and elections to the Assembly. Often, the complicated PR system over there, STV, means that in many cases it literally comes down to single figures. Clearly, there are people elected to public bodies in Northern Ireland who should not be because of the system that I have just described.
I agree with what has been recommended to us, but I ask my noble friend the Minister to keep an eye on developments in Northern Ireland and to work with the chief electoral officer to ensure that we are increasingly aware of fraud and intimidation and that we have a healthy system of democracy in Northern Ireland—one which, as I said earlier, we can improve so that people are voting, the turnout goes up and we get a true representation of what people feel.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, this has been an interesting short debate that strayed a little beyond these regulations, here and there. I thank the Minister for her introduction and the Electoral Commission for the briefing it provided ahead of this debate. I shall be extremely brief.
We support these regulations and see them as a necessary short-term fix to ensure that we do not lose the 87,000 electors from the register. However, I hope the Minister will accept that we probably have to revisit comprehensive, long-term reform of the electoral registration process in Northern Ireland. It is now essential that we modernise the system, perhaps especially ahead of the next scheduled canvass in 2030. Could the Minister say whether the Government intend at some point to introduce automatic or automated voter registration, whether they intend to use enhanced government or local government datasets for a more targeted canvass in Northern Ireland and whether they intend to incorporate electoral registration into other public service transactions to improve efficiency and accessibility?
I agree with the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, to get a government response on the increased use of online registration. It is an extremely important point and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
As other noble Lords have said, confidence in the accuracy and completeness of the electoral registration processes in Northern Ireland is a key part of the democratic process. This measure, although a short-term fix, is important to allow 87,000 electors not to fall off, but I hope that we will look at this more comprehensively in future.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, for setting out the terms of this statutory instrument and to noble Lords from both Northern Ireland and Great Britain for their contributions. As the noble Baroness made clear, the purpose of these regulations is to extend the retention period for electors in Northern Ireland and to retain these electors on the register for an additional three years, bringing the period to six years in total. The regulations also introduce an annual audit of these retained electors, including measures to contact them in an effort to encourage them to reregister.
At present and without this measure, as has been mentioned, it is expected that approximately 87,700 retained electors will be removed from the register on 1 February. While the Opposition obviously support these regulations, does the noble Baroness agree that this is quite a significant number and that we are justified in asking why such a large group of eligible voters is at risk of being removed from the register on this date? The regulations offer a framework for auditing and engaging these electors, but this still raises questions about whether enough is being done to prevent the unnecessary disenfranchisement of the electorate.
The noble Baroness will be acutely aware of the history of elections in Northern Ireland and that, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, they have not always been without controversy. It was due to widespread concerns over fraud that, some 20 years ago, the last Labour Government introduced individual voter registration in Northern Ireland, and I commend them for doing so. I merely wish that they had been more supportive of our efforts in Great Britain to deal with electoral misdemeanours and fraud in the previous Parliament. Even more recently, despite the efforts of the last Labour Government and others, there have been serious allegations of vote rigging.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard, refer to Fermanagh and South Tyrone. He will be aware that I was actively involved in the election campaign in 2010 in Northern Ireland, when the candidate agreed by my party, the Ulster Unionists and the Democratic Unionists lost to Sinn Féin by a mere four votes. The noble Lord will also recall that a number of photocopied ballot papers mysteriously turned up at polling stations shortly before 10 o’clock that evening.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, also referred to vote stealing. She will remember that in the Foyle constituency in 2017, Sinn Féin defeated the former leader of her party, Mark Durkan, by a mere 169 votes, I think it was, there were again many serious allegations of vote stealing. As far as I am aware, these were investigated and no evidence was found, but the suspicions remain very widespread, and the noble Baroness was right to raise them.
Despite the progress that has been made in tackling fraud, the need for vigilance remains, not least when a number of constituencies in Northern Ireland are much more marginal than they might have been in the past. Indeed, I think around half of the constituencies in Northern Ireland are held by majorities of under 6,000 these days. This highlights, as the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, said, the importance of every vote, and we must ensure that no eligible voter, particularly in closely contested areas, is unfairly removed from the register and that retaining people on a register for longer periods does not increase the scope for fraud. While the extension of the retention period may provide flexibility for electors who are unable or unwilling to respond in a timely manner, it could also open the door to exploitation. The longer individuals remain on the register without reconfirmation of their eligibility, the greater the risk that ineligible individuals could be made, either deliberately or inadvertently, to vote fraudulently.
Can the Minister therefore reassure the Committee how the Government, working with the chief electoral officer, will ensure that the retention of electors for up to six years does not create opportunities for fraudulent activity? Are there sufficient safeguards in place to prevent ineligible individuals from being added to or retained on the register, particularly if they have not been adequately contacted or if the audit process has not been thorough enough?
My final point touches on issues raised by the former Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, and my noble friend Lord Hayward regarding voter turnout, which in 2024 was down by four percentage points to just 57% of the electorate, which is very low. Again, can the Minister assure us that this is an issue that the electoral office takes very seriously and that every effort will be made to boost turnout across Northern Ireland? My noble friend Lord Hayward made some very sensible suggestions regarding online registration, and so on, to boost turnout next time for both Stormont and Westminster elections.
On that note, I will finish, but I reiterate that the Opposition support the regulations before the Committee this evening.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful consideration and input, as ever when we discuss matters pertaining to Northern Ireland. Building confidence in our electoral system will help strengthen engagement in democracy and, in turn, strengthen democracy. I am therefore pleased that we have been able to discuss the statement. With regard to some of the specifics raised, I will go in order; noble Lords will have to bear with me as some of them made similar points. I hope to be able to respond to everybody.
For the information of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, Northern Ireland has an online register checker that allows people to establish in minutes whether they are already registered, which I think is incredibly helpful. Many of his questions were slightly outside the scope of these specific regulations. However, I would very much welcome an opportunity to meet the noble Lord, along with my officials, to discuss some of his suggestions in detail—especially as the Government are looking at how to review this measure in terms of a UK-wide solution and next steps. I assure the noble Lord that we are using all the tools at our disposal, as is the chief electoral officer, to encourage sign-up and engagement. Obviously, the world has changed significantly since this legislation was originally done, so we must ensure that we have the opportunity to engage appropriately with all potential voters.
Lord Hayward (Con)
Can I make two observations? First, I thank the Minister for her generous offer of a meeting to have further conversations on the issues I raised. Secondly, I observe for the Committee in general that, when I was the MP for Kingswood in Bristol, an eight year-old female came to visit the House of Commons with her mother. I am pleased that the guided tour I gave the now Minister was so successful in interesting her in politics that I have the honour of sitting opposite her, asking her questions and accepting her invitations. In conclusion, I just wish that she had listened to my influence on that guided tour rather than her mother’s, which may have decided why we are sitting on opposite sides of the table.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord and I am grateful to my mother for the values that she gave me.
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe
Introduction: Lord Wilson of Sedgefield
Colombia: Bilateral Investment Treaty
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Browne of Ladyton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of recent comments by the trade minister of Colombia regarding the investor-state dispute settlement provisions in the UK/Colombia bilateral investment treaty.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government value the UK/Colombia bilateral investment treaty in the investment relationship between our countries. The treaty covered £6.8 billion of bilateral investment in 2023. It provides greater certainty for investors through legally binding investment protection provisions, which ensure that both UK and Colombian investors are protected against unfair and discriminatory treatment and expropriation without adequate compensation.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that Colombia seeks renegotiation of the terms of its investment treaty with the UK, concerned—and it is not alone in this concern—that the ISDS provisions are undermining its sovereign democratic right to legislate to protect its indigenous community and environmental rights, or to implement aspects of its national peace plan. In 10 years, it has faced 23 ISDS claims by multinational companies. One was by Glencore mining, prompted by a refusal to authorise the expansion the largest open-pit coal mine—or, if it is not the largest, it is one of the largest—in the world. Last year, we withdrew from the energy charter because of concerns that its ISDS provisions would impede our policy to phase out fossil fuels. It would be somewhat inconsistent to do that while compelling Colombia to abide by similar ISDS provisions in our treaty with it.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, as of today His Majesty’s Government have not been formally approached by the Government of Colombia about this, but we are of course always open to hearing the views of our trading partners. Established forums exist for civil society organisations to raise and discuss trade-related issues with government Ministers. Most recently, my right honourable friend the Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security hosted a civil society round table in December, which included a discussion on ISDS. Ministers will continue to engage with a range of stakeholders, including from civil society, across the full range of trade policy issues, including investment.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, as we have heard, ISDSs are not rare—there are many of them. However, increasingly they are coming under scrutiny and, moving forward, some countries are not seeking them because, as in high-profile cases such as the ones we have heard about, and in others, democratically elected Governments are being challenged and are having to overturn legitimate public policy. Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House whether she recognises the improper regulatory chill that these agreements can create for democratically elected Governments? Can she set out, in a general sense, the Government’s position for the future? Will the Government continue to seek ISDS agreements in trade deals that they are currently negotiating?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I appreciate, as he invited me to, that these agreements stand over a very long period of time. Between an agreement being put in place and 10 years later—which is where we are now with Colombia—at which point there is an opportunity to look at it again, many things may change and it is open to either side to seek changes to the agreement, or to walk away entirely. At the moment, the Colombians have not indicated to us that that is their intention. It should be remembered that these bilateral treaties are helpful in providing assurance to investors, and that is something that we would not want to harm in any way.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, as of last year, ISDS claims pending against Colombia exceeded $13 billion. As the penholder for the Colombian peace process at the Security Council, what assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the impact of this on Colombia’s ability to resource the implementation of the peace accord? How can we leverage our role as penholder to help Colombia achieve this?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The United Kingdom is absolutely committed to supporting Colombia in the peace process, and enormous progress has been made. We see these things as separate. I think Colombia has faced 26 cases since 2016. Only four of them have been brought by the UK, so we hope that we can continue to trade with Colombia and to invest in Colombia—it is an important partner for us—and to support it as it moves forward with its peace process.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, the arguments against the ISDS do not come just from the ecological lobby; there is a democratic argument against them, and there is an argument that they give some foreign companies an unfair advantage over domestic ones. None the less, as the Minister correctly says, they are a necessary way of attracting investment. Can she confirm that, wherever we decide to draw that balance, we should apply it consistently across all our trade deals? It would be neither credible nor sustainable to start changing them because of lobbying from one particular country, which would then encourage every other trading partner to do the same thing.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think so—but there is a difference between being consistent and having a cut-and-paste approach. Every context is unique and Colombia is a particularly special partner for us, for reasons that noble Lords will understand.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as director of the Hay Festival Cartagena in Colombia. We will have our 20th anniversary next week, when we will be joined by many politicians, environmentalists and tribal leaders. Perhaps I might extend the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, about the $13 billion. Australia does not have an ISDS agreement with Colombia. The mega mining group BHP has found a workaround via its UK-registered spin-off company, South32, to sue Colombia for $94 million over alleged unpaid royalties from a mine that the Constitutional Court of Colombia has ruled causes serious long-term health and environmental issues. As the penholder, can we not intervene in this? Colombia has 10% of the world’s unique birds and, just in the last 12 months, it has found 12 new species of plants and an animal, an amphibian, that we did not even know existed.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Colombia is an astonishing country, not least because of its biodiversity. It would not be right to try to leverage our role as penholder for the peace process at the Security Council to intervene in issues of trade. The UK is the fourth-largest investor in Colombia and we seek to work through these issues alongside Colombia in the spirit of mutual respect and partnership.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the Colombian Trade Minister said that the Colombian justice system had the tools to guarantee investors all reasonable protections and due process for the protection of their rights. Have His Majesty’s Government conducted an assessment of the Colombian justice system? If a renegotiation of the agreement takes place, are they satisfied that UK investors’ rights will be guaranteed all reasonable protections? That is particularly important given the ongoing dispute between ViiV Healthcare and the Colombian Government over intellectual property rights.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord opposite is rather rushing his fences. Of course we would look at these things, should there be a formal request for a review or any change from the Government of Colombia, but, as of today, that is not the case. We regularly speak with our partners in Colombia—I was there myself in December—so we would be very happy to have any kind of dialogue that they wish. However, we have not had that request as of now.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that a fatal flaw of the ISDS secret court system is that it privileges big corporations over access and rights for citizens and workers? Can she update us on how the Government are pursuing a trade policy that can be a win-win in providing and protecting jobs and levering up labour standards, recognising that Colombia has a history of being one of the most dangerous countries in the world in which to be a trade unionist?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I recognise what my noble friend said. I have met with many civil society organisations, including Justice For Colombia, very recently. It is important that these agreements provide a win-win. The UK wants to be a responsible partner with all our trading partners, but—I think it is fair to say—especially with Colombia.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, following on from the last question, the United Nations special rapporteur on the right to development has said that ISDSs are crippling for many countries in terms of the impact on development. They have been described as a form of modern-day colonialism. Does the Minister agree with that? Does she agree that ISDSs are a significant barrier to delivering the sustainable development goals to which the whole world has signed up?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I certainly would not describe our relationship with Colombia in any way as being to do with colonialism, and Colombia would not, either. We have a respectful, equal relationship of partnership. We have supported Colombia for a very long time, across multiple Governments both here and there, towards its goal of total peace, and that is what we will continue to do.
First-cousin Marriage
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Farmer
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to address the health and social impacts of first-cousin marriage, including those relating to women’s rights.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, NHS England continues to drive improvements in care and access to genetic services for all communities, including through research into the health risks of closely related couples—second cousins or closer—having children. In 2024-25, there was an investment of £1 million in the Genetic Risk Equity project, which supports equity of access to genetic services for the small proportion of closely related couples who have a higher risk of having children with certain genetic conditions.
Lord Farmer (Con)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Pakistani-heritage journalist Matthew Syed has highlighted the risk-multiplying effect of genetic disorders when cousins intergenerationally marry cousins, as happens in remote Shetland, Orkney, and in the British Pakistani community. Pakistanis account for 3.4% of births nationwide but 30% of recessive gene disorders. The NHS employs staff specifically to deal with consanguinity-related diseases. Given this considerable disease burden, and the NHS cost, will this Government mount a health information campaign warning of this significant extra risk?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand the point that the noble Lord is making, but this is a very complex topic in respect of which there is a great lack of reliable data. Any plans for any health information campaign anywhere clearly need to be considered carefully. Perhaps I can reassure the noble Lord that staff from the Genomic Medicine Service are already working with other national projects, such as Born in Bradford and Best Start for Life in Birmingham, to engage with the communities most affected by first-cousin marriage. Of course, any campaign plans for Shetland and Orkney will be a matter for the Scottish Government.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for referring to the Born in Bradford study because 18 months ago, it reported that over the last decade, the number of intra-cousin marriages in the Pakistani community had substantially fallen. The reasons for this were awareness of the risk of congenital abnormalities, young people staying in education longer, and changing family values. This is clearly a successful project. Is it being replicated elsewhere in the UK?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that consanguineous unions are decreasing. While it had the best data, the NIHR-funded study, Born in Bradford, to which the noble Baroness and I have referred, found that between 2000 and 2010, 39% of British Pakistani couples in Bradford were first cousins. However, that reduced by 27% by 2019, for the reasons suggested. Driving change across whole ranges of areas makes a difference, but it is important that we keep this in perspective and make any communications and support absolutely appropriate.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, surely, this Question is an example of the great value of our genetic science in Britain, and the excellence of the National Health Service in this area. In the Midlands, as the noble Baroness has mentioned, these diseases are common, but the progress we have made in their diagnosis and treatment—and, to some extent, prevention—has been quite remarkable and will continue. I have to add that many of the diseases are extremely rare in such families, and therefore what you could do about cousins in every case would be impossible, but the information being given is exemplary in most cases.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for those very informed observations, and I share the assessment that he has made.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the reduction in the number of interrelated family marriages, not only in Bradford; the numbers have also drastically reduced in the Bangladeshi community. I understand that countries such as Saudi Arabia have a significant number of first-cousin marriages. In pursuing the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, about a further awareness campaign, can we also learn something from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia, or anywhere else where this practice exists? Can the Minister confirm whether she has undertaken any discussions internationally?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly have not, and I am not aware of discussions that have taken place between Ministers or officials in our department and those in other countries. However, I will be very glad to look into that and to write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Farmer for the Question, and the Minister for the sensitive way in which she is handling it. When we want to look at policy in sensitive areas, surely, we should be led by the data, so I just wonder what the Government’s latest data is. We know that about a decade ago, 6% of congenital defects or anomalies were in children born to first cousins in Pakistani communities, compared to 3% for the wider population. I have seen more recent statistics that say the figures are now 4% and 2%. So, what is the latest data the Government are working with, and what level would those congenital defects have to reach before they were seriously concerned?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his support in this area, which is indeed sensitive. The statistics he quotes are quite right. It is of course an interesting reflection that the risk of genetic abnormalities does not just double from 3% to 6% in those infants whose parents are first cousins, but also doubles in older white British mothers—I am a bit worried about saying “older” because it is actually over 34. However, the point is well made that it is not just this group. NHS England has recently published guidance to improve the recording of national data on closely related couples, so I hope that noble Lords will find this of interest as we go along. But of course, there has also been much investment in research as well as data development, and I absolutely agree that data is what has to drive us.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, we know that there are over 6,000 genetically related rare diseases and that, apart from first-cousin marriages, there are other high-risk areas. One, which the Minister just mentioned, is the age of the mother, but this also applies to the age of the father, to people who undergo certain medical technology treatments for fertility reasons, and to mothers who smoke at a higher rate. So, there are lots of other influences that may give rise to genetic-related issues at birth. But the important question is: are there any areas where we can definitively say, “If you do X, Y and Z, or if you do not do X, Y and Z, the incidence of genetic diseases will be reduced”?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right that there is a whole range of factors in this area, and I am grateful to him for bringing that before your Lordships’ House. He will of course be aware of the main pillars in the 10-year plan: for example, moving from sickness to prevention, which is key. The noble Lord also mentioned tackling smoking, which we will continue to drive forward. But I wanted to use the Question to highlight that the NIHR is undertaking research projects into improving early recognition, diagnosis and treatment of specific genetic and congenital diseases, particularly in communities with high rates of marriage between close relations. So, to the specific point, I again hope that that will be helpful.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
Will my noble friend have discussions with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office about the data for and experience in some of our overseas territories, particularly Tristan da Cunha and St Helena?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Yes; that will be extremely helpful in this regard, and I thank my noble friend.
UK/US Free Trade Agreement
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in securing a free trade agreement with the United States.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, on securing this timely Question on this very important date in the US. We on these Benches offer our warm congratulations to President Trump on his inauguration. We have a special relationship with our transatlantic partners and strengthening UK-US trading ties is a priority for this Government. I will not get into any policy discussions, but we look forward to working with President Trump and his Administration.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Can the Minister confirm the reports in the paper today that the Government will be anxious to secure a trade deal with the US as quickly as possible? Can he further confirm that that would not be possible if we were still members of the EU? What will happen with the talks that have been pushed on with the European Union? Is there not a danger that one will conflict with the other and that it will not be possible to have a trade deal with the US and the EU at the same time?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for making that important point. In Kyiv last Friday, and at the G20 summit, the Prime Minister said:
“I have been clear that we would like to have discussions about a trade deal with the US, that we don’t accept the argument that there’s a binary choice between a reset with the EU and a deal with the U.S. and obviously the time for those decisions will be in the weeks and months to come”.
The priority of the Prime Minister and the Government is economic growth. Free and open trade with our most economically important partners will be key to achieving that.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Question and the Answer illustrate the weakness of our current position. I have also been reading the papers, and we seem to be relying on the sentimental feelings that President Trump may have towards this country, which is a weak position for us. Does the Minister agree with the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Ed Davey, that the best way to negotiate is from a position of strength rather than weakness, and that the best way of bolstering that strength is by establishing a customs union with the European Union?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. We are in a position of strength when dealing with the US and with the EU. There is no question of a binary divide, but we should not take that for granted. We have to work with our partners, and two of our partners are among the biggest trading partners in the world.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
Does my noble friend agree that any potential benefits of a trade deal with the US are but a fraction of what we have lost by leaving the European Union? Does he agree that when, under President Biden, we attempted to have a comprehensive free trade agreement, it foundered on two main obstacles—the high food standards which we enjoy and the problem of Northern Ireland—both of which appear still to persist?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. The US is our single largest trading partner, amounting to well over £300 billion last year. We have invested close to £1.2 trillion in both our economies, and employ almost 1 million people. The US is a country that we have to deal with, and our businesses ask us to work with the US.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, clearly President Trump will link his economic relations to wider policy objectives. One of the policy objectives that he will be looking for in this country, as well as in others within Europe, will be for European nations to take a much greater share of the burden for their own security. At present, this country and other European partners are doing that far too little and far too slowly.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for that question. I do not think we should get ahead of ourselves. The President is being sworn in at this very moment. We will be looking towards working with his Administration. Any discussions about defence or trade will have to wait until his Government get in.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, are the British Government going to take any extra security precautions when they are dealing with the President of the United States, who is a convicted felon?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for the question, but I do not agree with her. We have to respect President Trump. He won an enormous victory and he has a massive mandate from the American people. That is democracy. We will work with President Trump and his Administration.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
I wish the Government well in their attempts to get a free trade deal with the United States, but is it not time for a little joined-up thinking? While the Prime Minister says this is what he wants, over the weekend the Labour Mayor of London insisted on calling President Trump, essentially, a fascist, and said that we are on the road to the 1930s. This is not a special relationship—they are turning it into a sack of ferrets. Do the Government agree with the Labour Mayor of London, or will they repudiate the comments that he made over the weekend?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very important point. I disagree with the Mayor of London. President Trump won the election; he has an enormous mandate, and we have to work with him. Sometimes, a period of silence would be most welcome.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister join me in congratulating our ambassador, Karen Pierce, on her persistence and leadership in trying to get a free trade agreement over a period of some years? She worked with the team in the American embassy, with consuls around America and everywhere that she could influence Americans to gain us support. We hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, our new ambassador, with his skills from his time as a trade commissioner in Europe and his other contacts, will be able to continue giving such leadership to the team in Washington and here.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. The appointment of my noble friend Lord Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the US shows how seriously we take our relationship with the US and the incoming President’s team. My noble friend Lord Mandelson has extensive foreign and economic policy expertise, particularly in the crucial issue of trade, with strong business links and experience at the highest level of government.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Can the Minister say who from this House or the other place is representing His Majesty’s Government at President Trump’s inauguration, and whether they will be having high-level conversations about trade and other matters with the new Administration?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that point. Our ambassador in the US will be representing the Government.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I spent 60 years closely involved with defence and intelligence with the United States. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the strength of the relationship is so immense that we should never forget that, even when it comes to these other issues?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that point—it is absolutely true. As I said, our relationship with the US has to be strong. We have so many partnership agreements, whether it is on defence, trade co-operation and so on, so we have to work with the incoming Administration, come what may.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, the US is not just our single biggest market; it is bigger than our second, third and fourth markets put together, and nearly as big as our second, third, fourth and fifth put together. A million Brits turn up every day to work for US-owned companies, and a million Americans turn up every day to work for British-owned companies. Will the Minister confirm that, if we followed the suggestion of the Lib Dem Front Bench and joined the EU customs union, not only would we not be able to negotiate a trade deal, either with the US or with anyone else in the world, but we would be subjected to all the tariffs that Trump is likely to impose on the EU in return for no benefit whatever?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. We have taken back control. We work with the US, the EU and every other country. We are an open trading economy, and that benefits both our businesses and consumers.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, even though the United States is a great constitutional democracy, could my noble friend the Minister reflect on the previous Question about ISDS arrangements and make sure that any trade deal between our two great democracies does not privilege international corporations over citizens or workers, and respects both democracy and the rule of law?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the question. No two trade agreements are the same, and ISDS is only one chapter in any trade negotiation. We have to negotiate for what is best for our country and for business.
Erasmus Programme
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to fulfil demand for the revival or replacement of the Erasmus programme.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, following the UK’s departure from the EU, the Government introduced the Turing scheme in 2021, which provides grants for students to study and work anywhere in the world and has supported tens of thousands of UK students since its launch. In addition, we are working with the higher education sector to ensure that our world-leading universities continue to attract the brightest and best. However, we have no plans for rejoining the Erasmus programme.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, the EU clearly wants a new EU mobility scheme for youth, and there is a great demand for that among young people in Britain. It would strengthen our society, labour market and economy, so why do the Government—as did, in fairness, the previous Government—seem so hell-bent on avoiding any commitment to a European solution?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We are, of course, already engaged in defining the important reset of our relationship with the EU. That is why the Prime Minister and the European Commission President met in the autumn to agree to strengthen our relationship. My right honourable friend, Minister Thomas-Symonds, has been taking discussions forward with his counterpart. We will look at EU proposals on a range of issues, but there are no plans for a youth mobility scheme and we will not return to freedom of movement.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that a critical advantage of Erasmus is reciprocity, which is lacking in the Turing scheme?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The Turing scheme focuses on ensuring that UK students in higher education, learners in further education and school pupils are able to take advantage of studying or working abroad. I am encouraged that, of those taking part in the scheme in 2024-25, 53% are from disadvantaged backgrounds. The focus remains on providing opportunities for UK students to experience the benefits of studying and working abroad.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the scheme that has been running in Wales with the support of all parties there. None the less, I think there is an acceptance across parties in Wales that the full Erasmus scheme was much more beneficial for everybody in both directions. The reopening of it would not necessarily prejudice the attitude towards other questions relating to the European Union. Surely the Government can make an example of this one to get progress in its own right.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am not sure that, if you are engaged in a quite important reset as the UK Government are, it makes enormous sense to pick and choose the different issues on which you might negotiate. I acknowledge the noble Lord’s recognition of Taith, the Welsh Government’s international learning exchange programme, which, like the Turing scheme, provides important opportunities.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, David Lammy said that he wanted to reinvigorate our relationship with the EU. Would not the Erasmus scheme, or something very like it, be a good step towards that?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We are already resetting our relationship with our European friends, to strengthen ties, to secure a broad-based security pact and to tackle barriers to trade. The President of the European Council has invited the Prime Minister to meet EU leaders in Brussels on 3 February, where the Prime Minister is looking forward to discussing enhanced strategic co-operation with the EU. We are also resetting our bilateral relationships alongside our ambition for our wider reset with the EU, as demonstrated by the Prime Minister’s recent visits to France, Germany, Ireland and Italy.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister tell us why the Government have no plans to join Erasmus? She has stated flatly that we do not have plans to, but why not, when the Erasmus scheme was recognised by both main parties when in government as one of the major advantages of being in the EU?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The Erasmus scheme may well have been a major advantage, but we had to leave that scheme at the point at which we left the EU in 2020.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, did I imagine it or, when the Labour Party was in opposition, did we not hear endless questions condemning the previous Government for not joining Erasmus? What has brought about this change of mind? Has the penny finally dropped that, as the Minister answering the previous Question said, it is better to take back control?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As I have just said, there were considerable benefits to being part of the Erasmus scheme, but of course the UK ceased to participate in Erasmus as a programme country after leaving the EU on 31 January 2020—a decision for which this Government were not responsible, but we need to clear up the mess.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, what is the objection in principle to having youth exchanges as part of a reset?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is important that we provide opportunities for our young people to study and work abroad. That is what the Turing scheme is currently doing, to an extent. I am pleased that in the past year it ensured that disadvantaged students in particular were able to take advantage of it. As I have already said, as part of our reset, we will consider in the round any proposals that we believe to be of advantage to our country and to our young people.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister understand that the idea of Erasmus is not simply about British students going to other countries but about a genuine exchange at the stage in life when it can fundamentally change people’s experiences and help the United Kingdom in future? It is a form of soft power and would be beneficial whether as part of a wider reset or not, whatever one’s attitudes to the European Union may be.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I understand that, and I understand the benefits that come, for example, to our higher education sector from international students coming to the UK. That is why the Government have set out the valuable contribution that international students make to our universities, our communities and our country—and, of course to our economy in terms of the £12.1 billion fee income that comes from those students. I wholly understand the noble Baroness’s point. That is why I hope that, in future, we will be able to build on that to ensure that people can come to the UK to benefit from our education system.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I can give the Minister a little relief from talking about Erasmus by talking about the Turing scheme itself. Yesterday, the DfE published the updated guidelines for Turing applicants for 2025-26, which appear pretty much identical to those published under the previous Government. Can she confirm that the funding will be maintained for this year? Given how oversubscribed Turing is, will there be any shift in priorities between schools, colleges and universities?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am pleased that we are able to continue the Turing scheme for the coming year, with £105 million allocated this year. I will come back to the noble Baroness on the allocation for next year. My wish is that we make even further progress than has been the case this year on ensuring that those who can benefit from it are participants from disadvantaged backgrounds, who would not otherwise have that opportunity.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I certainly welcome the Turing scheme, but it is not the same thing as Erasmus. The important thing about Erasmus is that it is not just about education; as we have heard, it is about the wider cultural exchange of ideas. With respect, I do not think that the Minister answered my noble friend Lord Clancarty’s question about reciprocity. We do not accept people from abroad. Is that not surely the whole nature of an exchange of ideas?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I talked about the considerable benefits that come to our country and our higher education system from the ability of international students to come to study in the UK. We are also committed as a department to ensuring school visits and other opportunities for exchange. We can, where possible, eradicate some of the challenges that have arisen in relation to children going to experience visits in the rest of Europe and to students being able to come to the UK. Of course, we recognise the benefit that comes from language assistants, for example, being able to come to the UK. I do not think it is true that I have not recognised that, but that is different from committing to a specific programme at this point in the UK’s reset with the EU.
Restoration and Renewal Programme Board
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That Lord Mackinlay of Richborough be appointed a member of the Programme Board, in place of Lord Greenhalgh.
Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024
Lord Leong
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 October 2024 be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 13 January.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Gustafsson, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Motion agreed.
Non-Consensual Sexually Explicit Images and Videos (Offences) Bill [HL]
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Motion agreed.
Public Authority Algorithmic and Automated Decision-Making Systems Bill [HL]
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Motion agreed.
Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the horrific crimes of child sexual exploitation and abuse laid bare in the Home Office Statement are a particularly dark moment for our nation.
Let us not mince words: local authorities run by Labour have failed to act with the urgency that these crimes demand. Last week, the Prime Minister referred to those calling for a national inquiry into the scandal as “far-right”. Let us be clear: there is nothing far-right about wanting justice.
It seems that the general public agree. Two-thirds of Labour voters are at odds with Sir Keir Starmer and would support a new statutory public inquiry into the grooming-gangs scandal. New YouGov polling suggests that 76% of the British public— including 65% of Labour voters—would support a new statutory inquiry, compared with just 13% who would oppose a new national investigation. This is a moment where the Government could have truly united the nation by listening to His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, but they have failed to do so.
While I welcome the recognition of grooming gangs as a persistent and insidious threat, the Government’s measures fall short of what is needed. The ethnicity data expansion and rapid audits do not go far enough. Prominent voices have long called for robust data collection and enforcement to identify and dismantle these criminal networks.
Under Labour’s watch in council areas such as Rotherham and Oldham, local authorities and police forces have been complicit in a culture of excuses and cover-ups. Instead of demanding transparency and accountability, this Government are tiptoeing around hard truths, putting political correctness above child protection. We must confront the uncomfortable realities of this crisis, including the cultural and societal factors that enable abuse.
Local inquiries, while helpful, are no substitute for national leadership. The £5 million funding for local initiatives is a drop in the ocean compared to the scale of the problem. What Labour fails to grasp is that piecemeal solutions cannot address systemic failures. What is required is a unified, national strategy that holds all institutions accountable and ensures no child slips through the cracks.
This Government need to understand that this issue is a national emergency. I repeat that the Government need to launch a comprehensive national statutory inquiry, holding those responsible to account. Most importantly, we need to deliver justice for survivors through action. It is not enough to audit failures; we must correct them.
The safety of our children is not a partisan issue; it is a moral obligation. Yet, the Government’s record on this crisis has been one of hesitation, inaction and misplaced priorities. We as an Opposition will not stand by as these failures persist. We owe it to the victims, the survivors and the generations to come to build a society that will no longer look the other way. This is the leadership our nation deserves: firm, unapologetic and unwavering in its commitment to protecting the innocent.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I pay tribute to the victims of child sexual exploitation who, for too long, have been treated as miscreants themselves, including by police and social workers, thus repeating their victimisation. Their bravery in continuing their fight over many years of not being listened to is quite extraordinary.
My first question is about them. What support and recompense will the Government provide for these victims? While it is good that the Government have accepted all the IICSA recommendations, the Statement says that the Government will lay out a timetable for taking forward these recommendations before Easter. A timetable is welcome, but does the Minister actually have any idea of timescales for the possible start and finish for the discussion, consultation and implementation of these recommendations? I ask this with experience of speaking on many of the other inquiries and recommendations, and know how easily things can get bogged down in paperwork, to put it politely.
The Home Secretary said that there will be
“new action to help victims get more investigations and prosecutions”.
However, I cannot get the answer to my question of why the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which incorporates an enormous amount of legislation to support victims, has not yet been commenced, other than for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority.
The HMICFRS inspection on police and law enforcement bodies’ response to group-based child sexual exploitation in England and Wales, published in December 2023, made nine recommendations. Can the Minister say how many have now been fully implemented by government? It is not clear whether the previous Government had accepted them in full, let alone implemented them. I realise that three have not quite reached the deadline by which that should have been done—only one of those goes beyond March this year—but that leaves six where the deadline has now passed. If the Minister cannot answer that question now, I would be grateful if he could write to me.
It is encouraging that the Government want to do a rapid audit of the current scale and nature of gang-based exploitation, but can he say what “rapid” means, not least as the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, has other roles to fulfil? Will her taking up this role slow down the other important work that she is doing?
It is also encouraging that the Government will start collecting better data and evidence. One of the problems here is that a lot of the evidence has never been collected. Can the Minister say whether they will review the various local inquiries—Oldham, Rotherham, Telford and other towns? I have raised this with him before, and I got a positive response, but it would be useful if the Government could lay out all the various inquiries that have happened so that it is possible for their information to be included; otherwise, we may miss some important things.
It is good news that Tom Crowther KC has been appointed to develop a new framework for victim-centred locally led inquiries. The Statement mentions the drawing up of a duty of candour. We on these Benches have stood alongside Labour when it has raised this is the past. Can the Minister give your Lordships’ House some idea about when this might be published? There is clearly an urgent need for it.
I end by expressing my disappointment at the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. He talked about the national emergency, but his Government did not accept all the recommendations made by Alexis Jay, it is not clear whether they have implemented the recommendations from HMI, and, more importantly, his Government did nothing to start to implement those that his party now says should have been implemented.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for both Front-Bench contributions. I say at the outset that I am disappointed by the tone of the first few words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. He seems to imply that this problem occurs only in authorities that have Labour control. If he thinks that is the case, he is sadly misguided. When he reads back what he has said today, I think the tone of his contribution is one that he will think about, reflect upon and regret.
I am trying to look at a programme of activity to ensure that we stop the vile crime of child abuse, that we respond to the reports that have been published already, and that we put a detailed programme in place to affect change. I am disappointed by the way that the noble Lord has approached this. If he wants to politicise things, let us politicise the Alexis Jay report, rightly commissioned by the noble Baroness, Lady May, when she was in the House of Commons. It took seven years to achieve its objectives and produce recommendations, which were given to the previous Government in May 2023. By 4 July 2024, not one single action in the recommendations had been started, never mind completed. So if the noble Lord wants to politicise this matter, I will certainly politicise it, but I appeal to all Members of this House to focus on the real issue: child abuse and prevention of that child abuse.
That is why I will focus on the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I can tell her that there will be a clear timetable. There will be a clear programme of activity. We have said that, unlike the previous Government, we will respond to all 20 IICSA recommendations by Easter of this year. We have already put in place three recommendations announced recently by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the House of Commons. Those three steps include: mandatory reporting, which we debated in depth on Friday; making grooming an aggravated factor, which I know the noble Baroness will welcome; and introducing police performance frameworks, which again I know the noble Baroness will welcome.
The noble Baroness asked about the Victims and Prisoners Act. I have consulted my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, the Justice Minister, and we are working on that; we will bring forward proposals to implement that in due course.
The noble Baroness asked about deadlines, the Casey report and our response. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, has been commissioned to do a short report for three months to take us up to April. She does not commence the longer-term work on other departments’ activities until April this year. The three-month audit is about looking at the issues, which are important in all local authorities, of the ethnicity of people who are committing child abuse, what preparation is available and what support is on hand.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about all inquiries. She knows that I have given a commitment before that we need to look at the lessons from all inquiries, but I say to all Members of this House that we have laid out a clear timetable for implementing the IICSA recommendations; we have appointed the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to improve the understanding of the scale and nature; we have extended the remit of the IICSA report to look at other areas now; we have given support to the National Police Chiefs’ Council to look at further action that could be taken on historic child sex abuse reviews; we have put finance in of £5 million, not just with Tom Crowther but with others, to look at local inquiries; we have put an undercover online help and support line in place; we have included the three mandatory duties; and we will be taking measures on the Online Safety Act, which will come into effect next year, to make sure that we tackle child sexual abuse, which very often is now on the dark web and online.
I offer the noble Lord the hand of friendship and ask him not to politicise this in the way that he has and to look at the positives that have been done.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
A statutory inquiry, for which the noble Lord heckles me from a sedentary position, would mean a further five or six years before recommendations took place. Clear action was set down by Alexis Jay in the IICSA inquiry.
Believe it or not, we have been working on this from last July to January this year. We have announced measures now because parties have commented, often based on false information, about what has not been happening. Things have been happening. Those who have served or worked in government know that Governments do not just announce things at one day’s notice. A lot of work has been put into this between July and January to achieve those objectives—and in fact we have put an awful lot more work into this than the previous Government did over the 19 months when those recommendations were there.
So my hand of friendship goes to the noble Lord, Lord Davies. He should work with the Government, with Members of the Liberal Democrats, with this House and with the House of Commons to do something now, in the next few months, to help to reduce the dreadful activities of child abuse online, in person and elsewhere. If we do that, we can make a real difference in the near future rather than waiting for some mythical inquiry and trying to pin the fact that we cannot do that on the Government because of political shenanigans. We are not doing that because we want urgent action on this issue. I commend my right honourable friend’s Statement to the House.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I spent almost all my legal and judicial life on child sexual abuse and child physical abuse, and I chaired the Cleveland child abuse inquiry. I agree entirely with what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has said and with much of what the Minister has said. I suggest to the Government that now is not the moment to have a full statutory inquiry. What is crucial is to have the recommendations of all the earlier inquiries implemented as quickly as possible. A statutory inquiry at this moment—whether we need it later is another matter—would impede the Government from getting on with what needs to be done.
I was lucky because many of my recommendations were actually accepted, but one of the shocking aspects of our endless statutory inquiries is that that is unusual. We have a history across this country of statutory and other inquiries with endless excellent recommendations, almost none of which are taken up. This is the moment—on a subject of excruciating importance, where there are so many victims across the country—to see that something is done, not talked about.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble and learned Baroness has committed a large part of her professional life to tackling this issue, and I take very much to heart her support for the Government’s stance on a statutory national inquiry. We are not doing that for the reasons I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Davies: in essence, we would waste time looking at a problem in respect of which we already have 20 recommendations from IICSA, and other recommendations from earlier reports, which is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has accepted all the Home Office recommendations for implementation now. The remaining recommendations for other parts of government will be brought forward prior to Easter. We have given a clear timetable. I will be held to account by this House, as will my right honourable friend by the House of Commons. We are here to deliver on the recommendations. I say to the House again that the recommendations were delivered in May 2023. On 4 July, when this Government came into office, not one single inch had been moved towards those recommendations. That is this Government’s focus. By all means let us have a political debate about it, but I am more interested in taking action which will help prevent there being future victims.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the focus on the victims, which is critical; sometimes we forget about the victims when we debate points of process. At the end of the Statement, the noble Lord’s right honourable friend referred to undercover online networks and the need to engage on that, because we know that what happens online, unfortunately, quickly moves into reality. Reducing the number of online pathways that accelerate harm should be a priority as well. There are plenty of priorities, I accept that, but surely this has to be one. Will the Minister commit to working with experts in this field—including the former head of CEOP, Jim Gamble, who he will be familiar with and who did some excellent work with the former Government—to really take on this issue? It concerns me that it becomes a reality when it starts online.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, knows that I have great respect for Jim Gamble and his work. She will also know that addressing the movement to online presence, the dark web, fake images, AI, and the future development of child abuse in that sphere is extremely important for the Government. That is why two things are happening as a result of my right honourable friend’s Statement. The first is action on the Online Safety Act to try to look at how we tighten up laws on the use of child images and child abuse images online. Secondly, we are recruiting a large number of additional online undercover police officers. I do not need to talk to the House in great detail about that, but the purpose of those officers is to capture people who are committing criminal activity online and bring them to justice in order to stop them exploiting young people and children, and to stop young people and children being exploited through providing images that those people will seek to use. They are both extremely important areas that the Government are focused on.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I had the duty to give evidence to IICSA in my time as a Minister, and then served on the Select Committee that looked at statutory inquiries. We came up with a recommendation that was in line with what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said about enacting recommendations. We heard evidence, though, that, in addition to its recommendations, a really important part of IICSA was the Truth Project. Of some 7,000 victims who took part, about 6,000 were within that project, which was nowhere near being a core participant. Can the Minister outline how reviews of local inquiries will not lose sight of the fact that victims really valued that process, which was very cathartic and not part of the judicial process of the inquiry?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for those comments. I think she will know that the Government want to put victims at the heart of the response to the recommendations. We debated mandatory reporting on Friday in this House, and it was clear that victims carry the pain of their victimhood through into adult life and beyond. It scars individuals. My noble friend Lord Mann mentioned the many victims who do not reach adulthood because they self-harm and commit suicide. We need to address how we involve the experience of victims to ensure we do not create future victims. I see the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, in her place. The inquiry she established had a number of recommendations on how we can help support victims, and we will look at those between now and Easter. It takes time, but we will look at how we can respond to those recommendations in the best way, so as not to lose the knowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, mentioned.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, process is clearly very important in relation to statutory inquiries and to giving the recommendations some kind of parliamentary scrutiny and holding them to account. On Friday, the Minister identified that the Home Office was responsible for “four” of the 20 recommendations. Which member of the Cabinet will be responsible for leading on this inquiry and its recommendations? Will the Minister take it from me that there would be a lot of delight—widely across the House, I suspect—if he were to take responsibility among Ministers in this House for leading on reporting back progress on this inquiry?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I say to my noble friend that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister takes a keen interest in the progress of these reports, and he will monitor and hold to account Ministers in government on that delivery. But the very fact that I am standing here today, and that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was standing in the House of Commons, shows that we are responding on behalf of the Government to the IICSA response. That is where the lead and responsibility lie: with the Home Office. But we do not have the direct implementation of a number of recommendations, which require the engagement of the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care, and other departments. We have set out the timetable to meet those 17 other recommendations; we have accepted the four, and we are already implementing some. Very shortly, other legislation will be published by the Home Office that will give effect to the recommendations we have accepted. It is our job to see that through and to do so, I hope—putting out the hand of friendship—with the support of the Opposition Front Bench.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on taking this robust approach in order to make a real difference and change for our children’s lives—the victims will carry that pain through childhood and beyond. The introduction of any duty to report child sexual abuse and exploitation must be accompanied by funding for services and training to support practitioners working with children across the country. Essential services like the NSPCC Childline and the Shore service play a vital role in supporting children who have suffered child sexual abuse and exploitation. How will the Government ensure that these services will be able to continue their valuable work?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s support for mandatory reporting. She participated in the debate on Friday and will know that I said from this Dispatch Box that this is an urgent issue for this Government. We will bring forward proposals on mandatory reporting in very short order. She raises the issue of funding. Any implementation of any recommendations requires a consistent government approach and a review of how we are funding those approaches to those issues. I cannot give her a detailed answer now, but, as part of the review on what we do with the 17 other recommendations, we will put meat on those bones so that she and others in this House can see what resources the Government are putting into this area.
The noble Baroness raises the issue of the very important support of the voluntary agencies. It is important that, politically—I mean that in a non-party-political way—we give support to Barnardo’s, the NSPCC and other organisations, which are doing great work in both highlighting this terrible abuse and very much supporting development work on the ground. This is helping the Government’s case to reduce the amount of child abuse as a whole. So I cannot give that answer now, but I will return to this in due course.
The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich
My Lords, I also pay tribute to victims and survivors in this regard, recognising that the failure to respond perpetuates and prolongs their suffering, and recognising—as noble Lords will all know—that the Church of England is facing significant challenges in putting its own house in order in that regard. I want to ask, therefore, a wider question on faith communities, all of which provide places of gathering and moral and social influence, and all of which strive to make those places as safe as possible. What conversations are continuing with leaders of faith communities to support them in that vital work?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I welcome the right reverend Prelate’s contribution. I think I can say to him that the Church has had difficulties, which he has acknowledged, and those difficulties might well have been resolved had some of the measures in the IICSA report been in place at the time. For example, had mandatory reporting been in place seven or eight years ago, it is very possible that some of the concerns that have arisen in the last few weeks and months in relation to the reporting of sex abuse in the Church might have been resolved.
I reach out to the right reverend Prelate, as I reach out to teachers, social workers and others who have a place of responsibility for the safeguarding of children, to say that the measures in the IICSA report, following the helpful inquiry led by Alexis Jay, are in areas where I hope we can work in co-operation with any authority, be it the Church, teachers or others, to see whether they impact upon the areas where the right reverend Prelate and his colleagues have had concerns.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has the whole House with him when he agrees that we must do very much better in preventing the sexual abuse of children. That is the challenge. We actually know how to do it and we could do it very much better. Much on my mind is the list of local authorities, published yesterday and again today, that are on the verge of bankruptcy. That means that services are being withdrawn at the very time when we want services to be outward-looking and more engaged, especially in preventing children being abused in this way.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord has experience far beyond any that I could bring to this House, so I am grateful for his contribution today. He raises an extremely important point. We have established a fund—it is of only £5 million, but it is available to all local authorities to draw on to establish the work that needs to be done. That was in the initial announcement from my right honourable friend in the House of Commons last week and will be kept under review for the future. We have given the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, a remit to look at the existing areas of concern within local authorities. No doubt she will come back with an audit and further recommendations for the Government to consider.
I recognise that the noble Lord has concerns about long-term funding for key services that are about interventions. I can say to him only that we are going to keep all that under review. I know I will have his support, and that of others with great experience, in implementing the IICSA recommendations and when we bring back proposals on the other recommendations, in what might be only 10 weeks’ time.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, although I am speaking in a personal capacity today. About a week ago, when the Minister and I engaged on a similar but different Statement, I asked him two questions and he said he would need to go away and think about them. One was about data. I do not know whether he has seen the reports, based on freedom of information requests, about backsliding. I very much welcome the emphasis on ethnicity data collection and demographics, as the Statement says. Has he seen the statistics? I will give him only three examples. In Hampshire, in the past five years, 58% of offenders sentenced for all sexual offences involving children were recorded as having an unknown ethnicity. In West Mercia, it was 55%, and in Leicestershire, it was 52%. If the police are already not recording identity for fear of being accused of either racism or Islamophobia, what are the Government going to do, before we get the full gamut of actions under the Jay report, to ensure that the current requirements are met?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness had a conversation with me, both in this Chamber and outside. She will know that there are occasions when Ministers can absorb views but cannot necessarily give definitive answers, because policy is developed outside of just the discussions in this House and in government as a whole. I hope she will welcome that one of the policy initiatives in the second Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was the collection of data—the very point she raised with me before we made that announcement. I could not give her assurances then because we had not made the announcement; now we have. That data will be collected by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. If it shows matters that need to be addressed, they will be addressed, to try to reduce this curse.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the culture of denial and cover-up that has led to this scandal has over recent years often happened by attacking people’s tone. Can the Minister comment on the row in Wales, where, last week, the Presiding Officer of the Senedd denied that Wales had a grooming gangs problem and accused Darren Millar, who raised it, of being overly graphic and using the wrong tone when describing one girl’s ordeal, leading to that victim saying that she feels her experience was downplayed? Surely tone is not the problem at all—though the Minister started off by saying that it was. Can the Minister explain how five local inquiries can deal with ongoing problems in at least 50 towns in the UK and why witnesses cannot be compelled to attend? It feels inadequate, and that is what many victims are saying.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am responsible for many things in this department but I am not responsible for the comments of the Senedd Presiding Officer or any spat that they may have had with the leader of the Conservative Party in Wales in the Senedd. That is a matter for them. I can say that tone is important. I have tried to have an inclusive tone in this House in response to the recommendations. I put down my disappointment at the initial comments and tone of the Front Bench of His Majesty’s Opposition, which, in my view, tried to politicise what should be a contribution from all parties and none in this House to implement the recommendations of the IICSA report.
The noble Baroness mentioned the five authorities we have looked at. Those are the five where there have been reports to date. We are doing what I have been asked to do by Members of this House, which is to see whether all recommendations have been implemented to date. I have been asked by Members to look at ethnicity and other issues around who is undertaking this, which is why we have asked the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, a Member of this House, to do a very quick deep-dive audit of what is happening. We are trying to address that. On top of that, we are still trying to get to the key point: what do we do about the 17 recommendations that the previous Government did nothing about? That is what I am trying to focus on today. I will take any contribution from any part of this House to set a tone to deliver on those recommendations.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, to what extent are these failings the result of victims of child exploitation and abuse not being believed? With the case of Jimmy Savile, for example, we saw that victims were not believed by the police. There is a lot of emphasis on the ethnicity of the perpetrators, but would the Minister agree that there is not enough emphasis on the police not believing victims because of their background, age and lack of education?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That very point, which was well made, is why, on Friday, the Government accepted the principle of mandatory reporting and will bring forward legislation shortly. Mandatory reporting means that, if a member of the Church, a teacher, a social worker, or somebody in a position of authority has a report made to them by anybody, be it a perpetrator or a child, about a suspicion of child sexual abuse, that has to be referred to the appropriate authority. Therefore, the police will have a greater impetus to investigate such reports than perhaps some forces or officers have undertaken in the past. It is not now just about the belief of a child; it is about the belief of a report being made by an individual in a position of authority to say that this needs to be investigated. That does not imply guilt or innocence, but it does imply clarity of investigation.
Mental Health Bill [HL]
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment seeks to clarify the Government’s intended definition of “specified risk factors for detention” under Part 2 of the 1983 Act.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 23 I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group, Amendments 139 and 141. These amendments, although they may not look it, are all of a piece, because they bear upon the fulcrum for any decision to detain a patient under the Mental Health Act, which is the concept of “serious harm” and what we mean by it. My noble friend Lord Kamall’s Amendment 141 offers such a definition, but we have tabled the amendment more as an Aunt Sally than anything else, because what matters is how we want the phrase to be interpreted in real-life situations by clinicians and others on the ground.
The concept of serious harm as a determining factor for detention is introduced by Clause 5. Clause 5(2)(b) replaces Section 2(2)(b) of the Act, which refers instead to detention in the interests of a person’s own health or safety, or with a view to the protection of other persons. The new wording is undoubtedly tighter than the old wording and, on that account, it is to be welcomed. However, it is not, as far as I can see, fleshed out by any definition. That could, of course, be deliberate, because, in the end, a decision to detain someone will always be a matter of clinical judgment. Such judgments, though, ought surely to rest on established understandings. Serious harm, as applied to the health or safety of the patient themselves, may be a relatively straightforward clinical judgment to make in many, if not most, circumstances. But what about serious harm as applied to the health or safety of another individual? Do we mean just physical harm or are we talking also about psychological harm? If so, of what kind and to what degree? Detaining someone on the grounds that serious psychological harm may be caused to another person raises all sorts of issues that fall outside a standard clinical judgment about the health and/or safety of a prospective in-patient.
The threshold of serious harm being caused, or at risk of being caused, is of huge significance for different types of patients. One of the really good things that this Bill seeks to do is to keep individuals with autism or a learning disability out of a mental health unit, unless they present with other behavioural symptoms that are treatable. That is because we recognise that not only is there no point in detaining such individuals when they display no treatable symptoms, it is also positively harmful to them to do so. In the same way, I think it is accepted that to detain a child or a young person forcibly in a mental health unit is a very big decision indeed, because what is meant to constitute a therapeutic environment is all too often no such thing. On the contrary, a mental health ward or even an A&E department can often seem both alien and frightening to a young patient, in a way that can exacerbate their acute disturbance of mind.
Nobody wants to see people detained forcibly in a mental health unit unless it is essential and right, but so often the choice is a binary one: to detain in hospital or not to detain in hospital. How much better it would be if, in particularly sensitive cases, there were another option, a place of safety and comfort close by in the community.
That is why I tabled Amendment 139. We know that community-based services can be a significantly positive alternative to treatment in mental health hospitals and secure units. We need to look at affordable ways of creating more, especially for those with autism and learning disabilities and for children where the alternative may indeed be forcible detention under the Mental Health Act.
The King’s Fund reported in July 2024 that
“community health services have about 200,000 patient contacts”
every day. Anxious Minds argues that community-based mental health services provide three key benefits:
“Geographical convenience of mental health facilities”,
the relative affordability of such services and, importantly, culturally sensitive approaches to care
“that appeal to diverse populations”.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has mentioned, we will be talking about risk factors in the next group but one, and I will not go into the statistics and predictions at this point.
As has been pointed out, Clause 4 implies that specific risk factors for detention under Part II are readily identifiable and assessed, but as we will see, predicting episodes of violent behaviour or self-harm is peculiarly difficult to do. The clause suggests that it is not clinicians who will be doing these risk assessments but that the Secretary of State will somehow have some expertise from ICBs in how to do this. Apart from the rather obvious wisdom that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, I am not sure how these regulations can be drawn up.
I am anxious about the common prejudices around, for example, black patients of African Caribbean descent living in London, who have a higher risk of being detained under Part II than white patients, or Asians of an Indian subcontinent background. Who will draw up this list to say which of these items is going to lead to the risk of detention under Part II?
There have always been opportunities for the Secretary of State to intervene in the detention of patients under Part III of the Act, and some Secretaries of State have been more risk averse than others. I suspect that under this clause we will find some Secretaries of State taking a more hard-line view about who should and should not be detained. That gives cause for enormous anxiety, so I would like to know how the Government intend to devise these regulations to document specific risk factors.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, this is an important set of amendments, and, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, they are central to decisions about whether to detain people under the Act.
I agree that the definition of “serious harm” is important, and it would be helpful to hear from the Minister what the Government are thinking there, how it will be applied, and how any thresholds will be established.
I endorse what the noble Earl had to say about children and young people, what a huge decision it is to detain someone under 18 in hospital against their will, and how hard we need to work to avoid that, whenever that is safe for themselves and other people.
Finally, and very much linked to that, I strongly support Amendment 139 on the availability of community-based services, which we have already talked about and which we will turn to in subsequent groupings. It is a very good amendment, particularly the provision which states:
“The Secretary of State must publish a report to assess whether there should be more community-based services for community patients in order to prevent”—
I see this as a key preventive measure—
“detention under the Mental Health Act 1983”.
My one point is that the amendment talks about publishing that within two years of the day on which this Act is passed. I personally think that in an ideal world we might see a report a bit earlier than that. However, as I say, Amendment 139 certainly has my full support.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
I am sorry that I did not jump up in time before my Front Bench spoke.
I just wanted to add my voice to support Amendment 139 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the report on community-based services. It is really timely and we need it. The case was made very carefully and well by others, so I will not expand much other than to say that an extensive report was done in November by the leading charity, Beat, which looked at the case for more intensive community care and daycare for people with eating disorders in order to avoid—the very point that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, made—ending up getting to such a point of severity that they need to go into mental health facilities and be detained, which indeed happened to my daughter, as I made clear at Second Reading.
The case has been well made that a report should be made. I agree with my noble friend Lady Tyler that two years seems quite a long time off, particularly as recent work has been done, particularly in the field of eating disorders, to show that you can both reduce the number of patients and reduce the cost if you make the investment up front in community services.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, as an ex-community mental health nurse, I wish in particular to support Amendment 139. I am convinced that we need appropriate ratios of such staff to deliver preventive services in the community as well as ongoing support. We need to remember that the NHS rests in the future on preventing rather than treating, and this is an important amendment that acknowledges that.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I want to add to what the noble Baroness just said. Amendment 139 goes to the heart of the Bill in terms of changing the culture and the way that we treat people. The Bill will become a piece of law that is practical only if we can honestly put hand on heart and say that we will substantially increase community-based services. Without that, it will not deliver that which we all believe will be the minimum to improve people’s lives.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, on the amendment outlining the definition of “serious harm”, two situations were raised with us on the Joint Committee. One was that the change in the criteria is the main tool that will help with racial inequalities; I would be grateful if the Minister could outline how she envisages that will work in practice. The second point was about the period during which such serious harm has to be exhibited. We heard numerous times about people with psychosis, many of whom—I think it was over 70%—do not realise that they are getting ill when they are presenting. How poorly do they have to get? Sometimes the intervention might need to be sooner than in the definition we understood of “serious harm”, which was slightly different from that which the independent review had, which I think was of “significant harm”. If the Minister could address those two points, that would be very helpful.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate in which a number of key issues have been raised.
Amendment 23, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, relates to new Section 125D, regarding registers of people with a learning disability and autistic people who are at risk of detention. The amendment would remove new Section 125D(5), which defines
“specified risk factors for detention”.
I heard the noble Earl, Lord Howe, refer to this as an Aunt Sally amendment—I politely have “a probing amendment” here but I hope that we are in the same area—that is intended to clarify the definition of
“specified risk factors for detention under Part 2 of this Act”.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this group of amendments. As I trust was clear from my opening speech, all three are intended as probing amendments designed to tease out some key definitions. It was actually Amendment 141, regarding the definition, that I described as an Aunt Sally.
I was particularly grateful for noble Lords’ support for Amendment 139 and for the Minister’s helpful comments. There is very little doubt that, as I think is generally accepted, community services delivered in partnership by local charities and civil society both reduce the cost to the state and carry the benefits I articulated earlier. Without implying any criticism of the NHS, those sorts of organisations will of course know their own communities better than an NHS hospital will.
I am grateful to the Minister for what she was able to say about the definition of “serious harm”. The Explanatory Notes state that a test of serious harm has been introduced
“to provide greater clarity as to the level of risk of harm that a person must present in order to be detained”.
They then state that further guidance on what constitutes serious harm will be set out in the code of practice. So far, so good, and it is welcome that that will be clarified in the code of practice, but one of the issues here is that that will come later. Serious harm is included as one of the two key tests for detention in Clause 5, so what is meant by serious harm will impact on all future decisions made within the scope of the legislation. Therefore, we need maximum clarity from the Government as we debate the Bill.
As regards the “specified risk factors”, I am again grateful to the Minister. I slightly worry that a person’s past history of admission to hospital could constitute a specific a priori risk factor for detention. There is a danger that that may turn into a directly determining factor for detention, rather than a factor to be taken into account in assessing an individual set of circumstances.
As regards drug and alcohol misuse, we need to be careful not to encourage a circumvention of the Mental Health Act, which explicitly excludes drug and alcohol addiction as grounds for detention.
I am once again grateful for the support that noble Lords were able to give to my amendments. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 23.
Lord Scriven
“125FA Report: sufficient commissioning services for people with autism or learning disabilities(1) Within four months of the day on which the Mental Health Act 2025 is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a plan to allocate sufficient resources for commissioning services regarding the treatment and detention of autistic people and people with learning disabilities to ensure operability of provisions in this Act.(2) The plan must include—(a) revised assumptions of the number of autistic people and people with learning disabilities who may require detention under this Act;(b) the actions that the Secretary of State will take to ensure community services are available to meet demand after the 28-day detention period;(c) plans for data collection to support commissioning sufficient services;(d) plans to allocate appropriate resource to ensure operability of services, including, but not limited to, financial resource;(e) plans to ensure that responsible bodies and individuals receive the necessary training to carry out support, diagnostic, and treatment plans.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to present a plan within four months to ensure sufficient services, resources, data, and training are in place to support autistic people and those with learning disabilities under the Act.
Lord Scriven (LD)
This group of amendments has to do with learning disabilities and autism, and the implementation of the Government’s recommendations, particularly on the change in detention criteria. My Amendment 33 is probing; I shall come to its details shortly. The Committee needs to look into this subject, because many times before in government policy we have seen a good aim and good intentions of moving care into the community, but all too often the facilities have not been there, and people have ended up in crisis.
I tabled Amendment 33 to probe the Government’s staged approach to ensure that community facilities are in place before the change in detention happens, and to understand their timing. On page 72 of the impact assessment, the suggestion is that the change will not happen until the community facilities are in place. That is good, but that could be five, 10 or 15 years away, so the Committee needs to understand the Government’s approach to timing.
Amendment 34, tabled by my noble friend Lady Barker, and the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, cover mandatory training for medical staff and others associated with looking after people with learning disabilities and autism, to detect the signs, so that people are not missed and put into detention.
My Amendment 33 would create an obligation for the Government to lay a costed plan for sufficient services before Parliament within four months of the passage of the Bill. The four-month period is important, because we really need to understand the Government’s intentions on timing. The change in detention criteria for autistic people and people with learning disabilities is a vital change in the Bill, to ensure that people are not inappropriately detained but are supported in the community instead.
As I have said, success depends on there being sufficient services in each area across the country to meet the needs of autistic people and people with learning disabilities. Based on the impact assessment, we know that the Government do not plan to enact those, so it is important that when the Minister replies, she lets the Committee know exactly what the timing is and what the Government’s assumed plans are.
In the equality impact assessment, there are dates for both funding and implementation, which seem to be at the same time. As a former NHS manager, I can say that people cannot start a service involving such a change and receive the funding in the same year. There has to be upfront funding to enable people to plan the services over time. Otherwise, the services are not there, and staff run round trying to get services when people are in distress. It is important to understand that.
Additionally, as the NHS long-term plan target to reduce the number of detentions of autistic people and people with learning disabilities has been missed, there are no active targets to get people out of hospitals. My amendment tries to put in targets to hold the Government and the services to account on ensuring that people are not inappropriately detained.
It is important to have a comprehensive action plan, which is what my amendment seeks to do, and to find out exactly how the Government intend to build and fund those community services moving forward. Additionally, this must include new targets to reduce the number of detentions of autistic people and people with learning disabilities. The timelines for building this support will also be crucial if the Government are to meet the expected 2026-27 commencement date for the new detention criteria for autistic people and people with learning disabilities.
I hope that the Minister will fully brief the Committee so we can make an informed decision about not just the thinking of the Government but the detailed implementation around community services with the change of criteria. I look forward to hearing noble Lords speak to their amendments on the provision of training and the appropriateness of medical practitioners’ expert knowledge of learning disabilities and autism. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 34. As I do so, I extend my condolences to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. We miss her very much today. She was extremely helpful to me only a few days ago when we were discussing the subject of this amendment, so I hope I do her a lot of justice with this.
We have heard time and time again that people with learning disabilities and autism find themselves on the wrong end of diagnoses made by practitioners with the best of intent, quite often when people are at points of severe distress, that are inappropriate because the people making them have not perhaps had the degree of experience and knowledge of working with people with learning disabilities and autism as they would otherwise have done.
We started to discuss last week that, while there are mental disorders for which detention in the sorts of facilities that we fund in acute hospitals in the NHS is right and appropriate, there are also some people for whom detention in those circumstances is absolutely not; it is an aggravating factor. Therefore, in my amendment I am seeking to address that issue: not just the competence of the people making decisions about detention and treatment but also the confidence with which they, as professionals, can approach the jobs that they are increasingly being required to do. Knowledge and understanding of learning disability and autism is expanding all the time. We now have a greater number of adults than ever before who, at stages in later life, are being diagnosed as being autistic, and I am quite sure that quite a number of those people have been subject to misdiagnosis.
The particular thing that I want to focus on is training for people who are responsible for detention and high levels of treatment. Noble Lords will be aware of the tragic case of Oliver McGowan, a young man with learning disabilities who was inappropriately treated and died. There has been an amazing campaign by his mother to ensure that that does not happen to other people by making sure that anybody who is involved in the provision of mental health services has undergone appropriate training and understands learning disabilities and autism.
My understanding from Oliver’s mother is that there are three tiers of training. Tier 1 is a level of training which is required for all people who work generally with people with learning disabilities and autism. They need to have this general level of awareness. Tier 2 is for health and social care staff and others with responsibility for providing care and support for a person or people with learning disabilities or autistic people but who would seek support from others in a complex management and decision-making process. They would be part of a team referring up to others. Tier 3 is specialist training for professionals who have a high degree of autonomy and are able to provide care in very complex situations, which might include people with learning disabilities and autism.
The training appears to be sequential. You have to have completed tier 1 training in order to go on to tier 2 and then tier 3. Tier 1 is an e-training module which takes about half a day. As far as I understand it, about 1.5 million people have done that. That is a good thing: we are getting to a greater basic understanding of learning disability and autism by many people across the NHS going about doing their jobs. Tier 2 is a one-day intensive training programme, and that has not gone so well. There have been problems with its implementation, and it is not clear how many people have undergone that training. There are also some quite considerable questions about the quality and scope of that training.
Tier 3 is not part of the Oliver McGowan programme, although it is the most relevant to this Bill. As of December 2024, the Department of Health website makes absolutely no mention of tier 3 training at all. Can the Minister tell us where the development of that training is up to, and who is responsible for ensuring that the content of it is suitable? Is it sufficiently developed for people who are having to make very difficult decisions, particularly around detention of people who are quite often in a state of disturbance at the point at which that decision is taken? If we do not follow up on this tier 3 training, then we are going to carry on in the situation where we are now, where we know that people are being wrongly diagnosed by people who, perhaps, should not be expected entirely to understand them because their professional training up to this point has largely not included such people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and I bow to her superior knowledge, very much made the case to us last week that we are talking about different types of mental disorders and very different specialisms across the mental health services. I am therefore asking that anybody who is in a position of making the decision to detain—and let us remember that people are making decisions to detain not just under the mental health legislation but also, at times, under the mental capacity legislation—should be appropriately trained. That is why I put down my amendment which, I admit, is not perfect, but I hope that the Minister might take some of my point and my intent and that we might take this forward together.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 42A in this group, which follows on from the two previous amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, particularly the details that the noble Baroness has gone into about the need for training and expertise for people who are dealing across the piece with those with autism and learning disability and, importantly, when those clinicians take the decision to admit somebody. As we know, one of the problems that is facing us and why it is so important that these issues have come forward in this particular Bill is because there have been so many inappropriate admissions where people have been detained for so long that it has become a scandal.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. If this Bill is a success, we shall, I hope, see fewer people with autism and learning difficulties detained under the Mental Health Act. However, the noble Lord’s amendment goes to the heart of the problem of resources. The current system is broken. It is a market system, which ends up with a lot of people finding themselves detained in facilities far from home, and getting out of that system can be very difficult.
The collection of data will be important: first, to find out how many people are being detained. Having spent 23 years in the other place and having been a passionate advocate for mental health, I always found that data is one thing that is never really kept. It is kept between the Department of Health and various other healthcare providers. Getting that visibility for the numbers we are talking about will be very important.
We need to be honest that, in the entire mental health debate, people with autism and learning disabilities have been overlooked. To get this right, having proper community-based facilities will be very important, but it will be expensive. The market model we have at the moment means that lots of private companies provide care at very high cost, and commissioners tend to have to commission only from certain providers. This leads to a shortage of supply and prices going up. The Minister needs to spell this out.
I understand what the noble Lord said in moving the amendment, but it is important to have visibility of not only the numbers but where the community facilities are going to be. New Clause 125FA(2)(b) in the amendment says the Secretary of State should ensure that community services are available to meet demand after 28 days. If you speak to any commissioner at the moment, they will tell you that that is completely unrealistic. I accept that it was put in the amendment for debate, but that is an aim we should be trying to get to in supporting people in the community. I have seen sad cases of people being stuck in the system. With the best will in the world, and I think there is cross-party support for this, we should not have people with learning disabilities and autism stuck in the system for as long as they are, with no way of getting out. I accept that the Bill aims to give a voice to those individuals, but without the resources to match, they will still go round the merry-go-round of different funders.
Another important issue that we need to highlight is the lack of support staff in the community for dealing with people with learning difficulties and autism. That is not seen as a priority at college. We need to put more emphasis on making it an attractive career and on the fact that it is vitally needed and will make a real difference to the individuals concerned. Training is important, but so is getting people into the service in the first place. I accept that the noble Lord is not going to press the amendment, but it goes to the heart of most of the matters in the Bill. We are deluding ourselves if we think the good and well-intentioned things in the Bill will be delivered without the resources to do so; they will not. The one without the other will lead to people still being detained when, in a modern society like ours, they really should not be.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, I give my strong support to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asking for a road map, which I think is the political phrase we use now, to get to where we want to be. I remind him that, back when the then Government came in in 1987, we had a documented timetable for closing the learning disabilities hospitals but that never happened; it went too slowly. So, we have left people stranded in various independent sector and NHS facilities, partly, to be honest, because the Department of Health took its eye off the ball as to what was happening to people in long-stay care and just stopped looking. So I agree that we need some kind of timetable; otherwise, the Bill becomes simple aspirations, as we have already said.
Unfortunately, it is not just autism and learning disabilities that require special training. In a lot of areas of mental disorder, people get inadequate training in subspecialties when they are studying the general psychiatric stuff. Psychiatric nurses do not get enough, either. I agree that there are issues here that require a special target, but at the moment they do not get it, so I support that as well.
On the experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, of course it is true that there are an awful lot of bad psychiatrists around. There are bad physicians and bad surgeons—not the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, before he punches me on the chin. We should not say “bad”; I would say “not the best”. A friend of mine was visited by a community psychiatrist in old age psychiatry about a month ago. I asked his partner how it went, and he said, “Well, he was in and out in 15 minutes. He’d got 10 assessments he was going to do in people’s homes around south Norfolk in that time”. That was a totally inadequate amount of time to get a history from relatives, to get an understanding of what was going on in the home situation and to understand the problems this person was experiencing. I was shocked, but I was told not to be because it happens all the time that there is an inadequate length of time for people’s assessment.
It is hardly surprising that diagnoses are wrong and that people end up with the wrong prescriptions. It is deeply regrettable, but this will happen for as long as community services are underresourced. As we have heard from all around the Chamber, you can put as much in place as you like, but if it is underfunded, has the wrong facilities or is too far away from where people live, it just will not happen. We need a road map, and we need to know when these facilities will be made available, because the rest of it cannot happen until they are.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 152. We have already had a rich debate, concentrated on certain areas. This amendment deals with a somewhat different area, which is why I wanted to include it at the end. We have talked quite a bit about training and research and the link between the two. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said in introducing this group that it was all about autism and learning difficulties, but this amendment also covers mental health, for the interests of clarity.
This is a probing amendment, but there is an argument for doing what it calls for, which is having a report to Parliament, two years after the Bill is passed and then every three years thereafter, about the provision for and progress in research, and the transfer of research findings, in mental health and autism and learning difficulties. This would enable Parliament to keep a check on how much resource is being put into this area and, crucially, how much knowledge is transferred into practice. It would also be a really useful tool for informing Parliament about what is an extremely fast-changing area.
It is worth noting that mental health and disabilities are areas in which research is not just redefining our understanding but often entirely demolishing old models and forcing a restart from the basics. We are also seeing a change in approach, in which I am very pleased to say that there is an increased focus on ensuring that experts by experience can guide and have input into research directions in a way that certainly was not true in the 20th century.
I note, for example, an interesting study from the University of Stirling last year, which spoke to people in Scotland—though I have no doubt this applies more broadly. It looked at how research in autism currently tends to be directed towards biological studies and a search for treatments and cures, but autistic people said that they would prefer a focus on a good quality of life, and that they should have a real say in the research directions. They were concerned that continuing even now are ableism, objectification, and other othering approaches in research directions. I spoke on the previous day in Committee about the failure to apply the social model of disability to learning difficulties and autism. That is very much the case. I hope that that will change, which would change what we should be researching and how we should be training people.
Moving to perhaps more comfortable ground for many people, I note that there is a replication crisis across many areas of research. That is particularly true in the mental health space, where, unsurprisingly, there has been a recent dawning that conducting a great deal of research on US college students does not necessarily produce findings that can be replicated all around the world in all sorts of different research conditions. For example, with Alzheimer’s disease, are amyloid plaques a cause, a symptom or simply correlated? I have no idea, and I doubt that anyone can say, with their hand on their heart, that they know either. This an area in which the continuous failure of medical trials has shown our lack of knowledge.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I want briefly to make a couple of comments on this important group. As everyone has acknowledged, an absolutely vital change to the Bill is that, in the future, people with learning disabilities and autism will not be detained by the Bill and their needs are to be met in the community. I am sure we can all agree on and gather around that.
The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, made the point that, far too often in the past, people with learning disabilities and autism have been overlooked. I see the Bill as a real opportunity to do something substantive about that. That is why I note some of the amendments we have heard about in this group—certainly those in the names of my noble friends Lord Scriven and Lady Barker, and others—about the importance of having properly trained staff with up-to-date knowledge and expertise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has just mentioned.
For any of this to happen, it is important that there is a proper plan, that is costed; the resources need to be available, and properly trained staff with up-to-date expertise need to be available in the community. To ensure that there is some sort of accountability around all this, I reiterate the question that my noble friend Lord Scriven asked the Minister: when will we see new targets—we have not got any at the moment—to reduce the number of detentions of people with learning disabilities and autism? It would be helpful to know that those targets will be put in place and that there is some way of monitoring the progress on all the important things we have been talking about in this group.
Lord Patel (CB)
I agree with what has been said: we need a definitive plan for how things will work out. We cannot rely on it being in five or 10 years because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, said, it then just becomes an ambition rather than a target to achieve.
I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, which strongly asks that the people who look after children with autism and learning disabilities are properly assessed by properly trained and accredited people. We know that, currently, children are ending up in detention inappropriately because they are assessed to have a psychiatric condition such as schizophrenia—as the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, said—when, although they might have some psychiatric sub-condition, they fundamentally have autism or learning disability problems.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, is not here to speak to his Amendment 150, which asks quite powerfully for a clear plan to be laid out, with resources tied to it, to achieve the ambitions there are in the Bill. I would have supported his amendment probing the Minister as to how resources will be allocated to achieve the ambitions for those targets to be met.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 42A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and I ask the Minister what justification there could be for refuting the amendment. It seems entirely appropriate, and indeed essential, that in taking such an important, far-reaching decision, one of the two registered medical practitioners who is responsible for that decision, taken at one point in the management of the natural history of disease in that individual, has the specialist skills and training to be able to make an appropriate assessment, one that will affect interventions on all future occasions for that individual.
I hope that, in addition to accepting this important principle, the noble Baroness might outline how His Majesty’s Government will go about ensuring that the development of such medical practitioners and their training is adequately resourced to ensure that, in future, as a result of the Bill being enacted, what we have seen in the past, regrettably on repeated occasions, does not remain the norm for managing patients with autism and learning disabilities.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I shall be very brief, because other noble Lords have already eloquently articulated the arguments that are almost self-evident about the importance of services for people with autism or a learning disability and, in particular, the importance of training all staff who may find themselves working in those fields. I agree very much with the remarks of my noble friend Lady Browning and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and I was particularly interested in the research mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which brings us into a whole new dimension, I think, in this debate.
The need to train all healthcare staff, no matter what role they perform or which part of the health service they serve in, should surely be taken as read. This should be training both in the initial identification of those with autism or a learning disability and in the skills needed to handle such individuals with the necessary sensitivity and insight. I was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, had to say about that. The behaviour of a person who is on the autistic spectrum can be baffling to anyone who has had no experience of it, and because of that it can be open to misinterpretation. A situation of that kind carries dangers, which is why it is so necessary for healthcare staff to know how to react in a way that will make the situation better and not worse.
This is not the first time that we have debated this important topic. I believe we may be told by the Minister that mandatory training in these areas is already provided for in Section 20 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. The provision reads:
“Regulations under this section must require service providers to ensure that each person working for the purpose of the regulated activities carried on by them receives training on learning disability and autism which is appropriate to the person’s role”.
That broad provision was inserted into the 2008 Act thanks to an amendment which your Lordships approved three years ago, during our debates on the Health and Care Act 2022.
So, a provision on training is already enshrined in law; the problem is that we have no way of knowing the extent to which it is being implemented in practice. Hence, Amendment 145 would require the Secretary of State to publish a review on mandatory training for all persons who treat patients with learning disabilities and autism under the 1983 Act and consult as necessary to determine the extent to which health service staff are actually in receipt of such training. I see this amendment as perhaps a logical partner to Amendment 152 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and indeed, in his absence, to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale.
While the vast majority of people who provide care to people with learning disabilities and autism do so with compassion and professionalism, we have seen a number of failings in care for people with those conditions. At the same time, detention will continue to be necessary in some cases where a patient with autism or a learning disability is suffering from a separate mental health condition. In all those cases, regardless of the context in which a person presents, we need to have confidence that the people providing care have the training they need to deliver that care sensitively, and above all, capably. I would venture to say that the people who need to have most confidence in the system apart from the person receiving the care are the parents or nearest relatives of that person. Hence, I believe we need more transparency on how well the system is working than we have currently.
Incidentally, one of the things that could come out of a review of training is an opportunity to look at the current processes for whistleblowing. An important aspect of improving standards of care is to have a system of accountability that includes listening to everyone in the sector, from the most senior staff to the most junior. No one should be afraid to speak up when they see something going on that does not look right, and I should be very grateful to hear what the Minister has to say on this whole theme and on the other important issues that noble Lords have raised.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I express my gratitude to noble Lords, not just for their amendments but for the way in which this debate has been conducted. I appreciate much of what lies behind the contributions and amendments today.
I first turn to Amendment 33, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and also Amendment 150 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale. All of these were spoken to throughout this group, including by the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler and Lady Murphy. I noticed that Amendment 150 was particularly referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
On the matter of data collection, I absolutely share my noble friend Lord Beamish’s view on its importance, the need for the visibility of data and the need to find out what is behind detention. However, I can give the reassurance that the data and statistics that were referred to are being collected and published. They will continue to be monitored and published monthly in the assuring transformation statistics for learning disability and autistic people, and I hope that will be helpful to my noble friend.
The amendments I am referring to, which the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, introduced, require the Secretary of State to publish plans within a specified timeframe, outlining the Government’s plan to allocate sufficient resources for the commissioning of services for the detention and treatment of autistic people and people with a learning disability, as well as costed plans which show how integrated care boards and local authorities will ensure provision of adequate community services for these groups.
Baroness Barker (LD)
This is a key point for a lot of the amendments that noble Lords have asked about. Can the Minister write to all noble Lords with more detail of the training programme—its content, the timetable, who is going to be responsible for making sure that it is implemented and reviewed? Will she specifically deal, in that letter, with my question about whether tier 3 training is included?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I would be very pleased to write to noble Lords, as the noble Baroness suggests.
Amendment 42A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, which the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, also spoke to, relates to appropriate expertise in learning disability and autism for medical practitioners with responsibility for recommending admission for treatment. We strongly agree with the principle of this amendment. The current code of practice sets out that, where a patient is known to belong to a group for which particular expertise is desirable, at least one of the professionals involved in their assessment should have expertise in working with people from that group wherever possible. The code also makes clear that consideration should be given to any disability the person has in order that the assessment has regard to that in the way that it is carried out.
The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, asked further about how the Bill will make sure that professionals have the right skills and expertise. This whole area rightly comes up repeatedly when we debate.
I accept that it is crucial that those with a learning disability and autistic people are dealt with sensitively and professionally. It is crucial that clinicians are able to make distinctions between a learning disability or autism and any co-occurring mental health disorder—that point was made powerfully. It is a matter for clinical judgment to determine whether a person with a learning disability or an autistic person meets the criteria for detention under Part II, Section 3 due to a co-occurring psychiatric disorder. To assist clinicians in decision-making, we will update the code of practice to provide the guidance that will be necessary, and I hope that that will make a major change.
Baroness Browning (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister and very encouraged by her response. I want to flag up something else that I raised. Occasionally, at some point of crisis for undiagnosed adults, the question is asked: could this be autism? At that point, we need people who have a very good working knowledge for them to raise that question, because it can make a world of difference if they are right. It is not just about somebody who presents with a diagnosis; it is about those who are undiagnosed. I do not know the quantity, but my gut feeling is that there are quite a lot of adults out there who are still undiagnosed. I do not know how the Minister will accommodate that situation.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a good point. Indeed, not everybody has a diagnosis. I suggest that, when we look at provisions, we should make clear—through the appropriate means and not in primary legislation—how the practice should take account of the point that she made very well. I will be extremely mindful of that.
We believe that the code of practice is the most appropriate place to articulate the type of experience that might be required in this area, through a non-exhaustive list of practical examples, which would avoid the need to define in primary legislation exactly what constitutes sufficient experience. The reason for that is to allow flexibility on the particular needs and circumstances of the individual. As we update the code of practice, we will engage with expert stakeholders to improve practice and to reflect the new Act. The code will be laid before Parliament before its final publication. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, for her comments in this area.
The number of long-term detentions was rightly raised by my noble friend Lord Beamish and the noble Baronesses, Lady Murphy and Lady Browning. The number of people with a learning disability and autistic people in mental health hospitals is indeed unacceptable. Too many people are still being detained who could be supported in their communities with the right provision. Work is under way to address this. For example, NHS England has allocated £124 million of transformation funding for services, which includes funding to reduce reliance on mental health in-patient settings. Noble Lords can be reassured that I will take a particular personal interest in this area.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
On that point, I welcome what my noble friend the Minister has announced, but the real problem is about housing, including specialist housing in different areas for individuals leaving secure units. That is not universal throughout this country, as people leaving mental health units are then having to travel long distances. Surely we need local plans, and that money going in locally to provide the housing needed.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend makes a good point about housing; we discussed it on day 1 in Committee. We are working with our ministerial colleagues who deal with housing on the need for the right kind of housing to be available. The point was well made and is taken.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I understand that the Minister may wish to write to me on this, but I wonder whether there is a real prioritisation of those experts by experience guiding that research, and what input there might be. If the Minister can write to me, that would be fine.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I would be pleased to write to the noble Baroness.
As I set out in response to other noble Lords, I hope the Committee has heard how much I agree that the adequacy of training is a key issue. We are aware that developments in best practice in caring for people with a learning disability and autistic people need to be reflected throughout. As I set out, the Health and Care Act 2022 requires that staff be given the training appropriate to their role, and we expect that this should be reviewed in line with the up-to-date situation. The CQC assesses staff training as part of its regulatory function. For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this useful and informative debate, and I thank the Minister for a thorough explanation of what happens. However, there does seem to be a disjoint between what is happening on the ground and what people in an office in Whitehall seem to think is happening. That is why noble Lords have discussed issues to do with data, training, a costed plan, research and development, and the implementation of people who at least have training and an expertise in diagnosis. Something just does not feel right. The Minister has explained what is happening, but without a fully costed plan up front, with targets, accountability and data ongoing, what will happen is what happens now. Things will be diverted and diluted, and we will not be able to hold the plan to account. For that reason, while I thank the Minister for the explanation she has given, I feel that we will return to this issue at a later stage to dig down and get that deliverable framework. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Murphy
(b) there is a risk of serious harm to the health or safety of the patient or of another person;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Baroness Murphy remove from the criteria any mention of “likelihood” or “may be caused” and replace them with wording that allows a clinician to evaluate risk in the individual case and give evidence more straightforwardly and comprehensively without making predictions for individuals about risk.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, in this group, we return to the issue of serious harm and risk. Clause 5, on the grounds for detention, implies that the risk factors for detention under Part 2 are identifiable and that risks are readily assessed. A number of clauses in the Bill are all about the same thing, which is why there are so many amendments in this group. They imply, again, that risks are quantifiable and predictable—if only.
Academic research has often stressed how difficult it is to predict episodes of violent behaviour in individuals, because they are rare. Risk assessments given as likelihoods are of limited use when the base rate for violence in a population, particularly serious violence, is low. The same is true, by the way, for suicide and suicidal thoughts.
It has been calculated, using the average of all the current tests and rating scales that have been carefully assessed in research studies, that if 5% of the patient population were in a high-risk category, the tests would correctly identify eight in 100 people who would go on to commit acts of violence, but misidentify as violent another 92 people. In fact, less than 1% of community patients will commit serious violence over the period of a year, which means the tests would correctly identify only three patients out of 100.
Homicides occur at a rate of one in 10,000 patients suffering from a psychosis per annum, which makes prediction more or less impossible. A number of factors are statistically associated with later violence at a group level. Even the most effective predictive combinations of variables constructed by statisticians perform poorly, except at group level. So making statements about individual risk based on the use of these tools is complex, and some would say unsafe and unethical.
Structured risk-assessment systems can be useful in routine clinical practice; indeed, most people use them in day-to-day team thinking about what these risks are. When employed by staff properly trained in their use, they are useful pointers. They perform better than unaided clinical judgment in predicting future violence, but again, at a group level. On an individual level, these checklists need to be part of a detailed understanding of a patient’s mental state, life circumstances and thinking, which is a major contributor to the prevention of harm. This is best achieved, as always, by well-trained professionals operating in a well-resourced environment where staff know well the patient’s history, response to treatment and life circumstances.
The wording of the Bill encourages pseudo exact probabilities and predictions of individual behaviour, which are not possible. This exerts pressure on psychiatrists, particularly at tribunals, to make predictions that may be seriously wrong. Unreasonable expectations of what can be predicted lead to defensive practice—to detaining people where it is not justified by the unreliable evidence. There are several places in the Bill where the impression is given that risks are reliable and predictable, but it is not so. As I say, the same problem arises with suicide and suicidal behaviours.
I ask the Government to look at whether the wording of these clauses is reasonable, given the evidence, and to substitute these certainties with something more flexible, indicating that a more rounded, holistic and comprehensive assessment is necessary. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 86 and 67, in my name, in this group. I put them in that order as Amendment 86 more naturally follows on from—
Baroness Murphy (CB)
I am awfully sorry, but I should have mentioned that I also have almost all the other amendments in this group. They cover the same question—it is just about the wording of these two phrases. Amendment 45, along with one other, is not mine, but most of the amendments are covered by those brief words.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I think that I am speaking in the right group. Amendments 45 and 48 are in my name, and although they are in this group, they are of a rather different nature. They are about the framework and definition of “appropriate medical treatment”.
I will briefly outline the overall context and why I thought it important to bring these two amendments forward. I am particularly concerned that many in-patients in mental health hospitals, particularly autistic people and people with a learning difficulty, continue to face detention in hospital settings which can provide little or no therapeutic benefit. The environment of these hospital settings can be incredibly overstimulating and distressing. We continue to hear stories of restrictive practices, including physical, mechanical and even chemical constraint, as well as the use of solitary confinement.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, given that all those who have spoken to this group of amendments have been brief, I shall try to be brief. Once again, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, for discussing with me in an exchange of emails over the weekend the intent behind the amendments in her name.
The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, makes a reasonable point about clauses in the Bill that contain the phrase “likelihood of the harm” or “serious harm may be caused”, because it is assumed that such risks are quantifiable and predictable. I was struck by her observation that psychiatrists, psychiatric nurses and academics have warned about the difficulty of being able to predict episodes of violent behaviour in individuals because the base rate for violence, particularly serious violence, in the population is low. One of the things that we keep saying throughout this debate is that we need to see the evidence and the data, and that that should drive decisions that are being made. Given that, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for sharing the statistics, which I will not repeat but which reinforce the point that she wanted to make.
Considering those statistics, I am sympathetic to two specific points that the noble Baroness made. The first is that making statements about individual risk based on such statistics is complex and possibly unsafe, and, as the noble Baroness said, may be unethical. The second is that it may be helpful to use structured risk-assessment systems in routine clinical practice, if used by appropriately trained staff, to predict possible violence at a group level. However, given that many noble Lords have spoken about patient-centred care and the importance of understanding the individual and their sensory profile, surely we should be looking at patients as individuals, where the clinician better understands the individual patient’s mental state, relevant history and response to treatment given his or her life circumstances.
I will be interested in the Minister’s response to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, urging the Government to replace wording such as “likelihood of the harm” or “serious harm may be caused”. These terms are inexact and somewhat ambiguous and do not appear to be driven by evidence. Perhaps there are more appropriate terms for more holistic and comprehensive assessments.
Amendment 45, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, proposes that the definition of appropriate medical treatment includes the setting in which treatment takes place. This takes us back to a point made on the first day in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, that for those with autism and learning disabilities, being held possibly in noisy, bright, busy settings full of people who may be strange to them, and where they may feel powerless and worry about what will happen next, is likely to affect their mental health and well-being. Therefore, surely it is important that we take account of the points made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Tyler, particularly in Amendment 45.
On Amendment 48, it is really important that care is led by the level of therapeutic benefit. That should be based on evidence to drive those decisions. Given that, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful for the contributions that have been made and the amendments that have been tabled.
I turn first to Amendments 37A, 37C, 38A, 38B, 42B, 42D, 42E, 42G and 42H, all tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and spoken to by other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, regarding the new criteria. Let me say at the outset that the new criteria explicitly require decision-makers to consider the risk of serious harm and the likelihood of those harms occurring in order to justify detention. Clearly, the reason for this is to ensure that any risks to the public and the patient are consistently considered as part of the assessment process, and to protect patients from lengthy detention when these risks are unlikely to occur. I hope that this will be helpful for some of the debate that we have had.
The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, seek to revise the proposed new risk criteria to remove any mention of risk that “may be caused” or the “likelihood” of the risk transpiring. The purpose appears to be to remove any prospective assessment from the detention decision and instead focus on the risk as it can be established at the time. The noble Baroness, in her introduction, asked about the reasonableness of the words in the provisions, and I understand that this is where the concerns lie. I should also thank the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for his comments on evidence and data and their importance. In answer to the noble Baroness, I should say that the independent review found that the current criteria for detention are too vague and recommended that the Government should update the detention criteria to be more explicit about how serious the harm has to be and how likely it is to occur to justify detention. The intention of the revised detention criteria in the Bill is not to ask clinicians to make predictions but to clarify that they should consider whether a harm is likely to occur, based on their assessment and knowledge of the person—something that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, focused on—rather than based on risks which may never occur.
Any consideration of risk arguably preserves the need to look at what might happen rather than what is happening or has happened in more concrete factual terms. We think that it is important that the detention criteria allow clinicians to detain based on the risks that they think are likely to happen, rather than just the risks that have already materialised. This enables them to act early to prevent harm to the patient or others. In line with the intention of the noble Baroness’s amendments, this should be based on personalised individual risk assessments and information about the patient’s history and personal circumstances—again, something that I know noble Lords are exercised by, which is about the individual approach to this.
We did engage again on the changes to the detention criteria last summer, in light of the recommendation on this issue by the pre-legislative scrutiny committee, and to assure ourselves that the detention criteria struck the right balance between allowing clinicians to continue to take early action when they are concerned about a patient’s or others’ safety and the independent review’s concerns that people could be detained on the basis of risks that might never occur.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
I thank the Minister for her response. I have to say that psychiatrists remain worried about this and the possibility that they will be expected to make decisions on risks which they are simply not capable of doing. But I would not want there to be a feeling around that we want to discourage people from taking action much earlier than they sometimes currently do, because, in my view, they often leave it too late before they admit somebody—we have seen a number of such cases recently. I reserve the right, perhaps, to come back with some alternative ideas, but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness May of Maidenhead
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Baroness May seek to introduce a new category of “authorised person” who can carry out detentions under the 1983 Act to offer better inter-agency response. The proposed amendments would remove the need for the presence of police at mental health incidents in the absence of any risk.
Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group standing in my name, Amendments 37B, 38C, 42C, 42F and 128B, are all intended to widen the definition of those who can attend a mental health incident and act to detain an individual in a variety of circumstances.
It is a pleasure to speak after a number of noble Lords who have a considerable wealth of experience on the issues in this Bill. I can claim no such breadth of experience, but the amendments I have tabled speak to one issue, which I have dealt with in the past: that of who can attend a mental health incident and particularly the attendance of the police at such incidents.
Back in 2010, it became clear to me, as I spoke to more and more police officers in my role as Home Secretary, that there was one issue that was at the forefront of their mind, and it was the problem they had in dealing with people at the point of mental health crisis. Their concern was understandable: they had no training in mental health, they were not professionals in this area, yet they were being called out to situations. They were being expected to determine whether someone was at the point of crisis or not, and what should happen to that individual; more often than not that meant taking that individual to a police cell as a place of safety. For the police officer, there was concern that they were being asked to deal with something for which they had no training or knowledge.
Of course, the police presence was often not good for the individual concerned. Inevitably, it meant they were not being given the healthcare support they needed at that point in time; but more than that, the very essence of a police presence—somebody in the uniform coming to deal with them—could actually exacerbate their mental health situation, and a police cell is not designed to improve somebody’s mental health. Finally, for the police force, of course, it meant that it was taking up resource which could have been used elsewhere, and which was, in many cases, inappropriate; often if somebody was in a police cell as a place of safety it meant that an officer had to sit outside the cell to ensure that they did not harm themselves.
The issue of the use of a police cell as a place of safety is dealt with in other parts of the Bill, but they do not deal with this wider question of the police resource that is being used. Even if the police are lucky enough to get somebody to a hospital, they still could have to have an officer in A&E sitting with the individual to make sure they do not harm themselves or cause harm to others. Indeed, the Metropolitan Police, in its evidence to the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, cited a case study where a patient was required to be guarded by the police in A&E to prevent them becoming a high-risk missing person, and eight Metropolitan Police officers had to attend that individual for over 29 hours. Police officers were worried about the job they were doing, the individual concerned was not being treated or dealt with in the way that was appropriate for their mental health needs, and police resource was used unnecessarily.
Over the years, I and others have tried to address this situation, initially with some success. But what often happens in government, as noble Lords and the Minister will find over time, is that an initial success is turned back because over time people revert to the previous behaviour or mode of operation. That is what we have seen in this case, and it came, of course, to the point where the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police said that the force would not give an ultimatum and would not turn up to these mental health incidents.
As drafted, the Bill has the capacity to at least maintain, if not exacerbate, this problem, but the Government could accept amendments or amend it in a way that would improve the situation. I should say that, of course, if there is an immediate risk to life or serious injury, the police will always have a role to play; but they are clear that they want to see mental health repositioned as a health matter and not seen through the lens of crime and policing-related risk. This is the position that the National Police Chiefs’ Council took in its letter on the Bill to the current Secretary of State for Health, which said:
“The current position of the law arguably views mental health through the lens of crime and policing related risk, which raises a number of issues including disproportionality in the criminal justice system, discrimination, adverse outcomes for people suffering with poor mental health as well as increasing stigma attached to mental health”.
That concern that the focus and statutory footing of the police as the primary responder to incidents of mental health should be removed from the Bill is what has led to my amendments—it is what they are intended to deliver.
I see similarities between my amendments and Amendment 158 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. If I may be so bold, I think we are both trying to achieve a situation where the expected response to someone in mental health crisis is not limited to police; in other words, “right care, right person”. My amendments are intended to widen the description of those who can attend mental health incidents beyond a constable, but they specify that a police officer—the holder of the position of constable under the Crown—can respond if there is a genuine need for a police presence.
Recognising that we do not want to see healthcare professionals put at risk, the amendments specify that the authorised person attending an individual should have been
“trained and equipped to carry out detentions”
and by carrying out that function should
“not be put at unnecessary risk”.
It is worth noting, perhaps at this point, that the College of Policing’s mental health snapshot 2019 found that almost 95% of calls that police attend that are flagged as a mental health response do not require a police response.
I referred to the reasons behind my amendments in relation to the police, but there is support among healthcare professionals for such changes. In the joint Home Office and Department of Health review of Section 135 and Section 136 powers, 68% of respondents to the survey, alongside the review, agreed that all or part of Section 135 and Section 136 powers should be extended so that healthcare professionals could use them provided they were not putting themselves at risk. Paramedics particularly supported the change, with 93.3% of paramedics agreeing and 61.1% strongly agreeing.
Beyond the interests of the police and healthcare professionals, of course, we must also remember the interests of the individual at that point of mental health crisis. They deserve the right response, the right care, the right person—and I do not believe that that is always a police officer. This Bill should reflect that and enable a wider range of authorised persons to attend mental health incidents. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, this is an area where I feel I have the possibility of a solution or part of a solution, while supporting very much what my noble friend has put forward in her amendment. My solution comes from knowledge that we have gained from the world of palliative care. It is a subject matter that we covered in detail on the joint scrutiny committee, because the whole issue of the police turning up to such an incident where somebody is absolutely in crisis can, in many instances, lead only to an increase in the fear and extraordinary pain that that person is feeling when they are in crisis. It is not the fault of the police; it is just the situation that they find themselves in.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, in speaking to my Amendment 49A, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady May, for her amendments. Those of us on the joint scrutiny committee spent a lot of time focusing on the fact that, in truth, a lot of what happens to people who are having mental health crises depends entirely on where they are, who is there and who somebody passing in the street and tries to help them thinks is the right person to call at a moment of emergency.
We are all in agreement that the police have for too long been the default answer to a problem but are not the right answer to a problem. The police know they are not the right answer to a problem—I say that as somebody who has lots of police officers in my family. A lot of people having a mental health crisis will end up in A&E just because the lights are on and that is where people go. We are still dealing with one of the problems the Wessely review touched upon, and that is lack of timely access to an accurate diagnosis.
My amendment, which I admit was suggested by practitioners in the field, tries to deal with the fact that we do not have an abundance of consultant psychiatrists who are there at the drop of a hat to make assessments. The amendment probes whether we might help things by opening up the eligibility to make diagnoses under Section 12 to people who are health professionals but not necessarily medical practitioners. Back in 2006-07, we had the massive argument about bringing in approved mental health professionals. That was a big battle and there was a lot of rearguard action on the part of consultant psychiatrists, who saw it as a downgrading. Approved mental health practitioners are now very much part of our mental health services and they are a good part of our mental health services.
The amendment is trying to open up the making of assessments, simply in order to speed up access to appropriate services. We all understand, and are talking about, the fact that, although we can see the effects of waiting lists and so on on physical health services, waiting lists and the lack of access to appropriate treatment in mental health services are much more hidden. People end up in limbo unless and until there is some kind of outrage, or, to go back to the noble Baroness’s point, until they do something sufficiently serious.
We ought to be freeing up the capacity of consultant psychiatrists in particular, because not only is demand growing but there are also particular areas of specialist demand—young people with eating disorders, for example. I frequently hear of worried parents being told that their children are not sufficiently ill to get treatment. They are not alone; there are other people in that same situation. My modest amendment is an attempt to open up and make better use of the skills we have within the NHS workforce.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
This is the first time I have spoken in Committee on the Bill, so I declare my interest as a member of the advisory panel of the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute. I shall speak to my Amendment 158, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, said, covers essentially the same ground as hers, and they both aim at the same endpoint. Her elegant and compelling speech has left me in the position of just having to emphasise issues; the case made was compelling, and I hope the Committee will agree. In particular, I hope the Minister will be able to make some sort of positive response.
This proposal does not flow specifically from the independent review, but it is in the spirit of what was in that review. The background to the changing nature of mental health services is the significant material increase in the demand for mental health services over the past few years, and the growing number of people on the mental health waiting list or seeking community support.
This unmet need has consequences, which are felt by front-line medical staff. My amendment seeks to address that by giving additional powers to paramedics and appropriate mental health professionals. It would extend the reach of Section 136 of the Act, currently confined to constables—or police officers, as I say in my amendment. As previous speakers have said, that needs to be shared more widely.
The unfortunate reality of the current situation is that those detained under Section 136 get suboptimal care; we just do not have the resources available for them. There is inadequate provision of suites for Section 136 detention, and there are simply not enough clinicians. We all applaud and support the practice of “right care, right person”, but we must acknowledge that that only increases the demands on the service.
The result of all this is that, as we have heard, police officers are taken away from front-line policing duties for many hours. That is bad for everyone involved—for the police officers, for the health service, and particularly for the patients. At the same time, the skills of non-medical health service staff have increased. They are now moving towards the sort of training that equips them to handle such situations. Obviously, giving staff extra powers will not resolve the situation, but we can learn from experience abroad, especially in Australia and New Zealand, where a range of health service staff have a practice called emergency care orders, with the intention of providing greater dignity, removing the sense of criminalisation, and providing appropriate care.
As my noble friend the Minister said, what we are looking for is beneficial interventions at the earliest possible stage. A key element in achieving that aim is extending the powers under Section 136 to wider professions. That is not to say that there is no role for police officers—there will always be occasions when their intervention is required—but saying that the single source of entry to services of someone suffering an acute mental health problem is through the intervention of the police is just wrong.
There have always been concerns when the powers of medical staff are extended, but this will be an issue of training, guidance and codes of practice—clearly, those will have to be provided—so that the additional powers can be used effectively.
To conclude, I emphasise the point that the noble Baroness, Lady May, made in opening the debate. We have moved beyond the point when the powers in Section 136 were essentially about public order—which is, quite rightly, a role for the police. We must ensure that now, commitments under Section 136 are the first stage of a process of medical treatment, in which the unfortunate individual suffering an acute problem with their mental health must be considered first. This is not about public order; it is about appropriate healthcare, where a range of health service professionals can exercise their trained judgment to the benefit of the patient.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I support this group of amendments in principle, but I want to make two points. We talk about powers a great deal, but the therapeutic relationship is not about power; it is about collegiate working with patients and users of the service. I appreciate that there are times when we need to intervene when the patient does not want intervention, but we must be careful about the nomenclature as we redraw elements of the Bill.
In particular, I welcome the phrase that the noble Lord has just used, which is used so frequently in New Zealand and Australia: emergency care orders. We should think carefully about the fact that what we need is emergency assessment and care orders. People who work regularly with patients over a long period are often the best people to recognise a change in a patient’s behaviour earlier.
I fully support the idea that this should be extended beyond police constables, as the noble Baroness, Lady May, outlined, but I also recognise that there will be healthcare professionals, be they psychologists, nurses or social workers, who do not want to take this on. We must make certain that we do not lose some of our valuable team by making it compulsory to take on that extended responsibility.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
I shall make a few points in response to the amendments that we have been discussing in this group. The noble Baroness, Lady May, made, very powerfully, an incredibly compelling case. The point she made about police officers sitting in A&E for many hours is so important. Not only is that a waste of police resources, it is often completely inappropriate for the person suffering from acute mental health problems. It can also be incredibly alarming for others in A&E. We all know that, sadly, far too many people are waiting for far too long in A&E, in the sort of environment that is in no way conducive to their overall health, physical or mental. That is my first point.
My second point relates to something that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said. There will still sometimes be a role for police officers. I know from personal experience how much a police presence can be required when a person suffering a very acute mental health crisis is likely to harm both themselves and others. Those others can often be family members who are trying to support the person suffering from the crisis but are also pretty scared for their own safety. It is important that we are talking about widening the range of people who can be that primary responder, but we are not saying that it should never be the police.
I agree that if we have a wider primary responder, that individual must be prepared to do it, happy to do it and appropriately trained. We heard a lot in earlier groups about the importance of good training. I was particularly taken with the statistic that the noble Baroness, Lady May, raised about the views of paramedics and how many of them support this, because they are the people right at the sharp end. I cannot quite remember the number who support it, but it was very large, and so I think it is something that we should take seriously.
Finally, I want to lend my support to Amendment 49A in the name of my noble friend Lady Barker. Speeding up access to appropriate services is important, as is making the best use of the workforce that we have. For those two reasons, the amendment that my noble friend put forward is important.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt, but I want to make much the same point that the noble Baroness has made based on my experience of a trip to A&E last year. I mentioned it anecdotally at Second Reading. There was a very disturbed person in A&E when I was having to wait there for some three hours. The hospital staff were struggling to contain the person in one room, as he kept leaving. He was not violent, but he was obviously distracting the hospital staff and worrying the other people present, who included children. As soon as anybody asked the staff what they were going to do, they said that they had to wait for the police. I have no doubt that the whole episode that I witnessed was prolonged by the need to wait for the police. Clearly, if this amendment or something like it is approved, it will widen the range of those who could be called upon to deal with such a crisis.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, there is little for me to do following the persuasive speech of my noble friend Lady May, other than to say how much I support her in putting forward her amendments. I hope that the Minister will approach the proposals my noble friend has made in a receptive and constructive way.
I was struck by the case put forward by my noble friend Lady Buscombe about how technology could assist in the handling of mental health incidents. I hope equally that the Minister will wish to follow up on my noble friend’s suggestions.
The question of whether police officers, and only police officers, should exercise the powers under the Act to remove a person suffering from a mental health crisis to a place of safety is one that, as my noble friend Lady May said, has been simmering in the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Care for a decade or more. Extending those powers to suitably trained healthcare professionals would be a change that I suggest goes with the grain of this Bill as regards the emphasis that it places on looking after mental health patients in the best possible way. That is not a criticism of the police in any sense. The police do a magnificent job in tackling anything that they are called upon to do, but, as we have heard, the police themselves say that the vast majority of instances in which they are called upon to deal with a mental health incident do not require a policing response.
The issue of risk is important to consider. Statistically, as my noble friend said, most mental health incidents present no risk whatever to the police attending. Admittedly, it is not always possible to tell in advance how risky a particular encounter is likely to be, but I agree with my noble friend that, provided that a paramedic is suitably trained and equipped, they will have the necessary skill set to deal with any risk to their own safety, bearing in mind that if a police presence turns out to be necessary, they can always call for one.
I very much hope that, between now and Report, the Minister will agree to meet my noble friend, if that is what she wishes, to map out a way forward that will lead to a broadening of the Sections 135 and 136 powers.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate, with much agreement across the Committee. I noted the support from both the other Front Benches, from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for much of what has been said.
Let me first discuss Amendments 37B, 38C, 42C, 42F and 128B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady May, along with Amendment 158 in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness and my noble friend for bringing this issue before the Committee today. Amendments 37B, 38C, 42C and 42F would add a new category of authorised persons and would provide that police constables and such authorised persons may detain a person under Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Act.
I share the recognition from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, of the noble Baroness, Lady May, who I commend for her work to pave the way and dramatically reduce the use of police cells as a place of safety for those who are experiencing a mental health crisis. I listened carefully to the noble Baroness’s words of advice to all government Ministers; all I can say is that I cannot think how much better we could be advised than by a former Home Secretary and Prime Minister.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, for what I might call her notes of caution in respect of extending provisions, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for sharing his first-hand experience to add to the debate today.
We understand the broad intention of these amendments and of Amendment 128B, also in the noble Baroness’s name, to reduce police involvement in mental health cases for all the reasons that were said, including the extra distress that an officer may—inadvertently, of course—bring to a very delicate crisis situation.
The noble Baroness, Lady May, asked how the Bill will ensure that pressure is not placed unduly on police resource. I understand that that is very much a driving consideration, so let me say a few things on that matter. We recognise the pressure on the police, who are responding to a very large volume of mental health-related incidents, although—this is not to dismiss the point—detentions under Section 136 have decreased this year by 10%, and we are removing police cells as a place of safety to reduce some of this burden. We recognise, in particular, that police time in health settings should be reduced. I give an assurance that we have committed to look at this issue and to update the code of practice to clarify the handover process between police and health, including in A&E, which the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, spoke about. We recognise the confusion around the application of the legal framework that can tie up police time when it would be lawful for them to leave a patient with health staff.
Baroness Barker (LD)
I thank the Minister for her characteristically full and attentive response. I understand why she is not too enamoured by my amendment, and I do not intend to push that much further. However, having listened to her response to the noble Baroness, Lady May, I cannot help but arrive at the conclusion that, while we are quite content, because we all agree, to see police officers being taken away, we are not going to change anybody else’s roles or responsibilities to plug what will be an inevitable gap. I return to something I have said today and previously: this will be the only mental health legislation for 20 years. If we let this go through, in the certain knowledge that we are creating a big gap which will not be filled by existing roles or the deployment of people within the NHS, we are being quite negligent. We are consigning a lot of people to finding themselves without appropriate support at moments of distress, and that goes for staff who happen to be around at the same time.
The noble Baroness, Lady May, is a fan of Geoffrey Boycott. I hope that she goes in to bat again and does not give up. There is an enormous gap here and we have just made it worse.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I appreciate the contribution of the noble Baroness. None of us, including the Government, wishes to create a gap, either intentionally or unintentionally. I should have said in my remarks that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked whether I would meet the noble Baroness, Lady May, should she so wish. The answer is yes. I was glad to do so previously with the Secretary of State; it was extremely helpful.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that there is no intention to create a gap, and we would be happy to elaborate further. She is absolutely right to say that we should be cautious and that it would not be good legislation to do that. The challenge is whether the amendments before us are the answer. I hope that this is a helpful comment.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I have listened very carefully to the debate on this set of amendments. Those in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady May, would create a specialism within the relevant professions which is not there at the moment, based on a change of law. The Minister’s response was focused on the skills of people now, based on their generic roles. My question is this: in responding to the noble Baroness, Lady May, did officials and the Minister look at the potential change that would happen to the skill set, and at the skills and professionals that would be specific for this purpose? In practice, if the law changed, that is exactly what would happen to those professions: a subset of skills would develop, which would allow the gap to which my noble friend alluded to be closed.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
With your Lordships’ permission, I want to respond to what the noble Lord has just said. On the front line in this are the paramedics; they are the ones who will have to deal with this issue, most of the time. They need recognition for the additional work that they are already doing. The noble Baroness referred to the gap—the gap is being filled, but in a very inefficient and unrecognised way. We need to recognise that this is something that needs to be dealt with properly, with the staff involved being given the appropriate powers to deliver.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
To add to that, the key thing about paramedics is that they do not have long-term therapeutic relationships with the people we are talking about. Therefore, an intervention is totally appropriate.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I too want to add, equally with great care, to this very interesting discussion. I am concerned about the police. I have not quite understood from the Minister her thoughts on a point that has been made twice now by the noble Lord, Lord Meston about everybody waiting for the police. Are the Government thinking of making it unnecessary for the police regularly to attend?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their interventions. To the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—how can I put this?—I say that the police should be there only when they are needed because they are the police. It is true—the point was made very well in the course of the debate introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady May—that it often goes beyond that. That is why “right care, right person” is something that colleagues are working on with police forces, as well as looking at the whole connection with health services. It is well understood.
I heard the comments of my noble friend, as well as those of the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, following on from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. When the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, was speaking, the words that came into my head were “chicken and egg”, about legislation and skills. We looked at skills, but—these are not quite the right words—not at the expense of addressing the question of whether the law is in the right place. They are connected, but I refer the noble Lord to the points made earlier, by me and the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, about the response we have had from health and care professionals. It is about finding the right way. I take the point that there is a gap now. We do not want to make it worse, and we know that it is not acceptable.
Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)
My Lords, may I say how grateful I am to all those across the House who have supported my amendments. When the Minister first stood up and started to respond, I got quite excited and hopeful. I thought the points had landed, but then, as she carried on speaking, my hopes were dashed as I realised that, in a very elegant way, she was actually rejecting all the points that I had made in my amendments.
The Minister emphasised the code of practice and dealing with the issue of the handover between police and medical professionals. The whole point of my amendments was to ensure fewer handovers between the police and medical professionals, because there would be fewer times when the police were called as the first responders to a mental health incident. The Minister kindly said she would meet with me, and I hope she might be willing for the noble Lord, Lord Davies, also to be part of that discussion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, referenced my admiration for Sir Geoffrey Boycott. One thing about Sir Geoffrey Boycott was that his centuries tended to come quite slowly. Maybe the response and government reaction to this will be a little slower than I had anticipated; but, on the basis that I anticipate that that reaction may come and the century may be scored, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 43 in my name is to a list of grounds under which community treatment orders will be allowed. I have to say that, judging by the Second Reading of the Bill, including my own contribution, community treatment orders have not been a great success. I think that is a general view but here they are, listed in the Bill, and it is incumbent upon us to make them as strong and comprehensive as possible so that they are fit for purpose, if they are to remain.
I felt that there was an omission from the list of grounds in the Bill. I say to the Minister that I put my hand up immediately: I have had this this discussion with her outside the Chamber. This is something that I want to put into the Bill, but I am still not entirely sure that this is the right place for it. I hope she will not bat it out of—I do not know what to say in cricketing terms because I do not have my noble friend’s expertise in cricket. Anyway, I shall quickly move on.
We know the problem: there is a shortage of psychiatrists. In some areas, people are well served but in others they are not. Today’s debate has focused on psychiatrists who have expertise in autism and learning disability.
I am looking at a scenario where a person has autism or a learning disability, as well as a recognised mental health condition, and is discharged into the community on a community treatment order. Despite what I have said about my reservations about them in principle, because there is such a paucity of psychiatrists, particularly those who have expertise in autism and learning disability, once that person is being cared for on a community treatment order—or, for that matter, someone in the community who is not on a community treatment order but is medicated—where are the psychiatrists that they can turn to?
To my certain knowledge, there are around the country some integrated care boards that feel they are serving the autism community well enough if they can identify psychologists with expertise. There is nothing wrong with that, as there are excellent psychologists around the country, but of course, psychologists cannot prescribe. So there is a real challenge for people in that situation who need ongoing medication—the dosage of which may need to be changed, for example—having local access to an appropriate psychiatrist.
I am a bit nervous about the wording of the amendment—it is my wording, but I am still nervous about it—as it includes the word “local”. I assure the Minister that I am realistic enough to know that there is not going to be an appropriate psychiatrist just round the corner, but in many cases, as I am personally aware, there is not even anyone in the county. If someone has been subject to an in-patient stay in a mental health hospital, admitted in an emergency, that does not necessarily mean they are going to be in a local hospital; because of the shortage of beds, they may be quite far from home. So the community treatment order may not be exercised close to where someone has previously been an in-patient.
We also have problems at the borders between Wales, England and Scotland. For mental health services, there are mutually agreed agreements about where patients can be seen, and particularly where hospitalisation can take place. However, if community treatment orders are to be maintained, on discharge they may well be a long way away from where they live. That is why I have added my wording at the end of the list of grounds for community treatment orders.
We in Parliament make a great virtue of saying that decisions are made at local level. That is all well and good, but if the decision made at local level is, “We don’t need a psychiatrist within our geographic area who has that expertise”, that is not much help to the patient. I have shared with the Minister cases involving people who are not necessarily under a community treatment order but who have an ongoing need for medication and cannot access a psychiatrist with that expertise, and who end up having to travel to centres of population and paying very nice fees, thank you, privately because it is not available in any other way. That cannot be right, which is why I have added my wording to the list of grounds for CTOs. If the Minister does not think that that clause is the appropriate place for it, I will understand; but if so, I hope she will tell me where in Bill it should go, because I really believe it should be there.
As a postscript that has nothing to do with community treatment orders, for people with mental health conditions who need medication, people with autism without mental health conditions—I am looking away from the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, at this point—and people with autism who need ongoing medication for, for example, autism-related anxiety, personalised medicine is going to be a real advantage, enabling them to know exactly the right drug and the right dosage. It is out of reach on the NHS at the moment, but personalised medicine, using DNA testing to get the right dosage, is very good. I hope we are going to see it pretty soon, particularly in mental health. Let us start with mental health. I beg to move.
Asylum Seekers: Hotels
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they intend to cease using hotels to house asylum seekers.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to bring this debate to your Lordships’ House this evening. I am grateful to all noble Lords who are participating. The purpose of the debate is to question the Government on an issue that resonates deeply with communities across the country: when will they see the end of the use of hotels to house asylum seekers? This is a challenge which demands urgent action. It is not just about fiscal responsibility but about rebuilding public confidence in our immigration system, fostering community cohesion and ensuring Britain remains a nation of both compassion and order.
Let me state clearly: Britain has a proud history of providing sanctuary to those fleeing persecution. As the Minister will know, Wales is a nation of sanctuary. Swansea, where I hail from, is a local authority of sanctuary, which I know so well. We have welcomed in refugees from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong, which, when in government, we could say we were proud of. But what we see today—a dependence on hotels as a stopgap solution—is neither compassionate nor sustainable.
First, let us address the financial burden. According to the latest Home Office figures, housing asylum seekers in hotels costs taxpayers over £8 million a day. This staggering expenditure is indefensible, particularly after a Budget which has increased pressures on employers, farmers and families, and reduced employment opportunities.
The Government should explain why this costly and inefficient approach is being allowed to continue, but we must also come to this debate with honest intentions. Yes, processing asylum claims was a challenge under the previous Conservative Government, despite it being one of our political priorities. With that in mind, I genuinely wish the Minister well in tackling this issue and I hope he is able to rise to the challenge presented.
Secondly, the impact on local communities cannot be ignored. From seaside towns to rural villages, hotels that once supported tourism and local employment have been repurposed as temporary accommodation. This has led to economic disruption, increased pressure on local services and growing frustration among residents. It now falls to the Labour Government to act decisively. At the last opportunity to question the Minister on this, I raised the enforcement unit. He did not have the figures on how many people were hired to date by the unit. I wonder: does he have the figures today?
The heart of this crisis lies in a broken asylum system over many years and many successive Governments, regardless of their political colour. This not only strains public finances but undermines confidence in our ability to distinguish between genuine asylum seekers and those seeking to exploit the system.
So, what should be done? First, the Government must accelerate the clearing of the asylum backlog. This requires more than resources; it demands clear leadership and effective management. Secondly, we must tackle illegal crossings at their source. Bilateral agreements with key countries are vital, as are robust deterrents and investments in border enforcement. However, while gathering intelligence is all well and good, it is useful only provided that it can be converted into practical arrests. I will be keen to see the Government’s progress on this subject and will continue to question them on it. Finally, fairness must underpin every policy: fairness to taxpayers, fairness to communities, and fairness to those who follow legal, safe routes.
The Government’s reliance on hotel accommodation for asylum seekers is an issue that needs addressing imminently. While we await the Government’s progress, this issue also highlights the challenges we faced, and must learn from, when we were in government. Now is the time for leadership. We must move beyond short-term fixes and deliver a comprehensive plan that restores order to the asylum system, strengthens our communities, and upholds the values that define our nation.
I will ask a couple of questions of the Minister. Following on from a previous Oral Question, which I am afraid still requires clarity, what measures are being implemented by the Minister to ensure local communities are consulted and supported during this transition? On the bilateral agreements that we have often been made aware of, what progress has been made in deterring illegal crossings and facilitating the return of individuals with unfounded claims?
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I thank all noble Lords and I look forward to hearing from them in this debate.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I note my practical support from RAMP.
I fear that hotels, together with small boats, have become an obsession of the right, used by some to whip up hostility to asylum seekers, the dreadful results of which we saw last summer in the riots. The impression given is that asylum seekers are living a comfortable life in four-star hotels. Not so, as shown by three recent reports from the Helen Bamber Foundation and Asylum Aid, IPPR, and Women for Refugee Women. They paint a picture of “terrible living conditions”: unhygienic and dilapidated accommodation; overcrowding and lack of privacy, with enforced room sharing; very poor and inadequate food; and accommodation that is often unsuitable for children. Women, many of whom have fled gender-based violence, can be subject to various controlling practices, isolation from support networks, and degrading and voyeuristic behaviour from hotel staff. Overall, the effect is frequently exacerbation of mental health problems and re-traumatisation.
Of particular concern is the situation of children, including those wrongly assessed as adults, who are forced to share rooms with adults with no safeguards, to the detriment of their mental health. I gently remind my noble friend the Minister that he owes me a letter on this issue from when I raised it at Oral Questions in November.
I am not defending the use of hotels—far from it—but in the immediate short term they are at least preferable to even worse large sites, such as the “Bibby Stockholm”, which is thankfully closed now, and to homelessness, the lot of all too many asylum seekers when they receive refugee status. The extension of the 28 days move-on period to 56 days for a trial period is thus welcome, even if it means a longer stay in a hotel—though the consensus is that this should be made permanent.
In the longer term, the current policy of moving towards dispersal to community-based accommodation in collaboration with local authorities is the answer and has Local Government Association support. It chimes with calls from many groups and the Commission on the Integration of Refugees. I urge my noble friend the Minister to read the commission’s report if he has not yet done so. Also, is he considering triggering the break clause with private providers next year?
Finally, as noted at Oral Questions last week, an immediate step that would reduce pressure on accommodation would be to allow asylum seekers to undertake paid work after six months. The chair of the Migration Advisory Committee notes that if the laudable aim of processing asylum claims within six months is met it would cease to be relevant, but otherwise there is a strong argument from both integration and public finances perspectives. The standard Home Office response—that it would act as a pull factor—was dismissed by the Institute for Government as an example of policy based on “ill-founded assumptions” rather than good evidence. I am afraid I do not find my noble friend’s argument that he made last week—that it could lead to illegal work—very persuasive, either.
A new Government provides the opportunity to develop a comprehensive and positive integration policy for asylum seekers and refugees that would make the use of hotels redundant. This should be the priority.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I declare a non-financial interest as president of Migration Watch, but I shall speak personally today. This is a very difficult subject. Many good-hearted people have been working on these issues for years. Sadly, the situation has got steadily worse, and I suggest that it is now time for an entirely new approach, changing the legal system as necessary.
I will make four brief points. First, asylum is serious, but it is far from being the main issue. Legal net migration in the year to June 2024, at nearly 1 million, was more than 30 times the number who crossed the channel illegally in that year. It is high time that this massive legal inflow was tackled with the seriousness it deserves. At present, it seems that the Government are focusing on asylum to distract attention from the huge scale of legal migration that they have inherited.
Secondly, as regards asylum, it is absurd that we should accept, effectively without penalty, applications from asylum seekers who have destroyed their documents. As a result, claimants have a clear incentive to move on to the UK from the safe countries that they have already reached.
Thirdly, those who arrive without documents should no longer be accommodated in hotels, free to come and go and with some £40 a week to spend. Instead, they should be held in secure campsites until their cases have been decided. Any who left this temporary accommodation without permission should have their asylum claims automatically dismissed. The word would quickly spread, the numbers and costs would fall, taxpayers’ money would be spent on genuine cases and the numbers drowning in the channel would fall sharply.
This would be a radical change and would take time, but we simply cannot go on as we are—still less can we take the approach that the Government are now taking. I refer to the terms of the Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill, which is currently going through this House. As noble Lords will know, the current position allows entry to the UK only for parents, partners and children under 18. They have averaged about 6,500 a year over the past 10 years. The Bill proposes that family members of a person granted protected status should include parents, spouses, unmarried partners, children, adopted children and others dependent on the above. It even goes on to include
“such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to … the importance of maintaining family unity”,
including
“the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted protection status and another person”.
This is crazy. It is the exact opposite of what the present situation requires. The likely scale of the resultant inflow would have a very serious impact on community relations in this country. The public have had enough of being ignored by Governments on these matters. This Government would be well advised to amend their draft legislation and to do so soon.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, the first issue I wish to address is the experience of women in asylum hotels. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I will highlight the recent report from Women for Refugee Women, Coercion and Control, which was the first of its kind to specifically examine the treatment of asylum-seeking women in hotels. The noble Baroness explained some of the deeply concerning findings from the report.
The impact on women’s mental health is severe. According to the report, 91% of women felt anxious or depressed and nearly half had suicidal thoughts. As the Minister will be aware and as the noble Baroness highlighted, many of these women have fled horrific circumstances and endured a traumatic journey to the UK. What they are now experiencing in hotels only compounds their suffering. The report calls for an end to the use of hotel accommodation, immediate action to address its harmful effects and the provision of safe and supportive accommodation. I welcome the Government’s commitment to prioritise survivors of gender-based violence and ensure that they receive the support they need. Can the Minister reassure us that this will include survivors who are seeking asylum?
My second point concerns the financial impact of hotel costs on the UK’s important work overseas. In 2023, the Home Office was allocated nearly £3 billion, or 20% of official development assistance. The UK reports the highest costs per refugee of any country—over 30% higher than the next-highest country, Ireland, and 150% higher than the next-highest G7 country. These statistics highlight the need for urgent action to control costs. Of course I acknowledge that it was a previous Conservative Government which cut the development spend from 0.7% to 0.5%—a decision I deeply regret—but our in-country refugee costs, the vast majority being hotel costs, were partially offset by the previous Government in the 2022 Autumn Budget, with an additional £2.5 billion in ODA funding to help manage the pressure on refugee services. Despite comparable pressures now, this additional funding was not repeated by the Government in their Budget in the autumn, leaving the FCDO facing, yet again, significant and sudden cuts to its programmes.
I very much welcome the news earlier this month of an additional £540 million of funding for the FCDO, which, thankfully, avoids hitting a 17-year low in spending on our overseas programmes. This amount was from the increase in gross national income and a fall in spending on domestic refugee costs. I know that the Minister supports transparency in government spending, so can he clarify how much of this £540 million was due to the fall in spending on asylum hotels?
Success in our development work benefits not only the countries we work with but also us here at home. Done right, it can help to tackle many of the drivers of illegal migration in the first place. But it requires certainty and long-term planning—something that, sadly, has been impossible in recent years. This is yet another reason to urgently reduce the backlog and move to ending the use of hotels for asylum seekers.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, I declare an interest as the patron of the charity ASSIST Sheffield. In the interests of time, I will limit my remarks to three key points.
First, there is the question of safety. One of the communities I serve as the Bishop of Sheffield is Rotherham. Noble Lords may recall how, in August last year, a group of asylum seekers living at the Holiday Inn in Manvers were deliberately targeted, in an incident that led to criminal convictions for over 60 men. The following month, at the request of the Mayor of South Yorkshire, I arranged for one of the churches in Sheffield, Christ Church Fulwood, to offer sanctuary for the day, free of charge, to a group of asylum seekers because there were fears that their hotel could be subject to a similar attack. Quite simply, it subjects asylum seekers to danger if they are placed in hotels in visible numbers. Dispersed accommodation offers greater protection and, for that reason, we should move to that provision as swiftly as possible.
Secondly, hotel accommodation by and large inhibits rather than promotes the integration of asylum seekers into local communities, and it increases rather than decreases their sense of isolation and precariousness. I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging the need to transition from hotels to dispersed accommodation, and for affirming the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, last week that asylum seekers are not currently well integrated into local services—but the two are connected. Noble Lords will be aware that, in 2024, nearly 7,500 unaccompanied children seeking asylum were in the care of local authorities across the UK. May I press the Minister and ask what actions he is taking to engage in mutually constructive discussions and consultations with local authorities to provide asylum seekers with sorely needed access to support services and continuity of place, not least to ensure the welfare of unaccompanied children?
My third and final reflection is that it is worth emphasising that the substantial costs associated with the use of hotel accommodation reflect the backlogs and delays resulting from a dysfunctional asylum system. In other words, the asylum seekers themselves are not to blame for the strain on the public purse. In any case, each is an individual created in the image and likeness of God, to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect—especially in view of their very real vulnerability. Frankly, it would be not only a better use of public funds but a better expression of care to seek to move as quickly as possible from hotel accommodation to dispersed accommodation. I urge the Minister to urge the Government to accelerate that process.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the Ministers of this Government and previous Governments with regard to hotels. However, the Minister answered a Question last week and I got a sense of complete complacency, not only in Parliament but in government, about the position that all this immigration is leading us to. The truth is that the system is completely out of control and has been for some considerable time. We talk about dispersed accommodation and integration, which I fully support, but if you have 20,000 people per week coming into the country, how do you disperse and integrate them? The numbers are just uncontrollable, given the shortages of accommodation that we already have.
Then we say, “Well, we’ve got waiting lists in the health service”. Of course we have waiting lists in the health service. If you are increasing your population at that rate, how could it be anything else? The question is a basic one and it goes back to the fact that it is gangsters who are running these people, taking money off them and putting them into harm’s way in the channel in the hope that they will get to the other side, although they have already pocketed the money. Although the Government have made a commitment that they are going to tackle that as their number one priority—the Prime Minister has been very explicit about it—I would like to hear from the Minister what progress has been made.
We have a long tradition, of course, of opening our doors—it goes back to the Kinder trains in the 1930s and 1940s; of course, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is one of the shining examples of the success of that—but as a country, we just do not have the capability or capacity to deal with the numbers and we are just not facing up to it. Look at what is happening around the world; look at what is happening today in the United States and why it is happening. Look at what has happened in other countries in Europe and look, in a few weeks’ time, at what might happen in Germany. We cannot just keep sweeping this under the carpet.
Part of the problem goes back, I think, to the good will that was genuinely expressed over 70 years ago when we were dealing with the 1951 refugee convention. On 30 July last year, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, a Written Question:
“To ask his Majesty’s Government whether they are discussing with other countries amendments to the 1951 Refugee Convention to take into account the changed world circumstances”.
The Answer was:
“The Government is not discussing amendments to the Refugee Convention with other countries”.
Why not? It was done with good will and the right intentions quite a number of years ago, but it is out of date and we need to address it. I hope the Minister can give us some comfort on that.
We are under international obligations, and that is why we need an international solution, but we also have national obligations. We have just taken a heating allowance of £200 a year off pensioners who are earning just over £12,500 a year, yet it costs £145 a night to house anybody who comes in on a boat, and they also have access to our health service and so on, while other people in our own community do not. We have to be compassionate on one side, but we also have to be realistic on the other.
Lord Patten (Con)
My Lords, it has become something of a trope to call the first day of the third week in January—that is today—Blue Monday, when people feel at their lowest and nothing much works. Sometimes people make that accusation of migration policy. When I got to work today, I was cheered, in the office where I am, to see that the people who run the building were making a valiant effort by turning Blue Monday into what they called “Brew Monday”. None the less, I think today is appropriate to debate the horrendous growth in the cost of housing asylum seekers in hotels. This is still a fast-growing practice and it represents just the very tip of the iceberg of migration policy in the UK.
A generation ago, the problem seemed possible to handle. Numbers were much lower, and they were easily divisible into asylum seekers generally fleeing persecution and economic migrants seeking betterment; no more. The escalating numbers all seem to claim to be genuine asylum seekers needing lodging, while the ever-lengthening queue waits to be processed. The situation we are in is a major state failure by all parties, for government, political parties, think-tankers and policymakers are nowhere near a solution to the situation that faces us, despite great efforts, which I recognise, much thinking and huge expenditure. In saying this, I make no partisan attack on the Benches opposite; I assure the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, of that.
All parties have had a go over the past 40 years, but when good ideas have emerged, such as using more redundant military camps, in the end, both major parties, Labour and Tory alike, have balked in the face of “No migrants in my backyard” protests. We might be a bit better off if we had not collectively balked at that. Of course, there have been all the headline-seeking suggestions about leaving the ECHR. Sure, some of those who make it to our shores might be easier to remove, but to send them back to where? It is a practical issue, and it is unlikely to stop migrants making the attempt in the first place anyway.
So, at the beginning of what I think over the years will come to be called “the long Parliament”, between now and 2029, it is absolutely right that my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower should have introduced this Question for Short Debate. I want to ask the Minister whether HMG now—I cannot quite see it and I am happy to be educated by him, as he has done in the past—have a clear plan, underpinned by verifiable, practical policies, to have at least reversed, no better than that, present trends by Blue Monday 2029.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
Sorry, the communication obviously was not good enough.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
As there is the opportunity to speak in the gap, perhaps I may respond to some comments of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, regarding the Private Member’s Bill, for which I must take responsibility and not load it on the Minister.
The Bill is concerned primarily with allowing children to sponsor their parents to come to this country—currently, parents can sponsor children, as he said. Much of the rest of the Bill reflects what is in the current rules. The extra numbers involved are difficult to estimate, but the Refugee Council, the Red Cross and Safe Passage have given an estimate of, from memory, a lower figure of 340 a year and a maximum figure of 750.
The noble Lord shakes his head about the reflection of the current rules. To give him just one example, when I looked at them, I was surprised to see that the term “emotional well-being”, which I think he may have mentioned, is in them; I was quite encouraged to see that.
More generally, and I know that my noble friend will say everything I would want to say and probably more—and better—asylum seekers cannot just be a matter of numbers for us, given what is going on globally with conflicts and so on. This is where the debate seems to always land. I want to put on record at least a response to the noble Lord; I am actually grateful to him for having read the Bill.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for poking me on the shoulder, because my hearing aids were slightly inefficient in this process. I first declare my interests as set out in the register, that I am supported by RAMP. I am grateful to my noble friend because underpinning all the discussion today is the fact that we are talking about human beings here. We are talking about people who are fleeing for their lives or fleeing from danger in a way that we cannot actually assimilate, unless you have made those connections and seen it at close hand.
This has been an interesting debate. It has spread beyond the Question that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, tabled, so I would like to focus on the issues. First, there is an acceptance that for people fleeing from these disastrous situations, long-term accommodation in hotels is just not suitable, particularly for families and children. While people are waiting for their asylum claims to be considered they should have safe, secure accommodation where they can cook for themselves and easily access local support and services and there is local support available from many sources. It is from this context that they will be more able to engage with the asylum process itself, effectively present their case for protection and start to feel secure and stable. It is true that accommodating asylum seekers in hotels is not appropriate for the communities in which they find themselves. It is also deeply unsuitable for the individuals themselves, so this situation has to be changed and altered.
One of the reasons why, which the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, mentioned, is the cost to the other services we provide in the rest of the world. Our overseas development budget has already been pulled back to 0.5% from 0.7%, and I hope that we can get back to it, but huge chunks of that money have been used inside the United Kingdom and diverted from the sort of work which might help people not to make the journeys to other countries by improving their quality of life closer to home.
Last Thursday there was an Oral Question in which I talked about the opportunity of reducing reliance on hotels for asylum seekers by giving them the ability to pay for their own accommodation by granting them permission to work, and the Minister will not be surprised that I am returning to this matter. In the Minister’s reply he said:
“Sometimes … asylum seekers could be put in positions whereby they are undertaking work they have no legal right to do”.—[Official Report, 16/1/25; col. 1268.]
On these Benches, we support the three measures the Government are taking: cracking down on the gangs, producing shorter waiting lists and providing dispersed accommodation. Those are all perfectly proper. We would like to see the Government moving a step further, as the Government’s chair of the Migration Advisory Committee has said, by giving permission for people to work while they are waiting. There must surely be ways in which the Government can deal with what they think might be the problem. They say it might be a push factor, but there is no evidence of that. In fact, we are the outlier: we are one of only three countries in Europe which do not allow people to work.
The other area I think the Minister will be concerned about is people disappearing, but I believe that the opposite will be more likely. When people are in some form of secure work, they are not going to try to disappear into the black economy. I hope the Minister can produce evidence to the contrary of the assertion I am making, but there is no evidence that this will be the case.
In conclusion, I agree that the ideal would be to have asylum claims decided right first time, but within six months is clearly not happening. It is taking longer and longer, and the appeals backlog is causing that to happen. So can we expect the Government’s proposals in their White Paper to actually address some of these very key issues we are raising in this debate, particularly about how we are going to deal with people who are here in that queue, waiting for their decision to be made?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for giving us an opportunity to debate this issue. We have had a number of Questions on it, but it is worthy of a debate in this short time we have. I will try to answer the points that noble Lords mentioned in their contributions.
If the noble Lord will forgive me, I will start with the noble Lord, Lord Patten, who asked whether we have a plan to look at blue Monday five years hence. I hope it will help him and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, if I mention some points very briefly, which I hope will satisfy the noble Lord, at least in part.
First, we have to speed up asylum claims, because they are taking too long to be determined. As my noble friend Lady Lister mentioned, we have a proud record of accepting asylum claims, but we have to adjudicate them. The longer we take to adjudicate them, the longer people need to be in hotels and dispersed accommodation. So the first task the Government have to undertake is to ensure that we complete and assess asylum claims as quickly as possible. To do that, we have put in an extra 1,000 staff, deployed from different parts of the department, in part from the savings from the Rwanda scheme which was scrapped.
Secondly, we need to speedily remove those who do not have a claim for asylum. Since 4 July, the Government have taken 16,000-plus people who have failed the asylum system from hotels and returned them to a place of safety—a country that they have been deemed able to return to.
Thirdly, and this is the nub of the discussions we have had so far, we need to look at how we close hotels, because they are a costly way of operating asylum accommodation. We have already closed the “Bibby Stockholm” and scrapped the use of Scampton in Lincolnshire, and we have plans to reduce the number of hotels over the course of this Parliament. It will take time, but by March this year we will have nine fewer hotels than we inherited in July last year. The noble Lord will expect me to say this, but I find it strange that under his jurisdiction and his Government, the number of hotels went from zero in 2015 to a peak of 400 in 2023 and is now just settling at the 260-270 mark. There is a record that we have to pick up on and work with, which I am trying to do in a constructive and positive way.
To answer some of the points mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Green, we have put in place the new Border Security Command—which will require legal back-up in a Bill later this year—with Martin Hewitt as its head. That is designed to try to take some of the pressure not off asylum accommodation, which is legitimate, but the illegal entry to the UK by criminal gangs organising for people to make dangerous crossings to potentially seek asylum, who in some cases have no basis for asylum but still come across in illegal gangs. The Border Security Command will be part of the plan to try to overturn that.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked about what we are doing with our international partners, and we have some international policy objectives. We do not have a phobia about talking to Germans, Italians or the French. We have a Calais Group in place to look at the issues there. Our Border Force control is looking at what is happening in Germany, working with Germany upstream to reduce the pressures there and to ensure that people claim asylum legitimately in their first port of call, rather than coming to the United Kingdom.
We have scrapped the Rwanda scheme, which was a disincentive and a waste of money. We have put that money into the areas I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, such as speeding up asylum claims, finding places to reduce the use of hotels and commissioning good, dispersed accommodation. I take the point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord German, that we want to get people through the system as quickly as possible, so they are determined to be legitimately here and able to work, or not legitimately here, and a way is found to deport them. That process needs to have integrity and speed.
There are issues arising from and discussions about the levels of migration, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Green. The Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill, which is a Liberal Democrat-inspired Bill, not a Government Bill, has legitimate objectives at its core, which I accept and understand. A big migration White Paper is due shortly; it will look at the very pressures that have been talked about in this House by my noble friend Lady Lister and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, and at how we deal with integration and the potential shortfall in skills. It will consider how we deal with asylum issues generally, all the questions that are dealt with in the family reunion Bill, and how we create a wider 5-year plan—going back to the noble Lord, Lord Patten—to ensure that we can deal with those issues over that period. Those are all key issues.
To the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield and others who have mentioned it, I say that the hotel costs which are the focus of this debate are simply eyewatering and not a good use of taxpayers’ money. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, mentioned, they are not even a good way of ensuring the safety and security of the people in those hotels, particularly women fleeing persecution. The costs were £8 million per day under the previous Government. They have dropped to £6 million per day following the work we have done to reduce them. It will take time but, I say again to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, it is part of the plan to get that figure right down and, over a period, end the use of hotels, but we have to deal with the demand issues first. These include legitimate asylum claims, which my noble friend Lady Lister mentioned; we should be place of sanctuary, somewhere that accepts people who are fleeing persecution, and do so in a proper and effective way without hotels.
We have to be cognisant of the fact that we still have to deal with the continued demand, as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Empey. We need to focus on reducing the pressure on the system from those who are seeking to come here illegally.
We have increased dispersed accommodation by 8% in the past few months of this Government’s tenure—the first time that we have been in office to do so. Millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money had already been spent on large sites at Scampton and Bexhill, and the “Bibby Stockholm”, by the previous Government, and we have tried to row back on that. We have reviewed asylum spend, and it is important that we look at the bigger picture. In 2023-24, when the noble Lord’s party was in office, the Home Office spent £4.7 billion on asylum support, the vast majority on hotels. We are continuing to explore how we can save taxpayers’ money, and we are on track to save £4 billion over the next two years. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Patten, that it is part of the plan to reduce the amount of money spent on asylum accommodation by speeding up the claims, scrapping accommodation such as the “Bibby Stockholm” and ensuring that the Rwanda policy is changed, so that we can use that resource to clear the backlog of asylum decisions.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for securing this debate. This Government inherited an asylum system under exceptional strain. When we came into office, there were tens of thousands of cases at a complete standstill, and a growing a backlog. In reference to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord German, asylum seekers were therefore living in limbo, accommodated in hotels which not only cost exorbitant sums but are profoundly detrimental to the wellbeing of vulnerable individuals, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, mentioned. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield highlighted that there is real pressure on hotels from collections of individuals, which has led to forces that are not conducive to integration, security and acceptance. The focus has been on hotels rather than on dispersed accommodation, where people go about their daily lives in a dispersed way.
For all those reasons, the Government are actively working towards a more sustainable and cost-effective solution to accommodate asylum seekers away from hotels. I have to be honest with the House: it will take time. It is a challenge, and it cannot be done straightaway, but the Government’s objective is very clear. In the manifesto, we said that we would end the use of hotels for asylum accommodation and, at a date to be determined, that we will do. I will be accountable to this House, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be to the House of Commons, in ensuring that we do that in future. The resource that is being eaten up by asylum hotels is the very same that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, mentioned, can be used elsewhere for more positive activity. I will look at the detail of what she mentioned and drop her a note.
I will check on my noble friend Lady Lister’s lost letter. I thought I had sent it, but maybe it got lost in the system over Christmas and the new year. We will find out where it has gone, and if it does not have a stamp on it yet, it will have one shortly. She may even find that I use the new method of email, as a matter of some speed, to get the correspondence to her in short order. I will look at that as a matter of urgency and get back to her.
I hope that today’s debate has been useful. There are challenges. On all sides of the House, we accept that we have the challenges of wider migration, hotel accommodation and its cost, making a plan and illegal migration into this country. In the short time that I have had, I hope I have set out the Government’s prospectus. With that, I hope that the House can hold me to account in due course on the delivery of that proposal.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
There is some time.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We have time. As I have known the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for such a long time and worked with him in such a constructive way, and even though the clock is flashing, I will take his intervention.
Lord Empey (UUP)
Before the Minister sits down—again—could he respond to my point about the 1951 refugee convention. He talked about demand. This is part of the legal framework and our international obligations, which I think need revision, with our partners across the rest of the world who were party to it in the first place. If he cannot give me a response now, he can write to me—or email me.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We will uphold our international obligations. We have an international obligation, under international law, to accept and assess refugees. That does not decry the fact that we have to look at, with our European and United Nations partners and others, how we reduce the pressures that lead to refugee status in the first place. I will certainly reflect on what the noble Lord said and look at Hansard in due course, but this Government will keep to their international obligations.
I am grateful for the debate and do not wish to test the patience of the House. Having had my 12 minutes, I commend the debate and hope that I have been able, at least in part, to answer some of the important questions raised.
Mental Health Bill [HL]
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 44 in this group. Having listened at Second Reading, I was minded to table this amendment based on my noble friend Lady Parminter’s speech giving her real-life experience of the need for community treatment orders. Both the amendments and the Second Reading debate show the wide range of views on community treatment orders, ranging from some who feel they are not needed to those who feel that they are needed and those who feel a review is needed. However, something in the present system is not quite right, so, again, this is a probing amendment to try to understand where the Government’s thinking is.
Given that, even if a review were to take place, CTOs would still exist, my amendment would in principle provide an initial 12-month period for a community treatment order with some very clear provisions. If we are going to have these provisions, they need to be on the face of the Bill rather than in the code of practice—even if they are not the provisions in my amendment. I suggest that the initial order is for 12 months and that, before the order is made, the patient has to be consulted, as well as
“the patient’s nominated persons, and any relevant mental health care professional involved in the patient’s treatment or care planning”.
Importantly, the CTO has to be in line with the necessity for therapeutic benefit, and it has to involve consulting a second medical professional. I understand that the wording of the amendment may not be correct, because a particular type of medical professional, a psychiatrist, would need to be consulted with regards to the community treatment order and whether it will have therapeutic benefit.
I suggest that, at the end of the 12 months, if the clinician feels that an extension is needed, a review takes place, which goes through the process that I have just outlined—to ensure that there is therapeutic benefit, and a second medical practitioner is consulted—and that it is then reviewed after a maximum of six months. That is absolutely right in terms of trying to ensure that the therapeutic benefit is central and a second medical opinion is provided, particularly at the review stage, to ensure that there is a need for the CTO. The reason for this is the wide range of views on CTOs but also the statistics regarding the racial discrimination that there appears to be around their use, which is well documented and well evidenced.
I look forward to the Minister trying to explain the Government’s thinking on community treatment orders and how they need to change. Clearly, something is not quite right in the implementation, the length of time that people are on CTOs and whether CTOs have therapeutic benefit for many of those who are on them.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 67 and 86. I think that this is the right place—I apologise for my earlier confusion; I had a problem with the list.
I will start with Amendment 86 because it follows on from the very important contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. I should preface this by saying that I cannot claim that what I will say originates from me; it is based on the Law Society briefing, which many noble Lords will have received. I saw that nobody else had picked up this amendment, but I thought that it was so important that it should be picked up. As the explanatory statement says:
“The amendment would keep the safeguard of an automatic referral to the tribunal when a patient’s Community Treatment Order is revoked which results in them being detained in a mental health hospital”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, a range of views on CTOs has been expressed in these debates, but the general direction of travel is certainly not to remove safeguards and we should be keeping the safeguards that already apply. I will not claim great expertise on this, but it seemed to me that this is an important issue that we need to discuss in Committee.
Amendment 67 is somewhat different but really important. Later on, we will discuss very important issues, which I have signed amendments about, concerning minoritised communities being potentially overtargeted or subjected more to mental health provisions. This amendment picks up something that no one else has picked up, which is economic and social disparities relating to community treatment orders. I went looking for some statistics on CTOs in disadvantaged communities, but I was not able to split them out; perhaps the Minister has them. However, the charity Rethink Mental Illness talks about the burning injustice of how Mental Health Act detention rates are three and a half times higher in the most deprived areas of England compared with the least deprived. Looking at those figures, I can only see that CTOs must be something very similar to that.
We need to ask a question here, and we need the stats and that is why we should have the reporting. It is probably unclear whether we have a psychiatrisation of poverty, so that when people are living in conditions of poverty, that is seen as some form of mental illness in itself, or a discriminatory application of the law against people living in conditions of poverty. The third possibility is that poverty is making people ill. Either way, we should know about these facts. They should be regularly reported, and we should be able to examine them and check on them.
I was just looking at an issue that will be raised later about debt and mental health, on which I will point noble Lords who have not seen it to a really interesting POSTnote that the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology produced on that subject last year. It suggests a two-way relationship between financial and mental well-being. People with mental health issues are three or more times more likely to have problem debt.
Some interesting recent research in a study published in Public Health indicates how social conditions are related to mental health. “Sandwich carers” in the UK —the 1.3 million people who have responsibility for caring for children and older parents—have experienced a significant decline in mental health.
These issues around social and economic disparities and the use of community treatment orders are embedded in the community, and it is crucial to see what is happening. Amendment 67 aims to ensure that we get regular reports relating to community treatment orders.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I wanted to speak to this group because I made some harsh criticisms, on principle, of community treatment orders at Second Reading concerning their coercive and intrusive nature. Since then, perhaps similarly to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, I have had cause to think again, not least after speaking to a number of working psychiatrists and taking on board the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, at Second Reading, which really had an impact on me. It is quite unusual to change one’s mind in this place—maybe it is just me—so I wanted to note that.
I was reminded of this issue by practitioners—I was once one of those—when they said, “We worry about how many idealistic discussions about mental illness just do not take into account the reality of chronic mental illness”; I thought that was a fair reprimand. There are a group of people who are chronically symptomatic, perhaps some of them may never be well, and CTOs are a way to allow people to leave hospital who otherwise clinicians might worry would be too risky to release.
I have been thinking about this issue and in that sense was happy to see and support Amendment 44 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, which sets out time limits. It is useful to think about probing time limits, renewal safeguards and so on, because one does not want automatic continuation and therefore indefinite CTOs on the books, which is what people are concerned about.
I would have been more enthusiastic about Amendment 66, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, which calls for a statutory review of CTO use, but the wording implies that CTOs are problematic per se. Perhaps we need a more open-ended review, because one of the reasons why CTOs are so contentious for so many people is their spiralling and increasing use, and we need to understand why that is.
One worry I have about the Bill in general, and not just this group of amendments, is that, because the drivers of the legislation are concerns about inappropriate hospital admissions and wanting to ensure that we have proportionate detention powers which are used only as a last resort, we need to be wary of demonising hospital care and recognise how much good can be done for mentally distressed patients in hospitals, particularly if they are given time and resources and the right kind of medical intervention. But, as with all hospital matters, that is not necessarily what is happening. Many psychiatric wards are under pressure to get people out into the community as soon as possible—in the sense not of them being well, but of freeing up hospital beds. One might wonder whether the CTOs are a mechanism for effectively turfing patients out before they are ready or well enough.
It also seems that CTOs are necessary when community care is under huge strain, because the idea of voluntarily accessing a wide variety of support in the community is a myth in today’s circumstances. All the briefings we have been sent draw attention to this. A range of groups and people have argued—and a number of noble Lords have said this today—that we need more resources, money and staff for appropriate care in the community to really work. That sounds reasonable, but I am concerned that this will miss the target. I want to reiterate the elephant in the room that I mentioned at Second Reading, which I have not changed my mind about: culturally, we are seeing the medicalisation of more and more problems of the human condition. This encourages ever greater numbers of people to view social, economic, educational and personal difficulties through the prism of mental health.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 44 and 66. The Joint Committee on which I serve recommended that community treatment orders be abolished for Part II patients. That recommendation is supported by organisations such as Mind. That is partly due to the awful racial disparity statistics—you are up to 11 times more likely to be under a CTO if you are from a black or Caribbean background—combined with a lack of evidence that CTOs reduce hospital admissions. It took a brave gulp, even as the Joint Committee, to recommend that. The independent review had not gone as far as that, but it was in the report of the Joint Committee.
I, too, like the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, recognise the powerful speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, at Second Reading. I remember that, because of the extremely tight timetable the Joint Committee was given, it did not have time to consider in detail eating disorders or personality disorders, which was regrettable.
I can see from the reasons the noble Baroness outlined that there may be a case for retaining CTOs, perhaps even just for eating disorders. To quote her words from Second Reading, a CTO
“puts a boundary around the eating disorder … that a voluntary agreement could not, in that it makes it clear what will be the result”.—[Official Report, 25/11/24; col. 555.]
The Bill outlines protocols for specific treatments, such as ECT, so it seems possible in principle to have the law apply to specific disorders.
Most reluctantly, I have not made an amendment in Committee in support of the Joint Committee’s recommendation. But the independent review stated that “action is required”. We must not lose sight of that urgency. There are significant problems with CTOs. The argument that is proffered—that they help and are the least restrictive measure for a very small number of patients—is not a good basis for retaining them, bearing in mind the enormous harm they are doing on the other side. I ask the Minister to look for another way, going forward, to help this small group, and not to ask racialised communities to, once again, pay such a high cost for such a small group of patients.
In the Joint Committee’s report, it seemed that the group of patients we were talking about were unrestricted patients under Part III of the Act. Bearing in mind that 79% of CTOs are under Part II, which is for civilian patients, can we look in detail at the evidence to find out which small group of patients we are talking about? There are particular issues, according to our report, if a restraint or restriction is being used on people when the small group of patients seems to be within the forensic context rather than under Part II.
I ask the Minister to put CTOs where they need to be, as a result of these amendments. The independent review said that they should be in the last chance saloon. We must be careful not to lose the urgency that the independent review gave to these issues. Although I support Amendment 66, tabled by my noble friends, it is the very least we can do. The restrictions outlined in Amendment 44 are about ending them after a certain period, because part of the problem is that they go on and on, rolling over for years and years. That coercive effect on certain communities seems to remain, as the path of least resistance.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I want to say a few things about a couple of the amendments. I thank noble Lords for listening and for recognising the situation. It was powerful to hear that, and I am sure that many in the eating disorder community will be delighted to hear it.
I will not repeat what I said at Second Reading, as there seems no need, but in mentioning that, I want to support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, which picks out the focus on community care and the need for more psychiatrists. I and others have made the case for why CTOs can be valuable for people with eating disorders—and for forensic patients, I understand. The value of the CTO is that the individual is helped to engage in the community with their mental health team. It is a multidisciplinary team, but the anchor is the psychiatrist. The noble Baroness was not sure if this was the right place to put her amendment because it has wider ramifications, but it certainly has value in this debate. CTOs, which I believe should be retained, can work only if there are proper multi-disciplinary teams anchored by a psychiatrist in the community, so that those individuals can be kept out of detained settings and engaged in the community. I thank her for bringing that forward, and I support it.
With regard to Amendment 44, I do not support a maximum duration for a community treatment order, because this is about the individual and what they decide, with their multidisciplinary team. What I like about the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is that it rightly says that we have to review community treatment orders. People’s mental health situations change, and it is important to have step points at which people know they will be reviewed. I do not support a maximum time limit but the break points, which his probing amendment talks about, are worthy of further debate and discussion. I am grateful to him for bringing that forward.
I say with regret that I do not agree so much with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for retaining the automatic referral to a tribunal of any CTO that is lifted. Again, that goes against my sense that CTOs are about what is right for the individual. With eating disorders, there will be cases of CTOs being lifted because the person is no longer able to engage with the community team because the eating order has gone beyond the bounds of the CTO and is compromising their health and putting them, bluntly, at risk of death. I do not see why, in those circumstances, there needs to be an automatic referral to a tribunal. Strengthening people’s rights to go to a tribunal where there is a case for that is right and proper, but, because of my view about personalised care—especially for eating disorders, but this has wider ramifications—I do not support the case for automatic referral.
I know that there are people around the Committee who understand the concerns far better than me, particularly about the high preponderance of people in the black community who are on CTOs. I understand and hear that concern. I tried to get to the bottom of the figures, like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to find out how many forensic patients were on CTOs. Given that you are four times more likely to be in prison if you are a black person than a white person, I tried to work out what the figures were to get the correlation to say whether it is because there are more people in prison that CTOs are preponderantly in the black community. I could not work that out. Equally, I could not work out how many people with eating disorders were on CTOs. I got the Library to try to help me, and it said that the figures are not cut that way and do not work that way. It seems to me that there is an issue about the data that we, and the Minister, are working with to make informed decisions.
I am not sure about the exact terms and conditions of the review that has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and which in a later group is proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, but I think there is an issue about the data out there. It is not helping us, or anyone else, make CTOs work for those where they can work, are working and should work in the future, and is clearly causing a problem. We need to get to the bottom of that.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this group. I will speak to Amendment 66 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe. One of the motivations when we were considering amendments from our Benches was not only to respond to concerns raised by stakeholders but to probe the Government on why they did not accept some of the recommendations of the pre-legislative Joint Committee. That is the nature of these amendments. To the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I say that the amendment is meant as a probing amendment to ask the Government why they have not adopted all the recommendations of the Joint Committee.
One of the things that drives many of us—I feel particularly strongly about this, given my background—is why so many people of an Afro-Caribbean background are being detained or are subject to CTOs. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, made a valuable point. One of the reasons I have tabled other amendments along those lines, which will be discussed in later groups, is that, after all these years of saying that too many people from the black community are being detained, if we want to do something about it, we need data, and we need to understand why they are being detained. Without the data, it is left to rumour or speculation, or people make up reasons. Everything needs to be driven by the data if we are to address the fact that a disproportionate number of black people are detained.
We tabled Amendment 66 because the pre-legislative committee recommended that community treatment orders be abolished for Part II patients, those not in the criminal justice system, and wanted a statutory process and timeline to be put in place for the review and potential abolition—I say those words from the Joint Committee’s recommendation very carefully—for Part III patients, those involved with the criminal justice system.
Many noble Lords came to the Second Reading debate wanting to see an end to community treatment orders, and many noble Lords have spoken tonight about this. We were all struck by the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who very honestly said that, having listened to patients and families, she knows that there is a small group of people for whom CTOs work, are the least restrictive option and are beneficial, and we should therefore keep them. I was particularly struck by that. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said that people do not change their mind very often, but the views that we brought to the debate in the first place have been challenged.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, made the important point that, while she is reluctant to admit it, she believes that there should be a change in the process around CTOs. That is important. This is why this probing amendment is asking for a comprehensive review of CTOs. We have listed a number of criteria that should be in that review, but I know that many noble Lords have concerns over CTOs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their contributions in this important and interesting area. There have been, and to some degree still are, many different opinions across the Committee. This has been one of those rare occasions when parliamentarians may say that they have changed their minds having listened to the debate and looked into things further; that has added to the richness of what we have before us.
Amendment 43 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, would require clinicians to ensure that patients had access to a local prescribing psychiatrist when deciding on a community treatment order. I heard the noble Baroness’s comments about the word “local”; I appreciate her drawing the attention of the Committee to that. I particularly heard the support given by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter.
In the Bill, to put someone on a community treatment order, it must be necessary for the patient to receive medical treatment, which can be provided without detention in a hospital. I think I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, say—I hope she will forgive me for not quoting her directly—that we should not demonise hospitals. She is nodding; I thank her for that. I can assure her that there is no intention to do that; it is about getting a better balance in the interests of getting the right care for individuals. The responsible clinician must consider whether appropriate medical treatment is available. That would, by necessary implication, include access to a local prescribing psychiatrist if it is what the patient needed.
For a CTO to be made, our reforms also require a community clinician with oversight of the patient’s treatment in the community to agree. The Bill therefore already means that, when deciding whether a CTO is appropriate, access to a prescribing psychiatrist will be fully and properly considered if access to medication is required.
I recall that the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, raised an important point about the shortage of prescribing psychiatrists in some areas and the impact that this could have. We intend that the measures in the Bill in relation to dynamic support registers will improve the monitoring of the needs of, and support for, people who may be at risk of going into crisis and being detained under the Act. ICBs and local authorities will be required to have regard to information on the register when exercising their commissioning and—we have discussed this before—market-shaping functions respectively.
I mentioned earlier the requirements in respect of learning disability and autism training, and autism training for psychiatrists. I hope that will help to reassure the noble Baroness.
Amendment 44, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and spoken to by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Berridge, Lady Parminter and Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, relates to the review into the extension of CTOs. I completely understand why the noble Lord was inspired to come forward with this, having been inspired, as the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, said, by the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, at Second Reading and the way in which she relayed her personal experience. That kind of contribution and the impact that it has is exactly what we welcome, and I am glad she is pleased that people listened— indeed we did.
The amendment would ensure that CTOs aligned with the statement of principles in the code of practice and could be extended beyond 12 months only under certain conditions, with a review of the ongoing necessity and the therapeutic benefit of the CTO. I strongly agree with the intention behind the noble Lord’s amendment but it is fully supported by existing provisions in the Bill. Alignment with the code and the four principles is already achieved by new Section 118(2D), which requires clinicians before placing someone on a CTO to have regard to the statement of principles in the code. Under Clause 6, the patient can be put on a CTO only if there is a reasonable prospect of it having therapeutic benefit for the patient, and the Bill will mean that a responsible clinician cannot extend a CTO beyond six months unless the conditions, including therapeutic benefit, continue to be met.
The current code of practice states that, before renewal, the responsible clinician should consult the multidisciplinary team, the patient, the nearest relative—or, in future, the nominated person—and an advocate. The Bill adds that the patient’s community clinician must be consulted before renewal. We are therefore increasing the frequency of automatic referrals to the tribunal to ensure that patients can come off CTOs when they are no longer benefiting. Under the new system, a CTO cannot be extended past the 12-month point without a referral to the tribunal. In the current system, the patient can go for three years before a further referral is required.
Lord Scriven (LD)
That is pleasing to hear from the Minister. So what would stop that going in the Bill?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As we have discussed before, it is about ensuring that we are able to update in line with good practice, and that can be nimbly—if I may use that word—outlined if it is not in the Bill. We are trying to future-proof it, as the noble Lord is aware, and to ensure that our reviews of our practice and so on are continually updated. That is how I would put it to the noble Lord.
Baroness Barker (LD)
Would the Minister reflect on this? CTOs were brought in under the 2007 Act. The then Labour Government went shopping around the world for various different models of CTOs and cherry-picked bits and pieces out of the ones that they liked to come up with the model that they did. CTOs were brought before the House, and we were assured that they would be used sparingly and we would not run into all the problems that people then foresaw about them being used disproportionately against some minoritised communities.
This is the first opportunity we have had to go back to CTOs. In the 20 years since, absolutely nothing has changed in practice. Twenty years on, there is no indication—even though there must be ample evidence, not just in this country but around the world—about how they work in practice and the fact that they have not worked in the way they were meant to when they were introduced. Does the Minister understand why those of us who have been here so often before are reluctant to accept the argument that is trotted out time after time, that Governments need to be flexible and make change, when within 20 years there has been no change in the face of overwhelming evidence that the law is not working in the way that was intended?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I can understand the frustration that the noble Baroness outlines. It is hard for me to comment on a number of those 20 years. My feeling is that that is why we are here today updating the Bill. Indeed, at the risk of repeating myself—I will try not to—I take the point that she is making, yet I feel there is a need, under the updated Bill, which I hope will become an Act, to review the overall impact of the new provisions. I understand that we cannot be on a hope and a wing and a prayer. That is not the intention. We will keep CTOs under review as we implement changes. I certainly want to keep a very close eye on their impact, as I know your Lordships’ House will. I know that noble Lords will not be shy to raise any concerns that they have.
Amendment 66, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and supported by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, would require the use of community treatment orders to be reviewed within two years of the Act being passed. As a number of noble Lords have said, we believe that CTOs can be valuable for certain patients—indeed, as we have referred to, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, spoke about their benefit for eating disorder patients, as she did at Second Reading—but reform is needed so that they are used only when appropriate and for the shortest possible time.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, made a couple of points, which I am happy to write to him about, about concerns about resources. He asked about the role of mental health nurses—an important point—and the effectiveness of CTOs. I will write further on those points.
Lord Kamall (Con)
If the Minister and the officials look at Amendment 66, they will see it asks four specific questions. It could include more, but I wonder whether we can understand what the Government understand about each of those four things, including the impact of community treatment orders on people from different ethnic minorities and the effectiveness of the continued use of community treatment orders. I think it would be interesting for noble Lords to understand what the Government currently understand, if that makes sense.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Yes, it does. I thank the noble Lord for the clarification. I will come to some of those points, particularly on racial disparity, but I just wanted to ensure that I did not miss the points that he made.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, raised how people with eating disorders will be supported on CTOs. To elaborate a bit on what I said previously, for some people CTOs allow them to be cared for in the community with the least restriction, but with the safeguard that they can be recalled for treatment if necessary. That is a very necessary aspect.
I hope noble Lords are aware that I certainly would agree about the importance of the right data being used to inform decisions, trends and reviews. Data on community treatment orders are published as part of the annual Mental Health Act statistics. My officials are working with NHS England and others to understand what additional data should be collected to understand the impact of the reforms—this relates to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall.
I know that noble Lords more than understand that gathering new data takes time. Therefore, it is felt that a review after two years would be somewhat premature, as it would be based on data from before the reforms were commenced. So, rather than committing to a review in legislation at a fixed date, the Government are committed to ongoing monitoring of CTOs as we implement the changes. This will form part of our overall commitment to evaluate the impact of reform and to consider next steps. I am sure that your Lordships’ House would wish to continue to be involved in this.
I turn to Amendment 67, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, requiring a review of economic and social disparities in relation to CTOs. I agree, as I have many times, that there are significant disparities in the use of community treatment orders, particularly between different minority ethnic groups. This was spoken to by not just the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. I will make a few points about this. Those who are black are currently seven times more likely to be detained on a CTO—we have discussed this in your Lordships’ House a number of times, and rightly so, in my view. For CTOs, we are strengthening decision-making in three ways: first, by requiring that an individual must be at risk of serious harm to be made subject to a CTO; secondly, by requiring that the community clinician be involved in all community treatment order decisions; and, thirdly, by increasing the frequency of automatic reviews of patient cases by the tribunal. We will work closely to ensure that the Bill’s provisions are effectively implemented, because a main plank of this legislation is to reduce racial disparities in decision-making under the Act. I am sure we will return to this point many times, and rightly so.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I have two questions about data, and I entirely understand if this could perhaps be included in a letter. The racial disparities are well known and well canvassed, but I am wondering about disparities of people living in relatively deprived communities—those that used to be described as “left behind”. There seems to be some evidence of disparity between people in those poorer communities and wealthier communities. Also, on individuals living in poverty versus individuals not living in poverty, what difference is there in CTOs—and more broadly, but CTOs might be a particular area of concern? I am interested in what information the Minister can give—not necessarily now—because we need to focus on that as well.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a fair point. We will certainly cover CTOs in the planned evaluation of the reforms, including consideration of economic and social disparities. I hope that reassures her.
I turn to the noble Baroness’s Amendment 86. The intended effect given in the explanatory statement provided by the noble Baroness is to retain the requirement for
“an automatic referral to the tribunal when a patient’s Community Treatment Order is revoked”.
The amendment as drafted does not achieve this because it amends a different part of Clause 30—
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Indeed the noble Baroness did try, and I have therefore taken its intention at face value.
The Bill removes the requirement for an automatic referral following the revocation of a CTO. This was a recommendation of the independent review which found that, in practice, the automatic referral was an ineffective safeguard, as often the patient is back in the community or back in hospital as a Section 3 patient before the tribunal has had the opportunity to review their case. Therefore, the current process creates a burden on tribunals but does not protect the patient. The Bill improves other safeguards for patients on a CTO, including increased access to tribunals. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to everybody who has contributed on this group of amendments. Everybody has bought something different to the table. There have been some good things. I think we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who led us at Second Reading to have a better understanding of how CTOs can help with eating disorders. I just think back to 2006 and the pre-legislative scrutiny committee of the previous amendment of the 1983 Act. I think there are three of us in the Chamber tonight who were part of that pre-legislative scrutiny. I think that the noble Baronesses, Lady Murphy and Lady Barker, and I were members and I recall the debate on community treatment orders at that time, 20 years ago, when we had quite a lot of strong reservations about how they would work in practice.
Despite some of the good things we heard tonight on this group, I still sense that reservation. I think that if what we had before us was 20 years of lived experience—practical examples of where CTOs have been good, where they have been bad, where they needed to be amended and where they have been amended—we would feel a lot more confident. Too many parts of this jigsaw still seem to be missing to make what I feel is a substantial change to the 1983 Act 20 years later and know that we have got it right. I always think that when we are in doubt about legislation, there is that old, hackneyed thing: “Suppose this was something in a court. What would they say about this? What was Parliament’s intention at the time?” Can I actually define Parliament’s intention at the time? I am not sure that I can define it in as much detail as I would like, in order to feel we are doing the right thing as far as this legislation is concerned.
I thank the Minister. She has, as always, been as helpful and courteous as she can be with this very difficult issue, but I do not quite feel that we have got there yet. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barker
“(c) after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) Any person subject to a community treatment order must be informed orally and in writing at the time of the making of the order of their right to an independent mental health advocate under section 130A of this Act.””Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would ensure that people who are to be subject to a CTO would receive information about their right to advocacy.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I do not want to bore people who were not present 20 years ago when we were discussing the introduction of this measure, but the main focus of our discussion was that CTOs would be a means of enabling people with serious and enduring conditions, such as schizophrenia, to be compelled to take medication in the community. That was as a matter of public safety and protection for those people. Twenty years on, we are talking about people with eating disorders: it is completely different.
The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, is right: the evidence base behind the discussion is woefully lacking. What we do not know—we do not have the evidence for it—is what change has come about on the part of clinicians. It was sold to us that we were going to stop people being held inappropriately in acute services where they did not need to be and where there was not going to be any therapeutic benefit for them. We have never, to the best of my knowledge, seen that there has been change, nor, indeed, that there has been a flow of resources that has enabled those patients who have been on CTOs to leave acute hospitals and not go back. Unless and until we get that evidence base, frankly, we can all come up with our theories about what are the causal factors, but they are nothing more than our own prejudices and theories.
That said, my amendment on CTOs comes from real-life, front-line experience. As the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, read out from the briefing, there are people whose experience of being on CTOs has been so bad that they want to see an end to them; they do not want to see other people being subjected to them, and I have a degree of sympathy with that. Having said that, I accept that there are some people for whom they work.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
I will speak to Amendment 100 in this group, and there are four or five consequential amendments which I have added. Noble Lords will therefore be pleased to know that the group is a lot smaller than it looks.
The purpose of this amendment is, on the face of it, to remove informal patients from qualifying for help from independent mental health advocates, on the basis that, given the resources required, to expand the services for detained patients to all in-patients is impractical, as in the impact assessment done by the Government. There will be some who assume from this amendment that I do not like IMHAs, but nothing could be further from the truth.
On the face of it, one cannot criticise what appears to be an extension of services and automatic referral to IMHA services, for both detained and informal patients. Local authorities, under direction from Schedule 3, will be obliged to provide the service and will need to extend it significantly. There are currently 50,000 new detained patients eligible for the service every year, but this would double to 100,000 people when informal patients are included. The impact assessment for cost to local authorities calculated that these new services will be an extra £571 million over a 20-year period—that is over half a billion pounds, or £81 million or so every year.
One might assume, therefore, that some serious evaluative research had demonstrated what a boon advocates are, as we all hope so, and that patients valued them and that they made a big difference to their outcomes. However, there is just one small UK study, by Karen Newbigging and her colleagues, which, on quality of services, suggested that where they were accessible— and they were not really very accessible in all the places studied—patients found the process was a positive experience, although they had no impact on outcomes of care and treatment. The advocates concentrated on explaining people’s rights but did not advocate more creatively to change decisions on care, which the authors rightly suggested could be an important role.
It is generally thought that, where IMHAs are from the same ethnic community as the patient, this is one step that could be taken to make the service more friendly for black and other ethnic-minority patients. There is better evidence in the States, where it has been demonstrated that independent advocates are central to the success of advance choice documents; patients do not create advance choice documents without a facilitator. A study in North Carolina showed that providing a facilitator in the form of an independent advocate increased the number of people making a psychiatric advance directive from 3% to 60%. Since we hope that these will be increasingly helpful to patients, I can understand why we think it is very important that detained patients should have them.
However, I would suggest that it is a bit of a leap to go for a massive expansion without much more evidence on how best to use these trained advocates and on who benefits the most. In September 2023, there were 28,600 vacancies—19% of the total workforce—in mental health services, including 1,700 medical and 13,300 nursing vacancies. In spite of training more staff, there is ample evidence that the current challenges posed by in-patient environments mean that many services rely on agency and bank staff simply to keep the ward open. The King’s Fund survey of approved mental health professionals found that, to meet the requirements of a 24-hour service, there would need to be a 30% increase in the number of full-time equivalent staff, in addition to accounting for the vacancy rates of over 11%.
Yet here we are proposing that the local authority should spend a huge amount of money on independent mental health advocates, when it does not have a satisfactory number of psychiatric social workers and cannot fulfil its obligations to provide decent social care for older people or protect vulnerable children from harm. If any noble Lords were reviewing their own local authority spending, do we seriously think that expanding IMHA services to informal patients would be high on the agenda? I think probably not, although I believe they will be helpful, especially for patients matched to someone of the same ethnic background. I would like to see more consistent evidence about how best to recruit and train them and develop their skills because it is crucial, if we do fund them, that we get the basics right, so that when they do get appointed, they are doing the right things for the right people. Otherwise, we should be extremely cautious in expanding these services.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 102, 105 and 106 in my name. These amendments all deal with extending the provision of advocacy services to informal patients below the age of 18. When I read the other amendments in this group, I thought, “Goodness me, this is going to be a bit tricky, isn’t it?”. It felt at one point as if we were diametrically opposed, and that is not a comfortable position to be in against someone with years of expertise who is as distinguished as the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy. However, I have listened carefully to what she has to say and the nub of it is her concern about resources. On that point, I fully get it, about the workforce generally and advocates in particular. I am going to press on with my amendments none the less, because I am trying to deal with the principle as opposed to the resources.
Both the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act and the Joint Committee on the draft Bill recommended that advocacy should be extended to informal patients. Currently, only those detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 have a legal right to advocacy services. The Mental Health Bill introduces a new opt-out scheme, meaning that all detained patients will get an automatic referral to advocacy services. The Bill also extends advocacy to informal patients, but they will not be captured by the new opt-out scheme, meaning that informal patients will still be required to ask for support via an advocate. This is at the very nub of the problem with which I am concerned.
It is crucial that children and young people aged under 18 admitted to mental health in-patient care informally should have an automatic referral to advocacy services, in line with those who are detained under the Act. There may not be very large numbers—that is relevant to the resource concerns—but it is worth remembering that a higher proportion of children and young people are admitted to mental health hospitals informally. Indeed, it is estimated that around 31% of under-18s are admitted to in-patient care this way—namely, on the basis of their own or parental consent. Having access to an advocate automatically will help young informal patients understand and exercise their rights and ensure they have a say in the decisions made about their care and treatment. This could also lead to improved outcomes and prevent young people being kept in hospital for any longer than they need to be—something I am sure we all agree on.
It is worth adding that the lack of access to advocacy for informal patients has been a long-standing concern. There is a real concern that children and young people admitted informally will continue to experience problems accessing an advocate under the new system proposed as part of the Bill. It has been noted that, often, young informal patients do not understand their rights and feel an underlying threat that, if they break the rules in some way, they will be sectioned. We have to take that into account. Despite the concerns about resources, which I fully understand, access to an advocate is crucial in helping children and young people who are informal patients navigate what is a very complex system.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. The extension of advocacy services to children and young people is important, because, as she outlined, there is a disproportionate number of children who are voluntary—I think there are just under 1,000 a year—in mental health institutions.
It is also important to recognise that there are other additional rights that children have when they are detained, or when they have agreed and consented to go into hospital. They need to continue their education while they are in there. It is important to advocate for what their entitlement is while they are in hospital—I think we are all used to walking past the hospital school that is within a normal physical illness hospital—thereby enabling them to continue their education and considering what their rights are in that regard. That is obviously so important for them and their recovery, so I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I have a few brief comments on this group of amendments. In response to Amendment 43A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, given that anyone subject to a CTO already receives something in writing, it should not be too difficult for the Government to accept her amendment. Assuming that they have a right to access independent mental health advocates, it seems like a very reasonable amendment.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, I must admit that, when I read the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, I wondered—given that the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, seek to extend access to independent mental health advocates—why she would want to exclude informal patients from access to those advocates. However, as she explained, and as my noble friend Lady Berridge commented on day one in Committee, we have to deal with the world as it is, not the ideal world that does not exist. As the Minister has often reminded us, this will not all happen in one big bang; the Government’s plan is for it to take over 10 years, subject to spending reviews and resources.
In fact, the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, made what appear to be two valid points. The first is that we need to be realistic about resourcing. As the impact assessment suggests that expanding access to independent mental health advocates to informal patients will cost £81 million every year, we have to ask: is that the best use of that money, if it were available, given all the other demands on it?
On the noble Baroness’s second observation, I thought that the research cited was interesting: that extending these independent mental health advocates from one environment or cohort of patients to another does not necessarily mean that it will work.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I just wonder where this £81 million per annum comes from. I think that there is a total cost of £99 million over the period, but I am not sure where the £81 million comes from.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
It is taken directly from the Government’s impact assessment on the Bill to local authorities, with these particular resources for IMHAs.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I am reading the impact assessment, and the annual amount is between £6 million to £7 million, and not £81 million. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that when she responds, as the impact assessment that I am reading is different from the £81 million that the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, are referring to.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for that, as I would not want to be using inaccurate information. Maybe the Minister can check with her officials, thanks to the wonderful use of technology, to ensure that we have an accurate figure by the time that she gets up to respond to our points. Whichever number is accurate for the cost of extension, it does have an impact on how noble Lords may feel if these amendments come back on Report.
The study that the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, shared with us contained two statements which I picked up on, and which I hope the noble Baroness will correct if I am wrong. First, patients found the process was a positive experience. But, secondly, the study found no evidence that it had any impact on the outcomes of the care and treatment. That is an important point to make. Once again, what is effective, and what works? Sometimes, feeling better and being more positive is part of a treatment, and we should not dismiss that.
I do not want to sound too negative, as I thought that the North Carolina study was very positive, and the noble Baroness and I corresponded about this over the weekend. It was interesting that it found that black mental health patients benefited from having an independent mental health advocate, especially if the advocate was also black, as patients felt better supported, and more confident that they would be listened to by someone. The crucial point was that it appeared to reduce the rate of repeat detentions. This is one of the crucial issues throughout the Bill. This is one of the reasons why my noble friend Lady May asked for the Wessely review.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I do not wish to interrupt my noble friend’s flow, but this is one of the key things that is evidence-based, and that does reduce detention for those communities, so it is important.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that intervention, because this is something that we could learn from here. Given the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, made at the beginning, would taking that lesson from the black community in North Carolina work with black communities up and down the country here? I hope it is something that the Government could look into, or respond to, as one of the ways, once we have the relevant data, to reduce the rate of detention and CTOs for people from the black community.
I end by asking the Minister that question: is she aware of whether her department has looked at—was it North Carolina or South Carolina?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I would not want to upset any people from South Carolina. In fact, I did some work in Raleigh and Durham a few years, so I should get this right. Is the department aware of that study, and has there been any analysis of what could be learned from that study which could be relevant to the United Kingdom, especially given one of the main reasons we are here tonight is to reduce the disproportionate detention of people from black communities? I look forward to the Minister’s responses.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to and tabled amendments for this important discussion, which, I am sure my Whip will tell me, will be the last one of the evening.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I have had that confirmed.
I will first address Amendment 43A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. Patients on CTOs already have the right to independent mental health advocate services. Community treatment order patients will be informed of their right to an independent mental health advocate when they are under Section 3, as part of the opt-out approach for all detained patients, as a patient cannot be placed on a CTO without having been detained first in hospital. They will be aware of this right. In addition, the revised code of practice provides opportunities for further guidance on how to improve the uptake of services for CTO patients, and we will consult on this.
Amendment 102, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, was also spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. We appreciate that advocacy plays a vital role in supporting choice and the person as an individual, and that under-18s are a vulnerable group who would benefit from independent mental health advocate representation. I am pleased to say that the Bill already extends the right to an independent mental health advocate to informal patients, and this includes children and young people. It places a new duty on hospital managers to inform them of this right. As we seek to revise the code of practice, we plan to provide further clarity on how to meet the needs of children and young people, including through this increased access to advocacy, so the point is well made.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, for bringing Amendments 100, 103, 104, 108, 109, 110 and 111 before the Committee today, which were also spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. Currently, independent mental health advocacy support is available only to detained patients. We want to extend this support to all in-patients, as we believe it is important for all patients to understand their rights and legal status, not just those who are detained under the Mental Health Act. This is in line with the approach already taken in Wales, where both detained and informal patients are eligible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, raised points about expanding advocacy and the use of resources. The figures suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, overstate the costs that are set out in the impact assessment. Table 7 in the impact assessment shows that the estimated annual cost of informal advocacy would be between £6 million and £7 million a year. I hope that clarifies things for noble Lords.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
I apologise. Obviously, I was looking at another figure from a different bit of the impact assessment.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I think the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, added up all the years and got to the final cost, and then described it as an annual cost. I think it was a genuine mistake.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am sure that what the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said is absolutely right—and the noble Baroness has absolutely no need to apologise.
We intend to implement these reforms in phases, when funding and system capacity allow, prioritising an opt-out approach for detained patients. We will expand eligibility for independent mental health advocates to informal patients only when we are sure that doing so will not impact on the resource available to detained patients.
Turning to Amendments 105 and 106, tabled by noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, as I mentioned, the extension in the Bill of the right to an independent mental health advocate to inform all patients does include children and young people. With regards to an opt-out approach to advocacy, we believe that detained patients have a particular need, given that they are subject to greater restrictions and are potentially more vulnerable compared with informal patients. The Mental Health Act, its code of practice and the regulations relating to the independent mental health advocate services set out that local authorities should ensure that independent mental health advocates understand equality issues and that there are enough independent advocates with a specialised understanding of the specific needs of particular groups—for example, children and young people. As we revise the code of practice, we plan to provide further clarity on how to meet the needs of children and young people, including through this increased access to advocacy. I hope that this reassurance will be welcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked whether the department was aware of the North Carolina or South Carolina study. As we have all agreed, it is in respect of the North Carolina study. We are running culturally appropriate advocacy pilots in Manchester and Birmingham which are testing the approaches to delivering improved culturally competent advocacy services that support specific preferences and needs of people from minority ethnic groups. We have also commissioned an independent evaluation of these pilots and will be looking at that alongside the international evidence that has been discussed this evening. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for raising this.
For all those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much. I will not delay the Committee for very long, particularly given the time of night and that people are screaming to go home. However, there are two or three important points that we need to make. First, on community treatment orders, let us remember that it is compulsory treatment in the community. It happens in people’s own homes or wherever they live, but it is compulsory treatment. We are in danger of forgetting that. Secondly, the Minister said that the intention was to ensure that all detained patients have access to an advocate. Advocacy services are in the acute hospitals. They are not out in the community, yet the treatment which is happening in the community is compulsory treatment.
Both of those two points flag up something that a lot of us mentioned at Second Reading. We have taken the 1983 Act and patched it up, and bolted things on and taken things off so many times that we are now at the point of squeezing stuff in and shoving it around, and we no longer have a basic legal framework which is fit for purpose. We are not talking about building seamless community and acute services which people pass through, get better and come out; we are now in Heath Robinson territory. That is why we are in danger of missing some tricks.
The organisations that came up with my amendment are made up of the people who work, day in and day out, to try to build a proper service, as opposed to episodes of care. They are saying that people who are subject to compulsory treatment are not getting advocacy because of the way that the services are set up. I hope that the Minister might take that on board, but at this stage and time of night, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.