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
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Ian Murray)
I am sure everyone across the House would like to join me in paying tribute to the late, great Denis Law. A hero to many Scots and particularly to football fans, the Lawman scored 30 international goals in 55 appearances for Scotland and is the only Scot to win the Ballon d’Or. We send our sincere condolences to his family, friends and former colleagues.
I also want to wish everyone a very happy Burns Day for Saturday. We celebrated with two fantastic events in the Scotland Office this week and I was pleased that so many Members from across the House were able to join us. I also want to register that it is Holocaust Memorial Day next week. On the 80th anniversary, we all reaffirm in this House that we will never, ever forget.
An economic plan for change will bring growth and economic opportunity to all parts of the country. I am proud that in the last six months we have brought Great British Energy to Scotland, secured the Commonwealth games in Glasgow, launched “Brand Scotland”, delivered a pay rise for hundreds of thousands of Scottish workers and increased the state pension through our commitment to the triple lock. We promised in our manifesto to end austerity, and with £4.9 billion extra for the Scottish Government, that promise is delivered.
Mr Barros-Curtis
I associate myself with my right hon. Friend’s comments. Further to what he has just said, will he assure me that after 14 years of obstruction from the Conservative party, this UK Labour Government will work with our Scottish and Welsh colleagues to deliver the change that the country voted for, as part of a whole-UK approach?
Ian Murray
Unfortunately, the previous Government left office with living standards at their lowest level since the 1950s. In contrast, we are determined to deliver economic growth and raise living standards in every part of the United Kingdom so working people have more money in their pockets. I meet the Deputy First Minister regularly to go over joint issues for the two Governments to deliver for the people of Scotland.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Surely the best way for them to strengthen the Union is for the UK and Scottish Governments to work together on issues that need pressing attention, such as immigration and demography. Twenty years ago, there was a fresh start initiative. Today, the First Minister will launch his plans to get graduates from all over the world to come to Scotland. Will the Secretary of State encourage the Home Office to work with the Scottish Government to achieve that?
Ian Murray
We have reset the relationship with the Scottish Government. I think I spend more time with the Deputy First Minister than the hon. Gentleman does. I suspect he should spend more time with those on his own side discussing issues of interest to the Scottish people. We are determined to deliver, and we will do that in partnership. That is what resetting the relationship is all about.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
May I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for helping to secure £14 million of levelling up funds for the area of Drumchapel in my constituency of Glasgow West? Does he agree that given the record settlement that the Scottish Government have received from the UK Government, it is about time that they went ahead and sorted out the problems of under-provision and overcrowding in Drumchapel health centre?
Ian Murray
My hon. Friend has been a doughty champion for Drumchapel and was key, at the heart of this Labour Government, to getting that funding across the line. The health service in Scotland is in crisis, which is only made clearer by the First Minister taking personal control of it. One in six of our fellow Scots are on NHS waiting lists. The record settlement of £4.9 billion to end austerity in Scotland needs to be spent on the frontline in places such as Drumchapel health centre.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Secretary of State has spoken eloquently about his efforts to strengthen the Union between our nations. What, then, is he doing to fix the problems that the Windsor framework and the protocol are causing with importing seed and ware potatoes from Scotland into Northern Ireland? That is not strengthening our Union.
Ian Murray
This Government are fixing the foundations of our economy and resetting our relationships, not just with the devolved Administrations but with our partners across the European Union. I would hope that all parties would want to come together to make sure that happens.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
The Secretary of State meets the Deputy First Minister on a regular basis and the inter-ministerial group for environment, food and rural affairs convenes regularly to discuss important issues, including agriculture. I am personally looking forward to speaking at the National Farmers Union Scotland conference in February alongside Scottish Government Ministers.
We have been working hard to positively reset relations with the Scottish Government. The recent Budget saw Scotland receive an above-population share for agriculture, and ringfencing of the budget was removed to respect the devolution settlement.
Wendy Chamberlain
I look forward to hearing the Minister at the NUFS dinner. What conversations has she had with the Scottish Government and the Treasury on the agricultural property relief reforms and their impact on tenant farmers? My understanding from answers to the questions I have asked is that they do not have the same opportunities to ameliorate the APR changes as others do, and it feels like that cohort has been completely forgotten by the Government. Can we urgently review that, if that is indeed the case?
Kirsty McNeill
These reforms still provide a very significant level of tax relief, with the first £1 million of combined business and agriculture assets continuing to receive 100% relief in most cases. Additional assets will still receive relief at a rate of 50%. The Budget was designed to protect the payslips of working people while raising record funding for public services in Scotland. The hon. Lady should outline where she thinks that money should come from if she thinks that the wealthiest landowners should not be paying more tax.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Inheritance tax is a necessary tax. That view is tacitly shared by Conservative Members given that they did not lift a finger to abolish it when they were in power. Do Ministers agree that taxing the most valuable farm estates at half the rate that other inheritance tax payers pay is an essential step to enable record spending on sustainable farming and to deliver record high budget settlements for Scotland? If Opposition Members disagree, they should go back to their constituencies this weekend and explain what they would cut, rather than waiting until halfway through the fiscal year, as the Scottish Government are prone to do.
Kirsty McNeill
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Opposition Members have told us about how they want to see the benefits of the Budget, but they are not prepared to support any of the tax-raising measures in it. This Budget secured billions for Scotland, but the SNP voted against that. It delivered a pay rise for 200,000 of the lowest-paid Scots, but the SNP voted against that. It ended Tory austerity, and the SNP voted against that.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
May I associate myself and the Official Opposition with the Secretary of State’s comments regarding Denis Law, a proud son of Aberdeen who never forgot his home town? Indeed, his legacy lives on through the Denis Law Trust, which does such good work with young people in and around the city.
This Saturday, the National Farmers Union of Scotland is planning a national day of action in protest at the pernicious, ill thought through and destructive changes to agricultural property relief and its threat to the future of family farms in Scotland. I will be attending the local rally in Aberdeenshire to show my and my party’s support of our farmers. I notice that the Edinburgh rally is taking place but a few miles from the Secretary of State’s own constituency in Ingliston. Does the Minister know whether he will be attending the rally?
Kirsty McNeill
We are in ongoing discussions with the National Farmers Union of Scotland. As I have said, I am proactively attending its conference next month. I am slightly surprised to hear the shadow Secretary of State talking about the changes in the Budget and not welcoming their announcement or, indeed, their implications, such as the International Monetary Fund and the OECD both predicting that Britain will be Europe’s fastest-growing economy in the coming years. The UK is the only G7 economy, apart from the US, to have had its growth forecast upgraded by the IMF for this year. It has also gone ahead of Germany, China and India to become the second most attractive company for global investment, trailing only the US, according to PwC’s annual survey. If he wants to talk about—
Andrew Bowie
Of course we do not agree with the policy in the Budget; the policy is purely wrong. Farmers were not consulted on it. Indeed, they were misled by the Labour party when they were told that this would not happen. It will lead to the demise of the family farm and undermine our food security, as farmers will simply stop farming. The concern, worry and fear that these changes have wrought on Scotland’s farmers are real and are on these Ministers and their Government. If the Secretary of State will not attend the rally this weekend, will he and the Minister at least use their position as Scotland’s man and woman at the Cabinet table to urge their colleagues to do as the NFU asked, which is to stop, reset, reflect, properly engage and consult on an alternative approach to stop this change?
Kirsty McNeill
As the hon. Member is perfectly aware, the majority of estates will not be affected. We are in ongoing conversations with the National Farmers Union of Scotland. We have asked it to come forward with some worked examples of estates that may be impacted. It has not done so yet. Of course, we will continue with our ongoing conversations, but the majority of estates will not be affected.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Ian Murray)
Promoting Scotland internationally is one of my four priorities. Brand Scotland is the Scotland Office’s programme of international trade and investment. Promotion is about selling Scotland to the world. We have been to Norway, Singapore and Malaysia, and we plan to be in the US in April. This is an initiative for the whole of Government, We work closely with Department for Business and Trade and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office colleagues in particular. Additionally, I have met many foreign ambassadors and high commissioners in the past few months. This week, I have hosted members of the diplomatic corps at Dover House to discuss Scotland’s offer to the world.
Kirsteen Sullivan
Tech companies such as Calnex in my constituency export around the world, including to the US and south-east Asia. On his recent visit to south-east Asia in November, what representations did the Secretary of State make to promote Brand Scotland, specifically in the tech sector, and will he join me on a visit to Calnex to hear about the vital work that it does to support digital infrastructure?
Ian Murray
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for consistently raising the interests of her constituents in this House, and for the manner in which she does so. Technology was a key theme of my recent visit to Malaysia and Singapore. I had productive meetings with Ministers from both Governments and major companies in the region to discuss how Scotland can share its world-leading technological expertise with both countries. I encourage Calnex to engage with the Scotland Office and the national wealth fund. If my hon. Friend writes to me, we can make the relevant introductions to the company.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
When President Trump visited Scotland during his first presidency, I was tasked with officially welcoming him. The details of that will appear in my memoirs, but while we may disagree with President Trump on many specific issues, it is clear that he has a deep affection for Scotland, due to the birth of his mother on the Isle of Lewis, and his huge investment in Scottish golf at Turnberry and in the north-east, so what will the Secretary of State do to encourage economic benefit during the second Trump presidency?
Ian Murray
The President does have a deep affection for Scotland. I am sure that he also had a deep affection for the right hon. Gentleman, which I hope will appear in his memoirs. I am sure that there will be some rare unsigned copies for people to buy when they are published.
The Prime Minister has been clear, along with the Foreign Secretary, who has met President Trump and has been working very closely with the transition team, that Scotland is a key marketplace for the USA. It is not in anybody’s interest, here in the United Kingdom or indeed in America, for tariffs to be put on Scottish goods. We are working very closely with both the Government here and the Government in America to ensure that does not happen.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
Our plan for change will benefit workers in Scotland more than most. More than 100,000 workers in Scotland on zero-hours contracts could benefit from the Employment Rights Bill. The Bill will have significant benefits for workers in insecure and low-paid jobs, and central Scotland is one area where those workers will stand to benefit the most.
Martin Rhodes
In 2023, the Low Pay Commission estimated that approximately 13,500 employees who lived in Glasgow were paid at or below the relevant minimum wage—4.8% of all employees living in the city. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the Government’s “Make Work Pay” initiative for those workers and others in Scotland?
Kirsty McNeill
The increase in the national minimum wage is delivering on our commitment from day one in government that work should always pay. Modernising the UK labour market, including through extra pay and secure jobs, is at the heart of rebuilding our economy and will help us to achieve our plan for long-term national renewal and growth. In addition to the more than 13,000 workers in Glasgow my hon. Friend mentioned, national minimum wage increases will benefit workers across Scotland, with more than 4,000 in Dundee, 4,400 in the highlands and 2,900 in the Scottish Borders set to benefit, to name just a few.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Government’s Employment Rights Bill will increase costs on small and medium-sized enterprises by £5 billion a year. It will make it easier to strike, and easier for employees to sue their employers. Combined with the tax rises announced in the Budget, is it not inevitable that this Labour Government will increase unemployment?
Kirsty McNeill
The hon. Gentleman might not be aware that unemployment actually came down in Scotland this week. We promised that there would be no return to austerity, and workers’ payslips across Scotland were indeed protected in the Budget. More than half of employees will see either a cut or no change in their national insurance bill. The smallest businesses and charities are protected, and our decision to increase employer national insurance will raise more than £25 billion to help to rebuild Britain.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Ian Murray)
I am in regular contact with ministerial colleagues from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on a range of issues relevant to clean energy production in Scotland. Scotland is key to the UK Government’s clean power by 2030 mission, which will deliver cheaper bills, energy security and future jobs, and drive growth in the Scottish economy.
Richard Foord
The roll-out of offshore renewables in Scotland should happen alongside the growth of supply chains there. That is vital if the energy transition is to deliver jobs and investment in Scotland’s oil and gas communities. It is welcome that the Government have allocated £200 million to a clean industry bonus, but that falls short of the £500 million that Labour pledged in its manifesto. How do the Government plan to strengthen the clean industry bonus to build thriving renewable manufacturing in the UK?
Ian Murray
It is a very good question, because our clean power by 2030 mission will ensure that the Government can deliver that. GB Energy has been set up to look at supply chains and all the other issues around how we do so. I hope that GB Energy will be able to look at some of those issues in the round, but the key thing is to ensure that we have the supply chain infrastructure to be able to deliver that mission.
Mr Speaker
Order. Can Members who are just roaming around the Chamber remember that there are other people here and have a little more courtesy?
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
If the Grangemouth refinery closes in 2025 and the recommendations of Project Willow will not be ready for years to come, thousands of jobs will be lost—the very definition of an unjust transition. How can the Government possibly claim to have a credible industrial strategy for Scotland if they allow that to happen?
Ian Murray
The closure of the Grangemouth refinery is regrettable. My hon. Friend needs to reflect on the fact that the previous Government and the Scottish Government had 32 years combined to do something about Grangemouth and did not lift a finger. Since we came into government in July, we have got the £100 million Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal over the line and delivered some short-term help for the workers at Grangemouth. We continue to work with the company and the trade unions on the Grangemouth refinery. We look forward to Project Willow coming to fruition this month, and the Government are fully committed to ensuring that we see that through.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks about Denis Law, whom I had the pleasure of interviewing more than once in my previous career.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to energy security as well as to green energy and net zero. This week, it has been reported that the Scottish Government could fund up to £60 million to both Mingyang, to build a wind turbine factory in the highlands, and Orient Cable to provide the undersea cables and connections for offshore wind. Given that those are both Chinese-owned companies, have the UK Government and the Secretary of State had any discussions with the Scottish Government to ensure that there are mitigating steps, such as ensuring local control and not using cellular modules, and have the security services been consulted?
Ian Murray
A key question and one of the topic agenda items that we always have with the Scottish Government is how we can deliver clean power by 2030, because obviously it is a joint endeavour. The Chancellor was in China last month, and we will work with China when it is in our national interests to do so. One of the key points is that Great British Energy will be looking in the round at supply chains and at how we can deliver that mission by 2030, but the hon. Member will be as surprised as I am that the SNP voted against GB Energy and, indeed, the record Budget settlement in Scotland.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Ian Murray)
GB Energy is owned by the public and headquartered in Aberdeen, because Scotland will be at the forefront of the UK becoming the clean energy superpower that it wants to be by 2030. GB Energy’s activities will support and enhance the delivery of priority supply chains and infrastructure development, helping to speed up the existing Scottish offshore wind pipeline and other clean energy projects.
Tom Hayes
Eight years ago, Nicola Sturgeon promised a publicly owned energy company, but after spending £500,000 on consultants, the Scottish Government have now dropped the plan. Does the Secretary of State agree that while Labour ploughs ahead with delivering GB Energy, owned by the British people and headquartered in Scotland, it is the SNP who are breaking their promises and letting down Scotland, our Union and the protection of our planet?
Ian Murray
I congratulate my hon. Friend on being the new mission champion for clean energy. He is absolutely right. While the SNP makes promises it breaks, this Labour Government are determined to deliver for Scotland. Maybe that is why SNP MPs in this House voted against GB Energy. We are delivering for Scotland. We promised GB Energy; that has been delivered. We promised to end austerity; that has been delivered. We promised to make work pay; that has been delivered. While the SNP only delivers managed decline for Scotland, we are getting on with improving the economy.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
There are no clear plans for Great British Energy, but there are very clear plans to end new licences for oil and gas in the North sea. Gary Smith of the GMB has said that stopping new licences is “the employment equivalent of a Grangemouth refinery closing nearly every week from 2025 to 2030.” When will the Secretary of State stand up for Scotland, oppose the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, protect jobs and ensure that we do not have more imports with higher emissions?
Ian Murray
GB Energy is there, with the national wealth fund, to deliver that just transition in clean power by 2030. Oil and gas in the North sea will be here for decades to come, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to work with us to deliver that just transition, rather than scaremongering the workers of the north-east.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Despite mighty work by Conservative Members of the other place, sadly the Great British Energy Bill continues to make progress through the House of Lords. To remind you, Mr Speaker, the chairman of Great British Energy is based in Manchester but leading a company headquartered in Aberdeen. In Committee in October it was claimed that GB Energy would directly employ 1,000 people; by November, that had fallen to 300 people. What is the figure, what are those jobs, where will they be based and what on earth will GB Energy actually do?
Ian Murray
I am surprised that the shadow Secretary of State is championing the lines of the SNP. GB Energy is headquartered in Scotland. In fact, it is headquartered in the region that he represents in Scotland, it is capitalised with £125 million and it will bring valuable jobs to his constituency. I suspect he might want to go back to his constituents this weekend and explain why he does not want those new jobs and industries of the future in his constituency.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
The Labour Government’s choice to protect the pension triple lock means that millions of women pensioners will see their yearly pensions rise by up to £470 in April, and by up to £1,900 over this Parliament. That stands in stark contrast to the Conservative party, who cut the state pension of over 1 million Scots. The Conservatives are still in chaos, announcing policies on the hoof that would mean a raid on pension pots. Meanwhile, this Labour Government are taking tough decisions and action to clean up the Tories’ economic mess.
Kirsty Blackman
Do the Minister and the Secretary of State agree with Labour MSPs that WASPI women deserve compensation?
Kirsty McNeill
I appreciate that campaigners are disappointed, but the hon. Lady has got herself in a bit of a fankle and is eliding two separate issues: a decision about the legality of the changes and the question of compensation. The ombudsman’s findings showed that the vast majority of WASPI women knew that the state pension age was changing. It is therefore difficult to justify up to £10 billion for a compensation scheme and conclude that that is a fair, proportionate and good value-for-money use of public funds.
Mr Speaker
Will Members please look at where the questions are coming from? Not doing so is disrespectful and not the way we should be carrying on. I am talking about senior Members who should know better. Here is a good example of a new Member—I call Ann Davies.
Ann Davies
Thank you, Mr Llefarydd. In 2021, the then Secretary of State called for a vote on redress for 1950s-born women, urging the UK Government to get on the front foot and offer serious compensation to those affected, but women in Scotland and Wales have seen the same broken promises from Labour. The now First Minister of Wales pledged in 2018 that a Labour Government would right that injustice. With the Secretary of State, the Welsh First Minister and Labour politicians across these isles turning their backs on 1950s women in Scotland, Wales and elsewhere, why should those women ever again believe a word they say?
Kirsty McNeill
I am afraid that another hon. Member is in a bit of a fankle. The question about the legality of the changes has been settled by the courts. The question that the hon. Lady and her allies must answer is why they think that up to £10 billion of public money should be spent on compensation. Is that proportionate, fair, feasible and value for money? The Government’s view is that it is not.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that alongside the triple lock, the most important thing for women pensioners in Scotland is fixing our NHS, and that the SNP Government must act urgently to ensure that vulnerable Scots do not face what even the SNP Health Secretary has described as unacceptable waits for treatment?
Kirsty McNeill
I could not agree more. Scotland’s NHS is in crisis; one in six Scots are on a waiting list. The UK Government have provided a record investment to fix Scotland’s public services. The Scottish Government led by the SNP should get on with it.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
The most common problem raised with me by women pensioners is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) says, the enormous waiting lists. Researchers from Oxford University, Strathclyde University and Edinburgh University have predicted that by the time the SNP leaves office, almost a million Scots will be on waiting lists. How can we ensure that the billions provided in the Labour Budget do not go down the same drain as everything else given to the SNP?
Kirsty McNeill
One in six Scots is on a waiting list today, and we face a housing emergency and a very stubborn attainment gap. Nobody could look around Scotland and say that it is going in the right direction. That is the choice that people will have to make in 2026: is Scotland going in the right or wrong direction? Canny Scots will, I am sure, make choices in the interest of their families and say that it is time to replace a failing SNP Government.
Stephen Gethins
I welcome that welcome from the Labour Benches.
The Minister campaigned on compensation for WASPI women, as the Secretary of State for Scotland did, so will she tell me, if she will not listen to the women and if she will not listen to the ombudsman, will she listen to Scottish Labour MSPs who called for compensation?
Kirsty McNeill
There is a third Member in a dreadful fankle. We said at the election that we would wait for the ombudsman’s report, we would examine it and we would take a view. We have a taken view: we have taken a view that up to £10 billion of public money should not be spent providing compensation on a decision that was legal and of which it has been concluded that the vast majority of 1950s-born women were aware.
Stephen Gethins
The Secretary of State recently reacted to Labour’s dip in the polls in Scotland by saying that the voters “don’t like honesty”. I wonder if it was more to do with Labour not keeping its commitment to women pensioners, or saying that it would decrease fuel bills—and they went up—or saying that it would tackle child poverty and then taking on some of the most regressive Tory policies on the two-child cap? As we approach Burns night, I wonder if the bard was right when he said:
“Dare to be honest and fear no labour.”
Nowadays, would he say, “Dare to be honest and fear the voters”?
Kirsty McNeill
Polls come, polls go. The fact remains that this Labour Government have provided record investment for Scottish public services. I suggest the hon. Member invests in a notepad so that he can keep track.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
The senseless, barbaric murder of three young girls in Southport was devastating. A measure of justice has been done, but for the victims, the injured and the affected, we must see a fundamental change in how Britain protects its citizens and its children. As part of the public inquiry, we will not let any institution deflect from its failures.
Next Monday marks Holocaust Memorial Day. Visiting Auschwitz last week only strengthened my resolve to build a national Holocaust memorial and learning centre beside this Parliament.
The whole House will welcome the release of Emily Damari and other hostages from Gaza. We must now see the ceasefire deal implemented in full, the release of the remaining hostages and a surge in aid into Gaza for citizens.
May I also welcome Cheryl Korbel, whose young daughter Olivia was murdered in awful circumstances, and her sister Antonia to the Chamber? I have met them twice, and we will change the law so that the most serious offenders attend their sentencing hearings.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
David Reed
Before Christmas, I received nearly 1,000 handwritten letters from pupils at St Peter’s secondary school in Exeter. Each letter strongly advocated for greater support to tackle the mental health challenges faced by young people, with many sharing deeply unsettling personal stories. I am committed to improving local mental health services to help young people build the resilience they need to live happy and healthy lives. However, I know these challenges are not unique to my constituency and are being faced by children across our country. So can the Prime Minister please outline what steps his Government are taking to enhance mental health support for our children nationwide?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising an issue of huge concern in his constituency and in all constituencies. Far too many young people are not receiving the care that they need, so we will provide access to specialist mental health professionals in every school, recruit an additional 8,500 staff to deal with children’s and adult mental health services, and roll out our Young Futures hubs in every community.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We will do whatever it takes to protect farmers from the risk posed by foot and mouth. That is why we acted swiftly to ban imports of cattle, pigs and sheep and their products from Germany, to protect farmers. We will not hesitate to restrict imports from additional countries if the disease spreads, and we will keep the situation under close and careful review.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
May I take this opportunity to welcome the release of hostages, including Emily Damari, from barbaric captivity? I also know that the thoughts of many will be with the victims of the Southport killings. There are important questions to answer, and I will return to those after the case is concluded.
Between 2009 and 2022 the OECD found that children in England rose up global league tables in maths, reading and science. Conservative Government action means that English schools now top the western world at maths and reading, but the Prime Minister’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which will be voted on in Committee this week, reverses the improvements that made that happen. The Bill is an act of vandalism. It is wrecking a cross-party consensus that lasted for decades. Why does the Prime Minister think that so many school leaders are criticising the Bill?
The Prime Minister
It was Labour that introduced academies in the first place to drive up standards. Academies are here to stay, and will continue to drive up standards. That is what the Bill is about. Also in that Bill are important provisions for protecting children, including a provision to stop abusers taking children out of school, and a unique identifier to ensure that the whereabouts of all children are known. What did the Leader of the Opposition do? She instructed Conservative Members to vote against those measures.
Mrs Badenoch
The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not even bother voting on that Bill. He talks about safeguarding measures, but that is not what the issue is—this is about the reforms that he is changing. We have an example of where those reforms were not introduced—Wales, which has been under Labour control for two decades. Welsh educational outcomes have tumbled down international league tables, and poor children in England now do better than wealthier children in Wales. The Bill denies children the guarantee that their failing schools will be turned into a better academy. It is an attack on excellence, it is an attack on higher standards, and it is an attack on aspiration. The Bill is the worst of socialism. Is it not deprived children in England who will pay the price?
The Prime Minister
As I said, we introduced academies, we are committed to them, and we are driving standards up. The Bill is important because it also sets up breakfast clubs for the very children that the right hon. Lady claims to champion. It limits the expense of school uniform, and puts in place vital protections for children. She has to answer the question: why did she instruct all of them to vote against child protection measures?
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister thinks that he can distract people from what is wrong with the Bill. This is not about breakfast clubs and school uniforms. Teachers and parents will be horrified at just how bad this Bill is. Even his own MPs may not realise it, but the Bill will cut teachers’ pay—it cuts pay for 20,000 teachers. His Education Secretary says that there is “not a ceiling” for pay—[Interruption.] Labour Members are all shaking their heads; they clearly have not read the Bill. The Education Secretary hasn’t read the Bill either, because clause 45 means that teachers’ pay will be capped. Did the Prime Minister know that the Bill as it stands will cut teachers’ pay?
The Prime Minister
We do need flexibility in our schools. If the Leader of the Opposition had hopped off social media for a while, she would have seen the amendment put down this morning to achieve that end. She says that the Bill is not about child protection; we had a young child killed who was taken out of school by an abuser. The Bill closes that gap—that is urgently needed. We have children who have not gone back to school since covid. The Bill closes that gap. She can make her points on academies and we can debate academies, but to vote against the Bill is a disgrace on all Conservative Members.
Mrs Badenoch
That is nonsense. The amendment that the Prime Minister is talking about does not address the issue. He raises academies, and that is exactly what I am talking about. Like every parent, I believe that all our children should have the best teachers. Apart from the issue of cutting teachers’ pay, the head of year 11 at Michaela—the most successful school in the country—came from the armed forces. The headmistress of that school has said that with Labour’s new rules, she would
“never have been able to hire him.”
Those are the academy freedoms that I am talking about. The Bill would have blocked that veteran from teaching. The Bill implies that doctors are not sufficiently qualified to teach biology and that an Olympic medallist cannot teach PE. Why is the Prime Minister closing down routes into teaching when we should be opening up more of them?
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is not right. [Interruption.] No, it is not. Look at the provisions in the Bill. To say that teachers in our schools ought to be qualified should not be extraordinary or opposed. Under the Conservatives’ watch, we had far too many examples of secondary schools missing teachers. When we needed maths teachers—they championed maths—we did not have enough maths teachers in our secondary schools. I want every single child to have the best possible education.
Mrs Badenoch
The facts speak for themselves: standards went up under Conservative Governments. What we need to know is who is benefiting. Everyone is asking: who is benefiting from these changes? It is not teachers—their pay is being capped. It is not parents—their choices are being restricted. It is definitely not children—their outcomes will get worse. So who is benefiting? It is the trade unions. The National Education Union sent out a tick list proving that after a decade and a half, it is finally getting its way. Why is the Education Secretary allowing trade unions to run her Department and ruin children’s education?
The Prime Minister
The Bill benefits the children who need the nourishment of a breakfast club. The Bill benefits the families who cannot afford uniforms. The Bill benefits the children who are currently out of school and nobody knows where they are. The Bill will benefit the children who could be taken out of school by abusers were it not to go through. The Leader of the Opposition should change her mind and support these vital provisions.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister needs to get out more and speak to schools. I was at the Harris academy just this month, and what is it saying? The Bill reverses two decades of progress. It is imposing Labour’s new curriculum on every school, taxing the education of children with special needs and excluding talented outsiders—the closed shop is back. This is pure educational vandalism. Alongside those attacks, Labour is removing single-word Ofsted judgments so that parents cannot see standards slipping. It is the same old Labour: bad outcomes for all children; excellence for none.
I know what it is like to go to a school that did not care about standards—this is a tragedy in the making. The key changes in the Bill were not in Labour’s election manifesto. Is that not because the Prime Minister knew that parents and teachers would reject them?
The Prime Minister
Parents and teachers know that we introduced academies. Parents and teachers know that we are driven by standards. We are committed to standards—they are part of the future—and we will continue to focus on them.
The Leader of the Opposition talks about special needs. She has got a nerve; I don’t know. Conservative Members know it: they have asked me at Prime Minister’s questions about the appalling situation of special needs under their watch. We are going to fix that mess like we are fixing every other mess.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue, which I know he has campaigned on for a very long time. We are investing a record £25 billion in the NHS as part of our plan for change. Building an NHS fit for the future means that places like Redditch will see lower waiting lists and services that reflect needs. While responsibility over service rests with the appropriate NHS commissioner, I will ensure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I echo the Prime Minister’s opening remarks about the Southport killings and Holocaust Memorial Day, and I particularly join him in expressing our immense relief at the release of Emily Damari and in celebrating that she is back with her mum Mandy and the rest of her family. Let us hope that all the hostages are released as soon as possible, and that the ceasefire turns into a lasting peace.
Last week, I urged the Prime Minister to speed up the social care commission, to implement the changes that people need this year. The very next day, it was announced that the chair of the social care commission was also going to chair another important inquiry, into grooming gangs. The Prime Minister said that the job of chairing the commission is so enormous that it cannot be completed within three years, yet he also said the chair of that commission, Baroness Casey, has enough free time over the next few months to chair another inquiry. How can both those things be true?
The Prime Minister
Baroness Casey is well placed to conduct the audit into grooming gangs, given her hard-hitting report on exploitation in Rotherham. That does not affect her work on the independent commission on adult social care, which begins in April. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the first part of that commission will report next year, so that we can deliver recommendations as we receive them. Already we are introducing fair pay agreements, providing more money for social care funding and putting up the allowance. We are already taking steps. There will be a two-part report and we will act on the recommendations as they arrive, but this needs to be done properly.
Ed Davey
I still do not think the Prime Minister is giving social care reform the priority that it needs. It is urgent, so I will keep coming back to that to hold him to account.
Turning to the United States, can the Prime Minister guarantee that he will not sell out Britain’s fantastic farmers to Donald Trump in a trade deal that undermines our high food and animal welfare standards, in the way that the Conservatives sold them out in the Australia and New Zealand deals?
The Prime Minister
We will work with the US and with other countries, but we will never lower our standards.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. Too many buildings are still unsafe, and the speed of delivery has been far too slow. Our action plan sets out measures to identify buildings at risk and fix them faster. My message is clear: the funding is there to fix this, and there is no excuse not to deliver for residents.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
Expanding London’s airports and building a third runway at Heathrow would be incredibly irresponsible in the midst of a climate emergency, flying in the face of the Climate Change Committee’s advice. The Prime Minister clearly knows that, because he and seven Cabinet colleagues voted against a third runway at Heathrow in 2018. Will he confirm his position?
The Prime Minister
I am not going to comment on speculation. The hon. Gentleman knows that this Government are committed to growth, to the aviation sector and to our climate obligations. I am not going to take lectures from those who talk about climate change, but oppose vital renewable infrastructure in their own constituencies.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Growth is at the heart of our plan for change, which will fund our public services, create good jobs and raise living standards across the country. My hon. Friend is right to champion one of the largest brownfield sites in the UK, which could create more than 11,000 jobs on site and add £1.2 billion to the economy. It underlines the importance of this Government bringing economic stability, creating the national wealth fund and driving up growth.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the concerns of his constituents; I am not surprised they are frustrated and even angry at the lack of delivery under the previous Government. There was no credible plan—[Interruption.] Let me read the Infrastructure and Projects Authority’s verdict on what we inherited—
Mr Speaker
Order. I expect better from those on the Front Bench, Mr Philp, and I am sure you are going to show better.
The Prime Minister
He was Liz Truss’s right-hand man, so we wouldn’t expect anything else.
The IPA’s verdict on the previous Government’s plan was that there were “major issues”—[Interruption.] This is the Conservatives’ record; they should not be chuckling. The verdict was that there were “major issues” with the definition, schedule, budget, quality and delivery. It was a fiction—always was.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this awful case—the stories and accounts are heartbreaking and deeply concerning. I will make sure that she and the group receive a meeting with the relevant Health Minister at the earliest opportunity.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
The Prime Minister’s Budget raised taxes, borrowing and public spending as a strategy for economic growth. When will he accept the words of one Labour Prime Minister in the 1970s, who explained to a Labour conference that
“in all candour…that option no longer exists”,
and that the only way to obtain sustained economic growth is by cutting taxes and regulation?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman must have missed recent reports. The Office for National Statistics has just said that we have the highest investment in 19 years; PwC has just said that this is the second-best place to invest in the world; and the International Monetary Fund has just upgraded growth, now saying we are predicted to be the fastest growing major European economy. Wages are up and inflation is down—that is after just six months.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has been a determined champion of Kettering general hospital, and rightly so. There is deep anger about the delay to the work because of the Conservative’s failure to have a plan, but while we implement our affordable and deliverable plan to build a new hospital, I can reassure her that the RAAC identified at Kettering general is being mitigated and replaced through the national RAAC programme.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Before Christmas, Lord Robertson, who is leading the strategic defence review, came before the Defence Committee and told us that he could not guarantee that the strategic outcomes from the review would be fully funded. Recently, we have also heard in media reports that the review might be delayed until the autumn—a delay of six months. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to state categorically to the House that the strategic defence review, with its important requirements for the defence of our nation, will be fully funded and delivered on time?
The Prime Minister
We are committed to that because this is a serious review into our defence. The review needs to ensure we understand the challenges we face and have the capability to deal with those challenges in the modern era, so that is the exercise that is going through. We have committed to the path to 2.5%. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the last time 2.5% of GDP was spent on defence was under the last Labour Government, and that is the difference between the approach on this side of the House and the approach on that side of the House.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend, because the achievements of hard-working staff at Huddersfield royal infirmary prove that we can bring down waiting times through our plans for change. It is important that we are applying that best practice and innovation across the NHS. We must do more. We inherited record waiting lists and we are now bringing them down.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
In what is supposed to be a honeymoon period for a new Government, the Prime Minister has sacked his chief of staff, forced his City Minister and his Transport Secretary to resign, while No. 10 has been briefing against the Pensions Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Education Secretary. Is it not time that the Prime Minister accepts that the root causes at the heart of his Government are with him, not them?
The Prime Minister
We have just won a landslide victory and we have massive majority. We are getting on with the job—[Interruption.] Look at the sheer number of Ministers that the Conservatives got through on a yearly basis, causing instability in every conceivable Department.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I wish my hon. Friend a speedy recovery from his recent treatment, and I thank the doctors and nurses who treated him. Under the previous Government, there was no progress made in diagnosing cancer at stage 1 and 2 between 2013 and 2021. That is an appalling inheritance. We are spending £1.5 billion on new surgical hubs and diagnostic scanners to ensure cancer patients get the care they need.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Eating disorders are the mental health disorder with the highest mortality rate, and we have at least 1.2 million sufferers. Some are being told that they are now too ill to be treated, yet eating disorders are entirely treatable. Today the all-party parliamentary group on eating disorders is publishing its report on how to make eating disorder services fit for purpose. May I ask the Prime Minister to pay very close attention to that report?
The Prime Minister
Let me start by recognising the hon. Lady’s dedicated work and campaigning on this issue for many years. NHS England is expanding eating disorder treatment services, including crisis care and intensive home treatment, and, as she knows, the Online Safety Act 2023 will prevent children from encountering harmful content that promotes eating disorders to services. Obviously, we will look very carefully at the report and consider its recommendations.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this case. She and I have met far too many families who have been devastated by this senseless violence. We are taking urgent action to ban zombie-style knives, and we are regulating the online sale of knives. It is unacceptable that these murder weapons can be bought with two clicks. Technology is there to stop it and we are going to take action. As for resources, we are putting an additional 13,000 police into neighbourhood roles and allocating £85 million to Bedfordshire Police to keep my hon. Friend’s constituents safe.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the ceasefire and the release of hostages? Let us all pray that the remaining hostages on both sides are released as soon as possible. Since the ceasefire in Gaza came into effect, Israeli forces have placed the whole of the west bank under strict military inspection as part of the Iron Wall operation. The Israel Defence Forces have launched a large-scale offensive operation in the city of Jenin, with numerous drone strikes on the infrastructure and a military raid by IDF troops and special forces in the occupied west bank. At least nine people have been killed by Israeli forces and 40 have been injured, including several healthcare workers. What urgent steps are the Government taking to protect Palestinians—including healthcare workers—and to prevent atrocities in the west bank, and will the Prime Minister outline the UK’s response to the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion on Israel’s unlawful occupation?
The Prime Minister
I am deeply concerned by what is happening in the west bank. We have raised it a number of times in the various exchanges that we have had, but I am deeply concerned about it, and we are doing everything we can to alleviate the situation.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her kind invitation. I particularly enjoyed Tamworth’s recent FA Cup heroics against Tottenham, although they did not quite win. We are committed to protecting our most vulnerable heritage, and I know that Historic England is working closely with Tamworth borough council to preserve this local treasure for future generations. It is particularly important to continue school visit programmes, supporting our mission to give every child the best opportunities in life.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Across England, 95,000 students attend non-academised sixth-form colleges. Of those colleges, 32 are currently on strike because the Government did not settle the funding for them last summer. Can the Prime Minister tell me whether he intended to create a two-tier education system for sixth-form students who are victims of the covid crisis?
The Prime Minister
We have put more money into colleges and, as the hon. Lady knows, it is for them to deal with these disputes.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My sympathies go to my hon. Friend’s constituents; far too many are experiencing terrible flooding. I visited Stafford last year, and they talked me through the misery of their experience. We inherited flood defences in their worst condition on record. We are now investing £2.4 million in flood defences to better protect communities, and we have committed £60 million to support farmers impacted by extreme weather.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Two-year mortgages have hit 5%, borrowing is billions of pounds above forecast and retail sales have slumped. Does the Prime Minister still believe that the Chancellor is doing a good job?
The Prime Minister
I thought the hon. Lady was just reading out the last Government’s record.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am not surprised that my hon. Friend’s constituents are frustrated. There was never a plan; the funding only ever existed in Boris Johnson’s imagination. It was pure fiction and the Conservatives know it. We have an affordable delivery plan to build these new hospitals, including Watford general, and we will be getting on with it.
Competition and Markets Authority Chairman
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if he will make a statement on the position of the chairman of the Competition and Markets Authority.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
Following the resignation of the chair of the Competition and Markets Authority, Marcus Bokkerink, the Secretary of State has appointed Doug Gurr as the interim chair for a period of up to 18 months while our new permanent chair is appointed. The Secretary of State has expressed his gratitude for Marcus’s leadership of the board of the CMA since his appointment in September 2022, and for the work of the CMA in that time, particularly in response to cost of living pressures.
As the Prime Minister set out in his speech at the international investment summit, this Government will ensure that every regulator in the UK focuses on growth. Given Doug Gurr’s background and experience as an entrepreneur and business leader, and his clear under-standing of the importance of new and developing technologies such as artificial intelligence, he will bring the necessary strategic leadership to the CMA to enable it to promote growth for the benefit of businesses and consumers. As set out in the industrial strategy Green Paper, the Government will shortly be consulting on a new growth-focused strategic steer for the CMA. While respecting the independence of the CMA and the decision making of its panel members, the steer will be clear about the Government’s expectations of the CMA in supporting growth across the economy.
Andrew Griffith
Thank you for granting this important urgent question, Mr Speaker.
What a desperate state we are in when the Business Secretary has to phone up the regulators to beg them for ideas to fix the lack of growth that his own Government’s policies have created. I hope that when the regulators attended the roundtable last week, including the chairman of the CMA, they had the courage to put at the top of their list scrapping the Business Secretary’s 150-page, job-destroying and trade union-inspired Employment Rights Bill; or to point out the jobs tax in the Chancellor’s Budget, Labour’s socialist attacks on inheritance and non-doms, and the family business death tax that is causing one wealth creator to leave this country every 45 minutes; or even to point out that one of the best opportunities that this country has for growth would be to get on a plane to our closest trading partner, the United States, and secure a trade deal, rather than lob juvenile insults at President Trump or fail to invite Elon Musk to the Government’s UK investment summit.
It is certainly the case that, while regulators have a role, they generally depress growth and drive risk aversion, bureaucracy and slow decision making. Asking regulators to boost growth is a bit like asking the village speed watch to organise the next British grand prix. I am a fan of speed watch.
The Conservative party is under new management, and we are unafraid to back wealth creators and risk takers. We are unashamed to say that we need fewer civil servants and arm’s length regulators so that our businesses carry less dead weight in the global race to be competitive, but dismissing the non-executive, part-time chair of the CMA seems a curious place to start. He is not responsible for day-to-day decision making at the CMA; that is the job of the chief executive. Did they aim and miss? Can the Minister confirm whether there are plans to change the Government’s view on the CMA’s remit, to play the ball and not the man? What evaluation has there been of all regulators as part of this process, and when will the Government publish it?
Justin Madders
I think there were a couple of questions in there about the role of the CMA chair. Of course, he did not get sacked; he resigned. A new strategic steer for the CMA will be coming out in due course. The hon. Gentleman’s tirade of criticisms of this Government was a bit rich coming from a man who was in the Treasury when the last Government crashed the economy. I would point out that PwC announced only this week that we were the second most attractive country in the world to invest in, and that the International Monetary Fund last week upgraded our growth predictions for this year. We are going to be the highest-growing major economy in Europe this year, and that shows our determination to get the growth going, which was something that his Government failed completely on.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
Getting the right regulatory environment is vital to drive innovation in our economy and also to protect our consumers and markets. Does the Minister agree that this renewed focus on the regulatory environment and getting it right to drive our economy will make sure that this Government deliver our No. 1 mission of growth?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Growth is the No. 1 mission for this Government, and getting the balance right between protecting consumers and driving up growth in the economy means that we all benefit. That is something we are very clear about on this side of the House, and something that the last Government failed to deliver on.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The Government are right to say that bold and ambitious steps are needed to get our economy growing again, especially after the damage caused by the previous Conservative Government, but we must also recognise that fair competition is the lifeblood of our market economy, which helps to drive innovation and ensures that economic benefits reach consumers. Does the Minister agree that ensuring proper competition in the economy is vital to achieving sustained growth? I also note that the new interim chair’s prior experience includes running Amazon’s UK business. Will the Minister guarantee that the digital markets unit within the CMA will be backed to hold powerful tech giants accountable, for the benefit of customers in Wokingham and across the UK?
Justin Madders
We are absolutely clear that we need to protect consumers, but we also need to drive growth. The new interim chair’s experience will be really important in helping us to understand how the tech companies will move forward, and his chairmanship of the Alan Turing Institute gives him valuable experience to bring to the table in delivering on that.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I should declare an interest, having worked for a competition regulator for a number of years before entering Parliament. I suggest that the Minister does not take any competition policy lessons from the Conservatives, who oversaw the re-monopolisation of the broadband network, the consolidation of power within tech networks on an unprecedented scale, and the rise of crony capitalism on a scale not seen before. Some rumours around this appointment have suggested that it is a signal of a flight away from competition regulation. Can I urge him to quash those rumours and confirm that this Government believe that competition drives investment, innovation and growth, and that this country is open for investment and new market entry by as many companies as possible?
Justin Madders
We absolutely agree that competition is vital for driving investment and growth. The CMA will remain operationally independent, as it always has been.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The Government seem fascinated by the price of Oasis tickets. Meanwhile, debt and the cost of debt are soaring. Should the Government—definitely, not maybe—come up with some ideas of their own for growth, rather than trying to copy the homework of regulators?
Justin Madders
We have our own ideas for growth. We have important planning reforms coming forward, and the industrial strategy, which drives forward the strengths of the UK economy. As for the hon. Gentleman’s Oasis pun, I think he needs to work a bit harder on that one.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
Having spent 15 years dealing with the CMA in my campaign to end the abuse of the secondary ticketing market, I have long felt that the CMA is in desperate need of much stronger and clearer ministerial oversight. Can the Minister confirm today which Minister will have oversight of the CMA, and that it will be an active role, not a role in name only?
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for her work on secondary ticketing, a subject on which there is currently a consultation. I am the Minister responsible for the CMA. A new strategic steer for the CMA will be issued later this year, and of course it will remain independent from Government.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The clear issue here is why the previous chair resigned, and what remit the Minister has given the interim chair to change the policy and direction of the CMA. Can the Minister outline that remit for the House? He says he will do it later this year, but he has manoeuvred a position in which the previous chair has resigned. We need to know what the CMA will be doing now to regulate the market.
Justin Madders
The CMA’s operational independence will remain intact. We have clearly set out that there will be a new strategic steer, which will be about boosting growth. After conversations, we have decided that new leadership is needed to deliver on that.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I should declare that before entering the House, I advised, as a competition lawyer, on various CMA matters, including investigations and panels. Some of the criticisms from Conservative Members seem half a world away, to channel Oasis, from both the topic in question and economic reality. Will the Minister confirm that yesterday’s announcement does not change the independence of the individual CMA panels that deal with matters before the CMA?
Justin Madders
I can confirm that the CMA’s operational independence remains intact.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The power vested in large corporations is greater than ever. Tech giants are exerting monopolistic power over the market, so I am becoming exasperated with the Government’s Thatcherite-like attitude towards deregulation. Do the Government understand the risks involved in going for short-term boosts to growth over long-term stability of the economic market?
Justin Madders
I would not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation at all, and I am sure that Conservative Members would not, either. We announced only this morning that we will take action against Amazon on knife sales, so I do not think the characterisation that we are in the pocket of big tech is at all accurate.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The CMA took far too long to reach a decision on the Vodafone and Three merger. This slowed down the roll-out of 5G across all our constituencies and was a drag on growth. How can regulators be pushed to ensure that their decisions lead to growth?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is right that we need to give the business community confidence that decisions will be made quickly to provide certainty, so that it can move forward with investments for the benefit of the whole economy.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What will be the impact on growth of a record number of millionaires having left the UK since the Budget?
Justin Madders
That is a very interesting question. I am not sure that the CMA’s role is to monitor the number of millionaires leaving the country.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
In 2023, after the CMA blocked a particular merger, the last Conservative Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), said that it must “understand their wider responsibilities”. He also said:
“I do think it’s important all our regulators understand their wider responsibilities for economic growth.”
He was right, was he not?
Justin Madders
Yes, he was right. That is the message that the Prime Minister sent out to the regulators at the investment summit, and it is why they have been invited in to give their ideas on growth. We do not think that asking regulators how they are going to stimulate growth is a problem—that is the No. 1 mission of this Government, and everyone should be signed up to delivering on it.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Diolch, Llefarydd. The Government say that the CMA’s chair had failed to convince them that he was sufficiently focused on growth, but at the same time, reports suggest that the Government plan to freeze all rail spending except for on three projects in England. A lack of transport funding is stifling growth in the Welsh economy. To prove his commitment to growth, will the Minister outline the transport funding that his Government have committed to Wales?
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Unfortunately, transport funding—particularly in Wales—is well outside the CMA’s remit.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK’s economic regulators have a responsibility to ensure supersonic growth in our economy with a pro-business approach, and that this is part of what I would term a responsibility agenda? We all have a responsibility to ensure the best for our economy, and those regulators do as well.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We all need to be signed up to this agenda, which is absolutely critical for delivering on our aims of getting a better-growing economy, getting more money into people’s pockets, delivering on the promises we have made, and changing the tune after the last 14 years of decline.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Changing personnel is one thing, but when we speak to business, we hear that resolving disputes and the way in which the CMA does so is key. Could I urge the Minister to look at how disputes are resolved, and whether litigation and an antagonistic approach to business is the best way for the CMA to proceed?
Justin Madders
That is a very fair comment. We need to give businesses certainty and clarity that things will be resolved quickly, so that they have the confidence to make investment decisions.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
How does the Department plan to appoint the permanent chair?
Justin Madders
The appointment of the permanent chair will take place in the normal manner, as all other appointments do.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
An active regulator is essential to securing fair prices for consumers. Residents of areas such as mine are often at the forefront of rises in petrol prices, and residents of Pontardawe are regularly left wondering why they have to pay 8p more per litre than people in nearby towns. Will the Government commit to launching the Pumpwatch petrol price comparison platform, as recommended by the Competition and Markets Authority?
Justin Madders
That is a very important point. Consumers see the petrol prices every time they leave their home in their motor vehicle. There is a disparity there that sometimes needs explanation, and certainly needs transparency, so I will take that issue up on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf, and will come back to him on it.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
My constituents, particularly those living in Crookfur, have terrible mobile phone signal. How can the CMA progress the merger between Three and Vodafone, so that we get the investment in transmitters that we need to improve the mobile phone signal in Crookfur and around the country?
Justin Madders
That is certainly something that the CMA has been dealing with, and I am sure that we will be able to provide my hon. Friend with an update shortly.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Will the Minister ask the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate why we have the highest energy prices in the world, particularly for electricity?
Justin Madders
I will certainly pass that request on. That might be something that Ofgem would also have an interest in.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I thank the Minister for his responses so far. Does he agree that the first duty of the Competition and Markets Authority is to ensure that regulations are followed, and to break up monopolies at a time when our small businesses are suffering? The national insurance increase has not helped. If the CMA takes decisions that just so happen to have the by-product of stimulating economic growth, that is well, but the narrative that taking away regulation will promote growth is wrong.
Mr Speaker
It might be worth the hon. Member putting in for an Adjournment debate.
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Member for her question. It is important that consumers and small businesses operate on a level playing field; it is also correct that we are very keen to see more growth delivered. We think that will benefit everyone in the economy, but I take the point that a balance has to be struck.
Mr Speaker
Mr Grady, I think you have asked a question. [Interruption.] I think the Whips need to be advising you a bit more.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. The role of the CMA chair is essential in the current economic climate, as we watch how our allies in the USA approach their trading and their deals. We need a message of strength; we need to relay the fact that we are ready and open for international business. Does the Minister believe that this interim measure sends that message, and how quickly can we get the right person in place to promote our business standing?
Justin Madders
We are really serious about growth. This is about sending the message that we want to make sure that Britain is open for investment, and that we will work with partners across the world to encourage investment and get the growth that we want, for the benefit of the entire economy. This is just one part of the plan.
Russian Maritime Activity and UK Response
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With permission, I wish to make a statement on the UK’s response to recent Russian maritime activity. [Interruption.] I am glad that the House waited for this statement.
A foreign vessel, Yantar, is in the North sea, having passed through British waters. Let me be clear: it is a Russian spy ship, used for gathering intelligence and mapping the UK’s critical underwater infrastructure. Yantar entered the UK exclusive economic zone about 45 miles off the British coast on Monday. For the past two days, the Royal Navy has deployed HMS Somerset and HMS Tyne to monitor the vessel, every minute, in our waters, and I have changed the Royal Navy’s rules of engagement so that our warships can get closer and better track Yantar.
So far, the ship has complied with international rules of navigation, but this is the second time that Yantar has entered our waters in recent months. In November, the ship was also closely watched, and was detected loitering over UK critical undersea infrastructure. To deter any potential threat, I took measured steps at that time as part of a clear, direct response to the Russian vessel. Royal Air Force maritime patrol aircraft, alongside HMS Cattistock, HMS Tyne and Royal Fleet Auxiliary Proteus, were deployed to shadow Yantar’s every movement. Today, I also confirm to the House that I authorised a Royal Navy submarine to surface close to Yantar—strictly as a deterrent measure—to make it clear that we had been covertly monitoring its every move. The ship then left UK waters without further loitering, and sailed down to the Mediterranean.
As colleagues will understand, I will not comment further for reasons of operational security. However, I thank all the personnel involved for their dedication and professionalism. I also want President Putin to hear this message: we see you, we know what you are doing, and we will not shy away from robust action to protect this country. With our NATO allies, we are strengthening our response to ensure that Russian ships and aircraft cannot operate in secrecy near the UK or near NATO territory.
This activity is another example of growing Russian aggression, targeting our allies abroad and us at home. The heads of MI6 and the CIA recently made a joint statement, saying that Russia is waging a “reckless campaign” of sabotage across Europe. We are seeing periodic incursions of Russian military aircraft into airspace for which we are responsible, and on Christmas day the EstLink 2 undersea cable between Finland and Estonia was damaged. Many analysts believe that that was caused by a vessel in Russia’s shadow fleet.
Russia is dangerous but fundamentally weak. In Ukraine, it has suffered devastatingly high rates of casualties over three years in a war it thought it would win in a week. Compounding the humiliation, Putin has been forced to turn to North Korea to reinforce its frontline fighters. While the strategic defeat in Syria has exposed Russia’s diminishing power on the global stage, at home the Russian economy faces crippling strains.
Nevertheless, Russia remains the most pressing and immediate threat to Britain, and I want to assure the House and the British people that any threat will be met with strength and resolve. First, we are delivering on the foundation of security in our plan for change by making Britain secure at home. Yantar has now passed through the Dover strait and is in Dutch waters. In September, RAF Typhoons scrambled to intercept two Russian Bear F aircraft operating near the UK. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service is also playing an indispensable role in safeguarding offshore infrastructure with its multi-role ocean surveillance ship, RFA Proteus.
Secondly, we are making Britain strong abroad, working with NATO and joint expeditionary force allies. The UK activated Nordic Warden with JEF partners after the EstLink 2 cable damage. The operation is tracking potential threats to undersea infrastructure, monitoring the movements of the Russian shadow fleet and sending out real-time warnings of suspicious activity to JEF allies and to NATO. Today, I can confirm that the RAF will provide P-8 Poseidon and Rivet Joint surveillance aircraft to join the new Baltic Sentry NATO deployment to protect critical infrastructure in the Baltic sea.
Thirdly, with allies we are piling the pressure on Putin. This year, the UK will provide more financial aid in military support to Ukraine than at any time since the full-scale invasion began: £4.5 billion to deliver military support, enhance training and strengthen industrial collaboration. The UK is also leading the way in finding ways to put pressure on the Russian economy, including sanctioning more than 100 ships in the Russian shadow fleet, which is more than any other nation; working with other countries to stop the Russian military acquiring the goods, equipment and technologies it requires to continue its fight and war against Ukraine; and with allies, exposing the activities of the Russian intelligence services, expelling Russian intelligence officers and sanctioning individuals responsible for hostile activity against the UK.
Russian aggression will not be tolerated at home or in Ukraine. That is why one of the first acts of this Government was for the Prime Minister to launch the strategic defence review, why the Government have increased defence spending next year by almost £3 billion, and why we will set a path to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP in the spring. This new era of threat demands a new era for defence. Change is essential, not optional, and the Government are determined to meet the challenge and determined to deliver for defence. We will protect the homeland and our critical national infrastructure and we will make Britain secure at home and strong abroad.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement. I am particularly grateful to him for the greater level of transparency he has chosen to show to the House on the grey zone threat from Russia. We welcome that transparency, because it is critical for our war readiness as a nation that, as far as we are able and without compromising our national and operational security, we tell the British public the truth about the serious nature of the Russian threat and what that will inevitably mean for public expenditure on defence.
I specifically welcome the change to the Royal Navy’s rules of engagement. That sends a powerful signal to Putin that we will not be intimidated and that if his aim is to keep pushing the boundaries of malign activity in our waters and those proximate to us, we will respond. I confirm that the Government will have the full backing of His Majesty’s Opposition in doing so. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government on Ukraine and we stand shoulder to shoulder with them on deterring the wider Russian threat that he has outlined today.
I appreciate that it is unusual to go into such operational detail, including about the operational deployment of submarines. Equally, we appreciate that this is about sending the strongest possible signal to our adversaries about our clear intent to protect and defend our homeland. If I may, I have a number of specific questions about the statement and its particular contents.
A key issue here is the safety and protection of critical undersea infrastructure. Beyond the operations the Secretary of State mentioned in his speech, such as Nordic Warden, will he confirm whether he is looking to widen the number of international partners proactively involved in addressing the threat to the North sea and the Baltic? What discussions is he having to drive an internationally co-ordinated response, including through NATO?
Given our prominent role within NATO, we have a clear opportunity to lead the way in developing cutting-edge underwater technologies that address those threats directly. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is prioritising development of underwater capabilities, such as uncrewed systems, through pillar 2 of AUKUS and also with European allies, and in particular that research and development investment into capabilities to protect critical infrastructure will be an urgent priority? Moreover, will he commit to doing everything possible to hinder the abilities of GRU operatives, including all possible action in concert with allies to restrict their ability to enter the United Kingdom?
I am very grateful to the personnel of our Navy, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and our Air Force involved in addressing the threats. I sincerely thank them, as well as the crews of allied vessels who assisted in tracking the ship through their waters. I have one particularly important point. The Secretary of State said that “Russia is dangerous but fundamentally weak.” Does he nevertheless agree that Russia’s willingness to tolerate such enormous losses on the battlefield against Ukraine underlines that, in conventional military terms, it remains a formidable foe before one even considers its unconventional capabilities?
In my view, Russia remains a critical threat to the United Kingdom. For that reason, I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s clear decision to be more open with the country about the threat we face. I urge him to ensure that, from the heart of Government, we have a serious grip on communicating and planning for the fact that we face the most serious nation-on-nation military threat to our homeland for generations. In turn, that means that the strategic defence review needs to be fundamentally threat-driven, prioritising homeland defence and putting the necessary resource in place.
To conclude, does the fact that we have seen the RFA, the Royal Navy, submarines, helicopters, P-8 aircraft and other assets involved in tracking Russian activity not show the full extent of the work needed to defend our island and deter our adversaries, and ultimately why we need to increase defence spending as soon as possible? The Secretary of State said in his statement, as he did at oral questions—I welcome that—that the SDR will report in the spring. I urge him to ensure that that is in March, at the very earliest opportunity, and that we will achieve at least 2.5% spending on defence this Parliament.
John Healey
I thank the shadow Defence Secretary for welcoming the statement and the Government’s greater transparency. He, like me, has confirmed that he sees Russia as the most critical threat to the UK. He has been a Defence Minister and he understands, as he acknowledges, the importance of sending the strongest possible signals to our adversaries. That is the underlying reason for the decision I have taken to make this statement today.
The shadow Secretary of State argues that our response provides the UK with an opportunity to demonstrate leadership within NATO. I think we have already done that, not by asserting our argument but by our actions: launching and leading through the JEF 10 nations the Nordic Warden response to the attack on EstLink 2 and now by confirming that we will play a leading role in the new NATO deployment in the Baltic, which is linked to the work that we are doing through Nordic Warden.
The shadow Secretary of State asks about the priority for our undersea cables for our homeland infrastructure. These cables are not simply a technical network. They are the infrastructure for the things on which we depend for our daily lives: the operation of the internet; the supply of energy; and communications with other parts of the world. He will therefore have seen and noted in the terms of reference of the strategic defence review, launched by the Prime Minister within two weeks of the Government being elected in July, that defending and reinforcing the homeland defence of Britain is foremost in those terms of reference. We will, as I have said, report on the strategic defence review in the spring.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Members are bobbing who were not in the Chamber at the start of the debate. We have made a note of all their names and the time that they arrived and they will not be called to speak. If they do not know whether that means them, they should speak to their Whip. I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. It is very apt that he should be making this statement, because during our Defence Committee visit to RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland last week, we discussed this very issue. Clearly, there is greater need for wider availability and capacity for Royal Navy and other maritime capability to meet the rising Russian activity in waters surrounding the UK. I refer, for example, to the threats to critical undersea infrastructure.
I have two questions for the Secretary of State. First, what lessons have the Government learned from the Finnish investigation into Eagle S, which was accused of damaging the undersea infrastructure between Finland and Estonia? Secondly, what measures are available to the Government to stop vessels from traversing UK waters, to build on the recent insurance checks that were put in place in October? Is sanctioning vessels our only option?
John Healey
I thank the Chair and the members of the Defence Committee not just for the work that they are doing, but for the work that they are willing to do outside this House. I thank them for the visit that they paid to Lossiemouth to see for themselves some of the essential work that our forces personnel and civilians are doing in defending this country. He asks about the Finnish investigation into the EstLink 2 cable damage. That is for the Finns to complete and to confirm the findings of their investigation. It will be at that point that we can draw out and discuss any lessons that there might be for the UK.
We defend more fiercely than perhaps any other nation in the world the freedom of navigation in our seas. Ships of all states may navigate through our territorial waters. They are subject to the right of innocent passage, and so some of the steps that the Chair of the Defence Committee might urge the Government to take are simply not available to us under the United Nations law of the open seas. It is for that reason that we take the steps and actions that I have reported to the House—to make sure that we monitor, we watch and we track, so that those who might enter our waters with malign intent, or try to undertake any malign activity, know that we see them and know that they will face the strongest possible response.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
It is also important for Front Benchers to arrive on time to hear the opening statement—I believe that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson was four minutes late—and it is important for them to know that they may not be called in the future, but, on this occasion, I do invite the hon. Lady to speak.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and apologies for my lateness.
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. It goes without saying that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government in our support for their actions against the Russian threat. We also thank all the service personnel involved in dealing with this threat.
The Liberal Democrats believe that our defence policy and conventional forces should be focused on defending British territory and playing a leading role in our immediate European neighbourhood. As such, we welcome the Government’s announcement that the Royal Airforce will provide P-8 Poseidon and Rivet Joint maritime patrol and surveillance aircraft to join Baltic Sentry under NATO command.
Action to defend the realm is particularly pressing in light of recent escalations of hybrid threats from Russia. The suspected sabotage of undersea cables, including the damage to Estlink-2 on Christmas day, underscores the urgency of this moment. Such cables are the life blood of international connectivity and commerce and any attack on them is an attack on the collective stability of Europe.
The events involving the tanker Eagle S and its links to sanctioned entities supporting Putin’s war machine are deeply alarming. This is not an isolated incident, but part of a broader pattern of aggression that demands robust and co-ordinated action. This Government must rebuild trust with our European neighbours. The UK’s national interest and security have always been inextricably tied to that of Europe. From the second world war through to the cold war and the current war in Ukraine, our shared defence has been vital.
To that end, we urge the Government to work hand in glove with NATO countries to support Ukraine during the war and the rebuilding afterwards, including finding lawful ways to use the $300 billion of frozen Russian state assets as reparations; sign a comprehensive security treaty with the European Union to strengthen collaborative defence; and collaborate on developing cutting-edge defence technologies and ensure inter-operability with NATO allies to respond effectively in times of crisis.
We also face serious national vulnerabilities. The UK lacks land-based anti-ballistic missile systems to protect critical national infrastructure. Questions remain about the ability to secure the Greenland-UK gap.
We welcome the Government’s commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, but when will they outline a clear timeline for achieving that? This is not the time for complacency. The threats are clear, and the response must be decisive.
John Healey
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). Perhaps she, like I, thought that there would be more interest in this House in the operation of the Competition and Markets Authority than the length of the urgent question proved was the case. It may just be that I can run a little faster than her.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
It gives a whole new meaning to “running to the defence”.
John Healey
But Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for her support for the UK contribution to the Baltic Sentry NATO operation. We play a leading role in NATO and we will play a leading role in this operation in the Baltic. It reinforces our allies, and by doing that we reinforce our own defences and strengthen collectively the deterrence that we can, as NATO nations, offer to any future aggression and aggressive intent from President Putin.
The hon. Lady urges us to work hand in glove with allies over the support for Ukraine, which is what we are committed to do. It is why the Prime Minister was in Kyiv last week, when he confirmed the record level of funding for this year to support military aid to Ukraine and when he signed a 100-year partnership with Ukraine. Finally, he made the commitment that I think the hon. Lady is looking for, when he said that, whatever happens next, our job is to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position both on the battlefield and at any negotiating table. That is what I, as Defence Secretary, am determined to do for this country.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Putin and his autocratic friends mistake our freedom and openness for weakness, so may I enthusiastically welcome the strength of the response to the Russian activity? The Secretary of State will be aware of the reports in Newsweek in recent days about patents that have been filed in China for specific cable-cutting technology, presumably for military use by the Chinese. Can he reassure the House that, as well as being active in deterring Putin, the Government are taking a similarly robust stance on any attempts by China to cut the cables?
John Healey
I reassure my hon. Friend that I am aware of what he cites, and of the pace of development of many aspects of Chinese technology and equipment. Much of it may be for civilian use, but I assure him that we, with allies, are keeping a very close eye on what China is developing.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for the action that he has taken, and all the work of our servicemen to combat this threat. The Yantar has been a well-known threat for quite a long time, but Russia has also been very capable of using private and commercial vessels to map cables and undermine our security. The reality is that we need more resources in our Royal Navy and other services. What assurance can he give the House that a bid has been put together to ensure that the Treasury properly resources him and our servicemen to do a job that we all depend on?
John Healey
Our UK servicemen and women will appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s thanks. I can give him that assurance. Most importantly, I can give him the commitment that we made to the British people at the election that the Government will increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP—a level that Britain has not spent on defence since 2010.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
Over recent years, we have seen a large increase in Russian activity of this type, and it is clear that the need for subsurface protection is critical and increasing. The UK sub fleet is built at BAE Systems in my constituency, and we play a vital role in countering this threat. Will the Secretary of State comment on the support that the Government will continue to provide to ensure that the submarine fleet continues to play this central role in the defence of our nation?
John Healey
I can indeed. I, too, am intensely proud of everything that is done, designed and developed at the Barrow shipyard. It is central to our UK security, and has been for decades. Like me, she will be proud that the Royal Navy submarine that surfaced close to the Yantar in November, which led to the Yantar heading directly off to the Mediterranean, was built in that Barrow shipyard.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that our Royal Navy and RFA are the best in the world. They need to be equipped with the vessels and crew to do their job and address threats such as those I am grateful to him for articulating. He will know that Portsmouth harbour, which Gosport sits opposite, is home to the six Type 45s that were commissioned without adequate propulsion units. Could he update us on the T-45 power improvement programme? Will it be sufficient for T-45s to be allowed to deploy with the upcoming carrier strike group? More broadly, what is he doing as part of the SDR to ensure that a significant and sufficient proportion of our naval personnel have seagoing liability?
John Healey
I am so pleased that, alongside the Royal Navy, the hon. Lady cites the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, which plays an essential part in our maritime defence and operations. I give her that assurance on the Type 45s’ participation in the carrier strike group. If she would like me to write to her in more detail about the progress on the engine upgrade programme, I will happily do so.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for such a strong statement, which makes it clear to Vladimir Putin that this aggression will not be tolerated. Recently, Ministers were kind enough to answer a series of written questions from me on quick reaction alert, subsea cables and defence of the high north, all pointing to additional threats from Russian forces and the need for a strong response. With the strategic defence review well under way, how is the Secretary of State ensuring that it is flexible in dealing with those changing and evolving threats, and that we learn from Ukraine, and from the recent example of the Finnish ship in the Baltic sea?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is one of the strongest voices recognising that the high north will become strategically much more essential. Degrees of conflict and contest are likely to grow there, particularly as climate change leads to the opening up of the northern passage. If he looks at the terms of reference of the strategic defence review, and the work of the review and challenge groups, which have been an essential part of the external leadership of it, he will see that the concerns that he raises are central to the SDR’s work. When it is published, I am sure that he will find evidence that the caution he gives to the House is taken very seriously by the Government.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The activities of the Yantar may be an escalation, but this is not the first instance of such activity; it is almost two years since I first raised concerns about the activities of Russian vessels in the waters around Shetland. Events in Finland at Christmas show that Russia is prepared to go further, and we must show that we are determined to meet any challenge of that sort. This is a strategic threat for the United Kingdom as a whole, but it is particularly acute for our island communities, which rely on cables for digital and energy connectivity, quite apart from the pipelines serving the oil and gas industry. Will the Secretary of State speak to the energy companies and his colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and ensure that our island communities are not left as a soft target for the next escalation in this business?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman is right that this is not the first instance; indeed, the total loss of digital connection that his constituency suffered in 2022 vividly demonstrated the dependency of such communities on this critical infrastructure in their everyday life, and their vulnerability to damage or sabotage. I give him the assurance that he seeks. In the consideration of the strategic defence review, and certainly in its implementation, that is exactly the sort of question and challenge that we will meet.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his clear statement, and for spelling out why it is so important that we protect these deep-sea cables. Something like 95% of all international data goes through them. They are the backbone of the internet. Given those facts, can he assure us that the protection of that critical infrastructure will be at the forefront of the minds of everybody completing the strategic defence review?
John Healey
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. I certainly give him that assurance.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s candour. It is important that the country understands the threats to the nation. It is estimated that the economy would lose tens of millions of pounds per hour if there were a data loss. These cables are strategically central to our national wellbeing. With that in mind, the Government have to explain to the public why we have to keep increasing defence spending, given what the consequences would be if we did not do so. If we move above 2.5% to 3% or 3.5%, it will not be because President Trump is pushing that narrative, as many Presidents have done before him; it will be because that is the strategic requirement of Europe and NATO to head off clear acts of aggression—close to a declaration of hybrid war on NATO. It is vital that the public understand why defence spending is so important at this time.
John Healey
As a leading member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the right hon. Gentleman understands better than most in this House the concerns and perspectives of other NATO nations, and he demonstrates that this morning.
On the question of the commitment to increase defence spending, everyone agrees that defence spending must rise. The commitment that my party made going into the election well predated the result of the US election. It is a commitment that we are determined to honour. If it is the case that everyone agrees defence spending must rise to meet the increasing threats, there is certainly a lead responsibility for Government and Ministers to help explain that to the public, but I would hope that everyone who believes defence spending must rise can and will play a part in conveying that to the public as well.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
Although out of sight, our offshore infrastructure is absolutely vital to the smooth running of the economy, and any disruption would have a huge impact on my constituents in North East Derbyshire—it would be truly catastrophic. Can the Secretary of State assure me that we will not take the security of that infrastructure for granted and that we will take the necessary steps to provide that security as part of the SDR?
John Healey
I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s voice from landlocked North East Derbyshire recognising the fact that this is not simply a concern of maritime communities or islands, but of the whole country and for all of us in our everyday lives. High up, and with specific focus, the strategic defence review’s terms of reference, point to the need to review and reinforce the defence of our British homeland. Central to that consideration, in the light of our experience in recent months, will be the rising Russian aggression and the increase in such incidents.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his profoundly important statement, which is immensely reassuring, but may I ask about pre-emption? We all know that Russia is no respecter of international law, and an over-zealous and overcautious interpretation of the legal constraints on the UK armed forces could be very destructive. Are the Government refusing to rule out pre-emptive action against a hostile ship threatening critical national infrastructure, albeit if it lies under international waters, and will he agree that an open mind on pre-emption is a stronger deterrent than ruling it out?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman has huge experience in this field, so he will recognise that I simply will not and cannot get into responding to hypotheticals. He urges me not to allow undue constraint of perhaps established practices or rules where there is a good case for flexibility. I hope he will take as a signal of the serious intent that I will bring, with the approach and return of the Yantar to UK waters, my readiness, as I have reported, to alter the permissions that the Royal Navy was using so that, should the captains of the warships that we deployed to watch and track the Yantar require it, they could go closer, see better and determine more carefully what exactly the Yantar was up to. Like the surfacing of the submarine in November, that was a move to deter and discourage the sort of activity that we simply do not want to see in our waters.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Keeping ourselves safer at home means ensuring that Putin loses abroad, because when Putin is finished in Ukraine—whenever that may be—he will come for more. Defeating him means showing him that we have the resolve and the resource to defeat him in the future. Can the Secretary of State assure me that, as part of the SDR, we will have a way to combat, prevent and protect ourselves from Russia?
John Healey
I hope the content of my statement—the assertion that the most immediate and concerning threat to the UK comes from Russia—and the action I have taken in response to the Russian spy ship, Yantar, being in our waters again, will reassure my hon. Friend that, exactly as he urges and as the shadow Defence Secretary the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) has recognised, Russia is a serious menace. In Ukraine, it is fighting the first full-scale war in Europe since the second world war, but as the shadow Defence Secretary said, its aggression particularly in the grey zone—warned about by the heads of the CIA and M16—tells us that this is a regime intent on disruption and on disrupting our way of life. My hon. Friend is right to start by saying that the defence of the UK starts in Ukraine. If Putin prevails in Ukraine, he simply will not stop in Ukraine.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the actions it details to intervene in Russian activity in the waters around these islands. I also commend the diligence and professionalism of those men and women in uniform in the Royal Navy, Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the RAF. He said in his statement, though, that the UK will
“continue to lead the way”
on sanctions against Russia’s shadow fleet, but the UK is not leading the way on sanctions, is it? A Sky News investigation last week found out that the Government have no record of how many investigations they are carrying out into breaches of Russian sanctions. That follows a previous investigation showing that goods, including luxury cars, fossil fuels and items that can be weapons—or whose components can be converted into weaponry—have been flowing between the UK and Russia since the beginning of Russia’s war in Ukraine. Surely the Secretary of State must be concerned that inaction elsewhere in Whitehall is potentially putting men and women in uniform in the UK’s armed forces at risk from Russia’s malign aggression.
John Healey
I certainly do not share the hon. Gentleman’s assertion. I simply say to him that I made the argument that the UK is leading the way with allies in action to deal with the Russian shadow fleet, and I confirm that we have sanctioned 100 ships—more than any other nation—that compose that loosely networked Russian shadow fleet.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement about Russia’s activities, which are concerning but not surprising. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Nordic countries. Does he agree that close co-operation with our Nordic allies is important in dealing with this threat?
Building on the comments of the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), and the broader discussion about transparency and information sharing with the United Kingdom, before Christmas every Swedish household received the pamphlet, “Om krisen eller kriget kommer”, meaning, “In case of crisis or war”. Sweden does that regularly. Is it time for us to look into that?
John Healey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the work he does on chairing the all-party group on Nordic countries in this House. One of the benefits of all Nordic countries now being part of NATO, and of the very close defence and security relationships we have with those countries, is that we can indeed learn from each other. It is not just the new approach taken before Christmas by the Swedish, but the sense that a country is stronger if its society is resilient and if societies recognise they may be under threat and are ready to respond if required. There are certainly some lessons for us in the UK as we consider the future and consider the rising level and complexity of threats we may face in the years ahead.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Last week, alongside other hon. Members and peers in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I visited the nation’s flagship Prince of Wales aircraft carrier. The commanding officer Captain Will Blackett and his team showed us the ship’s capability, and we witnessed an incredible demonstration of how they can respond. But when we asked about how they would respond to ballistic missiles, or how this place and other institutions are protected from hostile states, it was a terrifying response. I realise the strategic defence review is ongoing and that there is a commitment to get to 2.5%, but with President Trump threatening to pull out of NATO, that is not enough. What plans does the Secretary of State have to go faster and to put our military retention and recruitment on a stronger footing, so that our country and infrastructure are properly protected?
John Healey
Captain Blackett and his crew were delighted that the hon. Lady and other members of the armed forces parliamentary scheme were able to go on board to be briefed and look at what an extraordinary piece of British military kit we have. The strategic defence review is set up to examine exactly the sort of points that she raises. It is designed to look at the threats we may face, the capabilities we may need, the resources available, and, in particular, the accelerated way in which the nature of warfare is changing and the central role of accelerating technology development in the changing natures both of the threat and of the capabilities that we must develop with allies to meet that threat.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
If Putin’s Russia is the greatest threat to peace in Europe, the second greatest threat must be any American decision to turn their back on NATO. Can the Secretary of State assure us that he will do everything in his power to convince his new counterparts in the United States Administration of the seriousness of the threat that Russia poses?
John Healey
I do not expect the new Administration to require any coaching on the threats from Russia or other parts of the world. I expect that Administration to be one who take defence and security seriously, and who recognise that a secure, free and openly trading Europe is in America’s very best interests.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Secretary of State said in his statement that we are strengthening our response to ensure that Russian ships cannot operate in secrecy near UK territory. He will be aware of an occasion just over a year ago when a Russian submarine was chased from the harbour in Cork by the British Navy, because the Irish navy does not have the sonar equipment to detect potential underwater threats. Those threats affect about 97% of the world’s communication and internet traffic. What communication or interaction has the Secretary of State had with the Irish Government and the Irish armed forces to strengthen our co-operation with them and ensure that the west coast of these British Isles is protected?
John Healey
We do not and will not comment on specific operational details like that. Needless to say, however, we work very closely with the Irish Government on such matters. Recently, our Chief of the Defence Staff met his counterpart from Ireland.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I commend the Defence Secretary for his statement and for the actions that he has taken—particularly to change the rules of engagement to allow for the closer inspection of that vessel. However, he does not control all the maritime assets of this country. In December, the Transport Secretary told me that there had been no instances of the UK using its agencies to board and inspect bits of the Russian black and grey fleet. Will he speak to his colleagues across Government to ensure that we use all the arms of government and its agencies to interdict unlicensed, unregistered threats to our security?
John Healey
Where there are grounds for interdiction, the Government collectively will certainly be ready, with the appropriate agency, to take action. The right hon. Gentleman will know, having served as a distinguished Defence Minister for some years, that that sort of close co-ordination and collective action is a feature of the national security secretariat that we have at the very heart of our Government. It plays an important role and ensures that we can deal with any such threats or aggressive activity in the most appropriate way.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I thank the Defence Secretary, his team and the service personnel involved for their robust response—that is exactly the kind of thing we need when dealing with Russia. He is right when he says that the Russian army in Ukraine has nearly been destroyed, but of course the Russian navy—particularly the northern fleet, which we have to deal with in the UK—is still at strength. He has said a couple of times that Russia is the most pressing and immediate threat to the UK. In the light of those facts, does he still think it is the right decision to send the UK carrier group—which, given the Royal Navy’s size, is most of its deployable force—to the far east for five months this year?
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Undersea cables in the modern era are as vital to this country as the merchant navy convoys were in the Battle of the Atlantic in 1942, and they are equally vulnerable. Taking shape on the banks of the Clyde at the moment are the state-of-the-art Type 26 frigates, which have mission bays on board. The right hon. Gentleman is fleet of foot—as we have heard, he won a foot race today—but we are in an underwater arms race. Will he do all he can to ensure that, when those ships take to sea, their mission bays bristle with the necessary underwater equipment to take on that threat?
John Healey
Those bays are designed to be interchangeable, and they will do exactly that.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
It is clear that Putin is testing the west’s resolve. I welcome the rigour of the statement. The threat to our underground cables is an international issue. Does the Secretary of State agree that the United Nations response has been disappointing, and that its convention on the law of the sea is wholly inadequate to deal with such subversion and, indeed, is out of date? What steps are being taken internationally to get concerted action to protect the undersea cables on which every nation depends?
John Healey
I think the problem is less with the basic rules of the sea and more with observance by states that wilfully test the limits or contravene them. That is why the actions that I have reported to the House, in the instance of the Yantar in British waters, are exactly the sort of steps that nations such as the UK will continue to take, working with allies—particularly close NATO allies.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for his statement. Nobody can be in any doubt whatsoever about the strength of his words on what it means for us in the United Kingdom to stand firm. We thank him for that determination and his strong voice, which we in this Chamber all support. When the naval crew of HMS Somerset were called back to their ship on Christmas day, the message was clear: the Russians do not take a holiday, but neither do our Royal Navy crews. Russia’s perpetual activity in pressing towards our boundaries outlines the need for the complete preparedness of our Navy. Will the Secretary of State outline whether greater support is needed to ensure that our Navy is at full strength, given that our service fleet is now smaller than those of France and Italy?
John Healey
We are grateful to those service personnel—not just the crew of the HMS Somerset, who were, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, mobilised on Christmas day to respond to the EstLink 2 damage, but the 10,000 servicemen and women who were deployed away from home at Christmas—for their service. We know that they do it to keep the rest of us safe, and we are very grateful.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That concludes proceedings on the statement. I will give the Secretary of State a moment so that he can walk out—not run, as he did earlier on.
Bills Presented
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Liz Kendall, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Pat McFadden, Secretary Jonathan Reynolds and Georgia Gould, presented a Bill to make provision about the prevention of fraud against public authorities and the making of erroneous payments by public authorities; about the recovery of money paid by public authorities as a result of fraud or error; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 167) with explanatory notes (Bill 167-EN).
Consular Assistance (Journalists) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Blair McDougall, supported by Mr Alex Barros-Curtis, Rachel Blake, Mr Connor Rand, Alex Sobel, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Phil Brickell, Chris Law, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Tom Tugendhat and Ms Marie Rimmer, presented a Bill to make provision for a right to consular assistance for British journalists abroad who have been detained or held hostage; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 7 March, and to be printed (Bill 168).
Elections (Accessibility for Blind Voters)
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the provision of audio and tactile measures at polling stations for the purpose of enabling blind voters to vote independently and in secret; to require the Secretary of State to take steps to identify, develop and implement new accessible voting solutions for blind voters; to require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the arrangements for postal voting in respect of accessibility for blind voters and to implement any recommendations of that review; and for connected purposes.
I first began work on this issue in the 1990s. Sadly, I am not so young for that work to have been a school project, but rather it was an excellent campaign led by the disability charity Scope, for which I had the privilege of working at that time. Scope’s “Polls Apart” report on the 1997 general election shone a light on the many different ways disabled people were denied their democratic right to vote. From archaic medical approvals for postal voting to steps at polling stations, the barriers to voting—and everyday life—were and remain very real. The “Polls Apart” report that I co-authored with my colleagues Jane Enticott and Nicky Philpott, informed by the excellent campaigning work of Olivia Marks-Woldman, made a number of recommendations for reform. Indeed, the former Member for Nottingham East Mr John Heppell presented a ten-minute rule Bill—the Disability Discrimination (Provision of Voting Facilities) Bill—that sought to enact many of those recommendations.
The “Polls Apart” report found that a staggering 94% of polling stations surveyed on the day of the 1997 general election were inaccessible to disabled people who wanted to vote independently. This led to some being unable to vote entirely, while others physically injured themselves trying to open impossibly heavy doors or navigate gates designed without thought for wheelchair users—all in pursuit of trying to exercise their right to cast a vote. The report called on the Government to review the legislation for disabled people and the Home Office guidance to returning officers with a view to removing the barriers that prevented disabled people from exercising their right to vote independently and in secret—a right that has been enshrined for over 150 years, since the Ballot Act 1872.
I am proud of the work I did for Scope all those years ago, and I would genuinely love to stand before the House and tell hon. Members that all the issues we identified have been rectified. Many were, but nearly three decades on, too many remain. John from my constituency of Carlisle has glaucoma, and like many partially sighted people he had difficulty casting his vote in secret at last year’s general election. With his guide dog, John headed to the polling station on 4 July, where staff escorted him to the booth and read aloud the candidates’ names, because for those who cannot see a ballot paper, it is impossible to read and mark one independently. With no tactile device provided to enable John to read the ballot paper, he asked the clerk to fold it between candidates’ names and used the fold creases as a guide, relying on his memory to select his preferred candidate. At first glance, this may seem like an adequate workaround, but we must ask ourselves: why should voters with sight loss like John have to settle for a situation where they cannot guarantee the privacy or accuracy of their vote, and where solutions are available?
John’s experience is not an aberration. Across the country, blind and partially sighted voters are still confronted with barriers to voting independently. The Royal National Institute of Blind People’s “Turned Out” report on the 2024 general election revealed that just a quarter of blind and partially sighted people felt the current system allowed them to vote independently and in secret. The same report found that only half of blind and partially sighted people were satisfied with their voting experience, and 73% did not know they could request reasonable adjustments at their local polling station. Many blind voters struggle to get the information they need in an accessible format, forcing them to either tell another person their vote or remain disenfranchised. Blind voters report feeling humiliated and let down by the system when having to share their vote out loud in public and in some cases not being certain who they voted for.
Our democracy is all the poorer for this, and that is why this Bill seeks to ensure that all voters with sight loss are consistently able to access information about the election and candidates independently, and that when voting they can, without assistance, review the candidates on the ballot paper, reliably find and mark their chosen candidate, and be in sole control of the secrecy of their vote. This is not out of reach: the technology exists and the solutions are low-cost and effective. For example, tactile overlays placed on top of the ballot combined with an audio recording of the candidate list allow blind voters to easily navigate and mark the ballot paper with autonomy, dignity and certainty. In a recent UK trial, audio and tactile-accessible voting solutions enabled 93% of participants to vote independently and in secret. Currently, however, these modest solutions are not routinely available at our polling stations. As it is, the law puts the onus on the blind and partially sighted person to pre-book their vote by making contact with the electoral authority and requesting specific adaptations—requests that may or may not be granted. The vast majority of blind and partially sighted people do not know these provisions exist or what adaptations to request.
The barriers facing voters with sight loss also extend beyond the polling station. That is why this Bill also calls for a review of our postal voting system, which many blind voters feel pushed towards because of the inaccessibility of polling stations. However, the same issues of independence and privacy are present: 68% of blind postal voters told the RNIB they had assistance from another person to enable them to vote. One respondent told the RNIB:
“I avoid voting in person because my local polling station doesn’t have a clue what to do with me. Now I use postal voting but have to rely on my partner completing my voting form so it isn’t confidential, nor can I guarantee they tick the boxes I ask them to. I just have to trust them.”
While voting in this country continues to rely on an inaccessible paper-based system, in Australia they have introduced a human-assisted telephone voting model, whereby a blind or partially sighted person can pre-register so that on the day of the election they can vote over the phone anonymously and in secret.
Reflecting best practice from other countries, this Bill demands a proactive and accelerated approach to tackling the barriers to voting that disabled people face. This Bill is ultimately a recognition that elections can and must be made accessible to everyone. An accessible voting system is essential for the health of our democracy, and this Bill is a vital step to correcting an injustice and building a democracy where voters such as John are not left behind. I urge the House to support this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Ms Julie Minns, Steve Darling, Jim Shannon, Mims Davies, Neil Duncan-Jordan, Paul Davies, Liam Conlon, Katrina Murray, Irene Campbell, James Naish, Lee Pitcher and Deirdre Costigan present the Bill.
Ms Julie Minns accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March, and to be printed (Bill 166).
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Money)
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.
The Government are of the view that the Bill is a matter for Parliament rather than the Government to decide. In order for the Public Bill Committee that is now scrutinising the Bill to consider the clause that would have spending implications, the Government must first table this money resolution. This is purely to allow the Bill to be debated in Committee, and the Government have taken the view that tabling this motion does not act against our commitment to remain neutral. Only the Government can table such motions, so tabling it allows further debate to happen. To assist that debate, the Government will also assess the impacts of the Bill, and we expect to publish the impact assessment before MPs consider the Bill on Report.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Minister, Dr Kieran Mullan.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I am conscious of the limited time available and so will keep my remarks focused. I appreciate that it is not commonplace for Front Benchers to speak at length on money resolutions, but this is not commonplace legislation. I reiterate that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have taken a neutral stance on the merits of the Bill, both in principle and in detail. The House has expressed its support for the introduction of assisted dying, and Members are currently considering the Bill in detail before it is presented back to the whole House for further consideration. The money resolution is a necessary part of associated legislation. Proponents of the Bill will welcome the Government bringing this forward, as it is not unheard of for Governments to withhold these resolutions in a manner that delays the progress of legislation.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There are concerns from those of us who voted against the assisted dying Bill. I understand the process, and how it works with the money resolution coming forward, but on the day that this was finalised I asked a question, and the make-up of the Committee was 15 of those who voted for the Bill, and nine who voted against. A secrecy process has now been brought into the Bill, and we do not know what is happening. That is against the rules of this House. The second thing they have done is the issue of withdrawing the opinion of the judges, which is also out of order.
Dr Mullan
I hope that the hon. Member will appreciate that the money resolution is narrow in scope—I will perhaps bring the attention of the House to some tangentially related issues when it comes to the role of the Government in these proceedings.
As I said, proponents of the Bill will be glad of the progress that has been made, but this motion brings into sharp focus the fact that at some point the Government will need to fund, organise and provide assisted dying services to reflect any legislation that receives Royal Assent. As the Minister said, the money resolution will provide the legal basis for funding that service. I recognise that we are not yet at the stage when the Government can say with certainty what exactly those services and their associated funding will look like. There is time still for changes to be made, and we should not of course make an absolute assumption that any Bill will pass all its stages, as likely as that is, given the will of Parliament as expressed to date.
As the Bill proceeds, it will become increasingly important, and helpful to Members voting on future stages, to begin to have some idea of how the civil service and Ministers are envisioning enacting the legislation, not least in relation to the matter of resources before us today. The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) estimated that up to 3% of adults may eventually choose assisted dying. In 2023 there were 577,620 adult deaths in England and Wales. If 3% of those were assisted dying cases, that would result in about 17,000 cases annually. Those are not insignificant numbers, and Members will recognise the considerable existing challenges with resources and personnel in the relevant areas of spending.
Although this is not a Government Bill, the Lord Chancellor has ultimate responsibility for ensuring the effective functioning of our legal system and judiciary, as does the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for the delivery of this service, and how that will balance and interact with the other health services provided. I therefore have a small number of questions relating to resources, which I hope the Minister agrees will assist the House in better understanding how the Government are approaching such matters.
If information is not forthcoming today, it is crucial that the Minister sets out, in slightly more detail than he did earlier, at what point the Government will engage more fully with the detail of how they intend to resource the Bill, and start sharing their considerations. First, have the Government produced at the very least internal estimates of a potential range of the costs of delivering an assisted dying service, for both the NHS and the judiciary? If they have, will they share that with the House today? If they have not produced internal estimates, when do they anticipate doing so, and when do they intend to publish such estimates?
Secondly, have the Government identified potential sources of funding for the service? If they have, will that funding come from existing departmental budgets, or will it be allocated from outside currently allocated funding? In the latter case, where will those additional resources be drawn from? If the Government have not yet produced options for Ministers to consider on these questions, when will they do so, and when will they share them with the House?
Questions of resources relate to the impact on existing services of any decisions that the money resolution enables. The closer we come to the closing stages of the Bill, particularly ahead of any final parliamentary vote on a settled set of proposals, the more important it will be that Members get the benefit of answers to those questions, which can only come from the Government. It is important to say that it is perfectly legitimate for Members to decide that a better understanding of these issues is not an absolute necessity, and it will be for Members to decide whether they are happy to support legislation purely on principle. That may well be the position for many Members of the House, but I think most would agree that it would be preferable to be able to vote with, at very least, possible approaches and assessments of these matters, even if not definitive answers.
In conclusion, these are not merely procedural or technical issues. The Government’s tabling of this motion signals an acceptance that, should the Bill become law, the financial costs will need to be met, and that will not be a minor area of expenditure. This House has a duty to scrutinise every aspect of the Bill, and I urge the Government to provide a degree of clarity that only they can provide to assist Members in doing that. At this stage there has been a clearly expressed will of Parliament to introduce this service, and it is right for the Government to make legal provision for funding it in principle. However, the Government should enable Members to make decisions at future stages with as good an understanding as possible of how the legislation they may wish to support will translate into the real world.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Members should keep their contributions within scope. This is about the financial implications of the Bill if it is passed, so let us keep contributions within scope.
Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)
On 29 November last year, in a debate widely described as showing Parliament at its best, this House sent the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill into Committee for scrutiny by a majority of 55. It was the clear will of this place that the Bill should be allowed to proceed, in the knowledge that Members will have further opportunities on Report and beyond to decide whether it should be enacted. For that process to continue, the resolution before us today must pass.
Those who oppose the Bill on principle—something they are absolutely entitled to do—are seeking to suggest that there is something extraordinary or improper about this process, and on that they are simply wrong. This is a standard procedure that comes before this House all the time. Without it, there can be no Bill—that, I humbly suggest, is sadly what some people intend. This is not a blank cheque, as some Members have suggested. The right time to discuss the detail of what expenditure may be required is when we know the final shape of the Bill. At that point, if Members are concerned about the expenditure required, or indeed anything else, they can of course vote as they wish.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The hon. Lady says that the right time to discuss the capacity of the judiciary and health service to deliver the Bill is presumably once it has completed its Committee stage, but should the Committee that considers the Bill have the impact assessment that allows it to scrutinise it line by line, mindful of the implications that it might have on our health service and our judiciary?
Kim Leadbeater
I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s question, but I would say that point is slightly out of the scope of the money resolution. However, I think it is a fair point, and I acknowledge that a lot of work is being done, as the Government said it would be, to look at the workability and operability of the Bill. I am working closely with Departments on those issues, and those conversations will continue, alongside the work of the Committee. I hope that provides him with some reassurance.
The other point is that I have never sought to stifle debate on the Bill or this really important issue; quite the contrary. I value it and I welcome it, but I do ask that it continues to be conducted in the same respectful and considered manner as on Second Reading. Where we disagree, let us do so with respect and without questioning each other’s motives or integrity.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on how she has conducted this important debate. On stifling debate, does she share my hope that there will be no vote against the money resolution, because such a vote would end debate? While there was a strong vote in support of the Bill, there were many strong arguments for amendment and there was opposition. Does she agree that that debate needs to happen as the Bill proceeds and not be stifled and ended today?
Kim Leadbeater
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Having done such a powerful job of debating this issue on Second Reading, it is crucial that we continue that debate in the right manner, as Parliament voted to do. It would be wrong for anything that happens today to put a stop to that debate and those discussions.
Let us not forget that the public are watching our deliberations carefully and that the issue we are discussing means a huge amount to many people. It is extremely serious and, for many, hugely emotive. We owe it to our constituents to treat it with the seriousness it deserves. I ask Members to consider carefully what it would say about us as a Parliament if such an important debate were to be curtailed as a result of procedural manoeuvring, which, sadly, is what I worry is being attempted by some colleagues today.
The money resolution is not about the pros and cons or the detail of the Bill; it will simply allow for proper scrutiny—including of any cost involved—to continue, and mean that the Bill Committee can begin its important work. I urge Members to support the resolution.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
To ensure that as many colleagues as possible can get in during the time allowed, there will be a speaking limit of four minutes.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) is right that this is not unprecedented; in fact, it is the normal procedure for a money resolution relating to a private Member’s Bill to be debated ahead of Report. That is not true of Government Bills, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, it is really important that we examine the detail of what we are presented with today, which is an open-ended commitment. The wording makes it absolutely clear that
“any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and…any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act”,
money is so provided. The hon. Lady says that this is not a blank cheque, but it cannot get much more blank than that. Essentially, any moneys associated with the Bill—if it becomes an Act—will be provided.
Pertinent to this vote, we have to ask the question: where will that money come from? Presumably it can come only from existing resource, and one assumes palliative care; it will not come from A&E, surgical treatments or GPs, so it will presumably come from that source. One does not know, of course, but it is perfectly reasonable to ask that question.
Sir John Hayes
I will in a second.
On the judicial point, I simply say to the hon. Lady that the establishment of a judicial competence to deal with this system will be resource-hungry. To offer her a parallel example, when I took the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 through the House, we established what was then described as a double lock—it became a triple lock—which required a whole new judicial function to make it happen. It may well be that the same applies in this case, with immense cost and immense pressure on an already overstretched judiciary.
Therefore, in considering those precise matters—not the ethics of the Bill, which are an entirely different consideration, and highly questionable—it is absolutely right and pertinent to ask what this will cost, when, and how it will be delivered. Those questions have not been answered. I scanned the hon. Lady’s speech on Second Reading, and it contained no mention of scale or cost. That is why I am immensely sceptical about what we have before us. While I accept that the money resolution is not unprecedented, it is certainly not desirable.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
A major argument in the debate on assisted dying has been about making it accessible to all, rather than only those who can afford to travel to access it. The argument is made about dignity in dying. I struggle to see the fairness, however, in pursuing spend to allow dignity in dying when we struggle to fund dignity in other areas of the NHS. I am sure that many midwives and those who have been through pregnancy and birth in recent years will agree that severely underfunded maternity services can lead to experiences completely lacking in dignity for mothers. The impact can last throughout the life of a family. In September 2024, the Care Quality Commission found that almost two thirds of inspected maternity units were unsafe to birth in.
We likewise know that the dignity offered to disabled people, those receiving palliative care and those in supported living is often far less than they deserve. One of the biggest flaws in the Bill, therefore, is the money resolution. I do not see how we can sign a blank cheque to guarantee dignity only in death when dignity in all parts of life is still so desperately in need of resources, and equally deserving.
Maya Ellis
I will not, if that is all right. Sorry.
At the other end of the spectrum, we need to be acutely aware that we are not today expanding overall budgets in the NHS, so what we agree to in this money resolution will put further strain on our already stretched NHS. That means that, for example, St Catherine’s hospice in my constituency, which already requires private fundraising for almost 80% of its income, will have further NHS funding pulled away to accommodate publicly funded assisted dying. It is prudent for us to make clear what we put at risk if we vote through the Bill, having agreed this money resolution. The resolution means that money for palliative care will likely be diminished. The House should consider that in the next stages of the Bill, given what it is supposedly designed to alleviate.
Finally, let us make it clear what we are agreeing to today. I have asked a few times, and never really got a clear answer, why making assisted dying legal has to go hand in hand with a commitment to funding assisted dying on the NHS. Most of us, including me, fiercely protect the idea of an NHS that is free at the point of use, but we risk maternity services encouraging women to pursue induced births rather than planned caesareans, partly because of resource limitations in the NHS. I caution against an agreement to spend money on guaranteeing dignity in dying when we lag so far behind on guaranteeing dignity in birth, and in many other areas.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I rise to support the money resolution, broadly for two reasons. The first is the significant risk to the reputation of the House. One of the greatest criticisms of this place is that we play games and do not take these issues seriously. We all accept that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) said, a money resolution is normally a technicality for private Members’ Bills. If the Bill fell at this moment, we would not only deny debate to those Members who expressed either soft opposition or soft support for it on Second Reading, but strike a hammer blow to millions of people in the United Kingdom who are looking to us for a sense of leadership and clarity on this issue.
I hope that there will not be a Division today, but if there is, I urge Members to vote in favour of the resolution. Those Members thinking of voting against should bear in mind that the message that would go out from this place would be that a matter of life and death—a matter fundamental to many people, and on which there are profound feelings on both sides of the debate, as we have seen—can be dismissed on the basis of a casual, technical vote on a quiet Wednesday afternoon. That would be a bit of a travesty. I hope that Members realise what is reputationally at risk.
Secondly, there is broad misunderstanding of what the Bill is designed to do. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) said, in effect, that the money resolution offers a blank cheque. Well, the rest of the NHS is already a blank cheque. Over the years, things have evolved in such a way that Parliament gives Government Ministers permission, through estimates, to make judgments about how they prioritise spending on the services for which they are responsible; and the Chancellor makes judgments about spending for Departments. If this House starts micromanaging spending—saying what the Government should spend on particular drugs, treatments, crimes or interventions—we will end up in an unholy mess. I have yet to hear anyone in this House object, for example, to the creation of a new criminal offence on the grounds that it would be more costly for the police. I have yet to hear anyone in this House object to the NHS prescribing a new drug because it will be costly for the health service.
We must remember that the people we are talking about—the dying individuals who may want to make this choice at the end of their life—are already receiving treatment in the national health service. They are already reliant on expensive care services, drugs and so on, as well as social support mechanisms that cost the taxpayer. It is, of course, important that we see the overall impact assessment, but we should not pretend that the status quo is cost-free, because it is costly—not only in monetary terms, but in terms of humanity. We should not forget that we are attempting to put a price on quality of life, and on mercy at the end of life. I urge Members to reflect on that and support this motion.
Finally, let me address the misunderstanding by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). There was no attempt yesterday to create any air of secrecy about consideration of the Bill in Committee. There was a brief period in which we had hoped to have an informal discussion about witnesses, before the public sitting resumed, which is normal for Bill Committees in these circumstances. Unfortunately, that has been misconstrued, but I guarantee that the rest of proceedings will be open for the public to view.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) has led this important debate with openness and transparency at all times, and has treated all views with dignity and respect. She is acutely aware of the strongly held beliefs on both sides of this debate. Many right hon. and hon. Members expressed the concern that there was not enough time to debate the Bill. It is important to ensure the maximum amount of debate on this important Bill, and to ensure that all views are heard. The public wish to hear a considered view from all parliamentarians in this place, and we owe it to them to ensure that the debate continues, while treating each other with dignity and respect, just as we did last November, when we saw this place as its very best.
A money resolution is standard for any Bill put forward by the Government or an MP. The wording is identical to any other money resolution for any other Bill. It is important that all Members are clear that this debate is not about the merits or otherwise of the Bill, and it would be incredibly disappointing if any Member sought to use it as such.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Does there not appear to be some confusion about the motion? It clearly says that this procedural motion has to be laid before the House
“for the purposes of any Act resulting from”
the scrutiny and debate that is to come. If hon. Members on either side of the debate, and on either side of the House, having considered the final version of the Bill, think that it should not be agreed to for monetary reasons, will not that be the time to vote no to the Bill?
Paula Barker
I will come to that point shortly. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has sought every opportunity to be inclusive, and has sought a wide range of views, because she knows the value of all voices being heard. If the resolution does not pass today, the Bill cannot progress. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that that is not what the House voted for in November, and it is certainly not what our constituents want.
Three full days of oral evidence from 50 witnesses will begin next week. That will be followed by at least eight full days of scrutiny. None of that will proceed if the resolution is voted down today. I appeal to Members across this place, regardless of their views, to let us have the long overdue, open and transparent debate that will enable Members to formulate a final opinion on the Bill, irrespective of what that may be. To stifle it would be to stifle democracy. We must remember that democracy is a slow process of stumbling to the right decision, instead of going straight to the wrong one.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
Let me start by saying that I am in in favour of the motion, so I will vote for it, if it comes to that. However, would the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) and the Minister consider the inclusion of two social workers on the group, made up of two GPs and a High Court judge, that assesses requests for assisted dying?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Your contribution has to be within the scope of what we are discussing, which is the financial organisation of the Bill.
Brian Mathew
There would be added expense. Social workers are trained in understanding family dynamics, and need desperately to be involved in these situations.
Kim Leadbeater
I take that point on board. I had a very productive meeting with the Association of Palliative Care Social Workers yesterday, and we had a useful conversation on that issue.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I would like to raise a couple of practical and principled concerns about the finances around assisted dying. First, on the practical, I welcome the comment from my hon. Friend the Minister that there will be an impact assessment in due course. However, until we see it, we have no idea what the measure will cost. We are being asked to approve a blank cheque for assisted dying. We have heard that the NHS is a blank cheque, but the NHS has a clearly defined budget. At this point, we do not have any sense of what the Bill will cost. If that were the case for any other legislation, we would be shouting about it.
The Bill represents a profound change to the very nature of our healthcare system, and we are simply guessing at the cost. That is not good for the Bill Committee’s ability to scrutinise, and not good for this place, or for the democratic and legislative process. In order to legislate well, we need a firm commitment. I am glad to have heard that the impact assessment will be published before Report. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) that the motion is routine, and I accept that. However, the consequences are extraordinary, and that is why this is an important moment.
On the principle, whatever the cost, once it is assessed, and despite the Government’s recent financial boost for the hospice sector, palliative care is massively underfunded. The postcode lottery in the provision of end of life care has led to some of the horror stories that we heard on Second Reading. The hospice sector has only 30% of its funding provided by central Government, so this technical stage represents a commitment to taking potentially scarce funding from end of life care and allocating it to ending lives.
David Smith
I do not have time. That opens up the dark possibility of a race to the bottom—to looking for savings in the health and social care budget. Any Government would be tempted, where cost saving is a possibility, to push assisted dying as a cost-saving measure; we have seen that in jurisdictions such as Canada.
Finally, let me say this with humility and respect to my hon. Friends on my left. I fear that the Bill will lead to the marketisation of death and dying. We have learned from other jurisdictions that many medical services and clinicians do not want to be part of the delivery of assisted dying, for reasons of principle or because they fear that they will be sued. Independent private health organisations will have to take over to fill the space. Those businesses will have shareholders and annual reports. They will be driven by the desire to maximise profit, with death for the bottom line. They will advertise and seek to expand their market share.
David Smith
I am sorry; I am almost finished. This could seem like a tangential point to make on a money resolution, but, to summarise this and my other points, I fear the consequences of the relationship between money—this resolution in particular—and assisted dying. Although I will not be voting against this resolution, because I believe in the democratic process, I think we seriously need to consider the relationship between money and this Bill.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Unfortunately, this debate and the circumstances of this money resolution are a manifest example of the concerns I have raised about this Bill and the process of taking it forwards. Many Members talk about debate, and it is important that this issue is debated; however, what is critical is scrutiny—ensuring that we can properly scrutinise the Bill, the work that is put into a very complicated area of law, and what would be, if the Bill were to pass, a manifest change in the relationship between the state and its citizens.
This money resolution is in the name of a Treasury Minister, the response at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading was from a Justice Minister, and we have a Health Minister here today. We cannot say whether the Bill will be paid for by the Ministry of Justice, and what the liability will be. What is the health liability? How much will be in private hands, and how much will not? What about legal aid? There are all these spin-out costs from the Bill.
As a parliamentarian, I like to scrutinise. I want to see impact assessments; I want to see what the spending that I am being asked to vote for looks like, yet we do not have that information. Members have said that the Bill will come back on Report, and the Government are in a hokey-cokey position: sort of in, sort of out—what’s it all about? I am sorry, but I do not think that is good enough for something of such importance to our constituents and for Parliament to get right.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
Last summer’s Labour manifesto included the words
“Fully costed, fully funded—built on a rock of fiscal responsibility”,
and they were words on which I was proud to be elected. Money resolutions are normally a formality, but not this one—not today. This resolution asks us to give a blank cheque to this Bill, which makes me nervous, because that sounds like something that we in this changed Labour party just do not do. When we put forward a proposal for public spending, we know how we will fund it.
Antonia Bance
No, I will not.
In the case of this Bill, we not only do not know how much it will cost or how it will be paid for, but we do not even know what the money will be spent on. Let us think of the questions that we do not know the answers to. What will be the cost of NHS doctors attending the final appointment and waiting while their patient dies? What will be the cost of a second doctor to sign off? What drugs will be used, and how much will they cost? Will assisted dying happen in hospitals, in hospices or in new, purpose-built facilities? How many will there be, and where?
Antonia Bance
No.
How much will those facilities cost? There are even bigger questions, too. Will this be an NHS service, or will we be contracting private providers? If it is an NHS service, which of my constituents will have to wait longer for an operation or a GP appointment because this Parliament will today authorise massive, unspecified spending in our cash-strapped NHS?
Antonia Bance
I will not—I have only a little time.
It is not just the health system that will take on new costs. Our civil courts are groaning under the strain of years of Tory underfunding, although my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary is doing a brilliant job of putting our court system back to rights. However, this Bill will impose new unfunded and unknown costs on our courts. It blithely assumes that judges and courts will be available, yet the waiting time for a family court case at the moment is 10 months. That just will not work for the Bill. How much will the extra spending on courts cost?
Antonia Bance
I will not.
Those are all reasonable questions, and this House deserves to have many more answers than it has so far been able to get. According to the Hansard Society,
“To table a money motion, the Government must therefore assess how much money will be required and have some idea about where the funding will come from, although it is not required to set this out in the motion itself.”
That information is not in the motion, so will Ministers make that assessment available and set out where the funding will come from? I am glad to hear we have a timetable for the impact assessment, but it would be good also to see the delegated powers memorandum, given the scale of powers delegated to Ministers in the Bill.
Alongside others, the Minister is a member of the Public Bill Committee, and I thank him and all members of the Committee for their work on behalf of this House, scrutinising and seeking wisdom. I particularly thank the Minister for upholding the neutrality of this Government and our party towards the Bill in his acts on the Committee and in this House.
Those of us with concerns will not push this resolution to a vote today. I know that colleagues are desperate for there to be procedural game playing, but there is no such thing; there are in principle concerns and questions about practicalities. I do hope for some answers to my questions.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Can we just state what is really quite obvious? This House has voted for further debate in order to make workable and legally watertight legislation, and with that debate will come a full understanding of the resources needed for both England and Wales. Of course, in Wales, health is devolved and justice is reserved, and we need to understand the implications for that.
What has been a bit of an eye-opener for me, as a member of the Bill Committee—it is, of course, a larger Bill Committee for a private Member’s Bill than ever before—is the sense of the way in which this place operates. We have been given the role of producing workable legislation as best we can, on the advice of witnesses—there is a part of me that would like the Committee to receive more witnesses, but I am very aware that we have to move ahead with what we have been charged with doing: namely, producing that workable legislation—but we will not arrive today, next week or after we have heard from our witnesses at a complete, perfect, already-made understanding of what we need to do to make correct and workable legislation. For those things to be in place today, the House would need estimates and information that the Bill Committee has been charged with providing, which it will not be able to provide until we have heard the advice from the witnesses we are calling forward to give us a sense of what the resource needs and associated costs will be.
It will then be the duty of us all on Report and on Third Reading to ensure that the money and resources are sufficient for the legislation to be workable. With that in mind, I support this motion.
Daisy Cooper
Members in this House who have spoken against the money resolution say they are doing so because they have so many unanswered questions about the costs. Does the right hon. Lady agree that if Members vote against the resolution, they will never get those answers? That is precisely why the Bill should move forwards.
Liz Saville Roberts
Let us imagine what the public would make of our role in this place if this legislation were to fall at this point.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We are going to drop the speech limit to three minutes.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Colleagues will know that I put forward a reasoned amendment on Second Reading. In that amendment, and in my speech in that debate, I set out some of my concerns about how the private Member’s Bill process does not allow for sufficient scrutiny to develop complex legislation on such a sensitive matter. Indeed, such a once-in-a-generation approach to suicide, death and dying and these changes need to be looked at independently and in a formal public consultation.
This House was given reassurances, both by the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), and the Leader of the House, in the light of which some colleagues voted for the Bill on Second Reading to allow the process to proceed. As part of that, reassurances were given about an impact assessment, which would have included an estimate of costs. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister has given assurances that an impact assessment is forthcoming, but we do not yet have it. As a result, we are very unclear at this point how much assisted dying would cost to implement.
I therefore seek clarification from the Minister and others involved on a number of questions. Will assisted dying be offered free on the NHS? How many people do we estimate will expect to exercise their right under the Bill? There are a wide range of estimates out there, based on overseas jurisdictions.
Anna Dixon
No; I have very little time.
How much will it cost for the additional doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals? How much time will be required to do a proper consultation? What about the lengthy paperwork? Will new clinics be set up, or will existing facilities be repurposed? What will be the costs of the lethal drugs? What about the oversight by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and other regulators? What about the training for healthcare professionals involved in the process, and the cost of oversight by the chief medical officer and the Registrar General, and any new data systems required?
It is clear that palliative and end of life care is in desperate need of investment; some 100,000 people die each year who could benefit from end of life care but do not receive it. If assisted dying is to be implemented, it is essential that there is equitable and free access to hospice care, so how much additional funding would be provided to hospices for palliative and end of life care under this money resolution or from elsewhere?
I fully support this Government’s commitment to fixing the NHS, establishing a national care service and providing additional investment, as they have already shown, to hospices. However, I would like the Minister to provide clarification to assist our understanding because, given our inheritance from the Conservative party, I am concerned like others that funding for assisted dying risks diverting essential resources away from end of life care, other NHS services and social care. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
There is no more important function for Members of this House than that of being the guardians of public money. It is very hard to equate the performance of that function with signing a blank cheque, and yet that is what we are being asked to do today. One thing is abundantly clear: if this Bill passes, it will bring with it a huge financial burden in perpetuity.
Jim Allister
I would be happy to do so in a moment.
It is quite clear that the measures will impose huge costs on the health and justice budgets. Given the provisions in the Bill, is it impossible for that not to be the consequence, so when the Treasury Minister produces the financial information, will he include current Government expenditure on palliative care and suicide prevention, so that we can look at and balance what we are spending? The Bill invites the Government to move from funding charities to prevent suicide to becoming facilitators and providers of suicide.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Allister, we must confine our remarks to the money resolution for the Bill.
Jim Allister
Madam Deputy Speaker, I was seeking to do that by asking the Treasury Minister to give us a comparison. What is this Bill going to cost our health service and justice system? How does that compare with what we are already spending on palliative care and suicide prevention? Those are pertinent questions and we need the answers.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
It is mind-blowing that there is no money to pay for winter fuel payments or to support the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign, yet the House is about to approve the provision of a bottomless pot of money to create a state-funded, gold-plated assisted suicide service.
Jim Allister
I agree. We all have our views on the merits of the Bill, but fundamentally we have a duty to our constituents to handle public money properly. In handling that money, we must know how much the Bill will cost. When it comes to that financial statement, it must not be fudged or opaque; it must be absolutely clear and it must—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I must now call the Minister.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I thank Members for their continued contribution to the debate. The Government are of the view that the Bill is an issue of conscience for individual parliamentarians and it is rightly a matter for Parliament, not the Government, to decide. The money resolution allows the Bill to be debated in Committee, where its detail will continue to be scrutinised. As I have said, the Government will also be assessing the impact of the Bill and we expect to publish an impact assessment before MPs consider the Bill on Report. I therefore commend the money resolution to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) made a comment that I feel impinged upon my integrity. I have spoken to the right hon. Gentleman and he knows what I am referring to. I underlined and highlighted that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Committee went into private session; some 15 Members, who support the Bill, voted for the private session and nine Members, who oppose the Bill, voted against the private session. The record must be corrected about what the right hon. Gentleman said about the comments I made about that. Facts are facts; they matter to me, as does my integrity.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Thank you, Mr Shannon, for letting me know you would be making a point of order. The Chair is not responsible for the content of Member’s speeches, but I remind the House of the advice in Erskine May on the importance of good temper and moderation in parliamentary language.
Kit Malthouse
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There was no intent in my remarks to undermine the integrity of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I may have misunderstood his remarks, but he implied that the Committee was adopting some kind of veil of secrecy over our affairs and I was pointing out to him that, in my view, that was a misunderstanding of what we were attempting to do yesterday. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman was offended, as he knows I hold him in great affection and I had no intention to do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Thank you, Mr Malthouse. I can see Mr Shannon nodding, so hopefully your apology has been accepted.
Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill will enhance the UK’s resolution regime by giving the Bank of England a more flexible toolkit to respond to bank failures. The Bill creates a recapitalisation mechanism that ensures that certain costs of managing the failure of banking institutions do not fall to the taxpayer. It strengthens protections for public funds and financial stability, while supporting the competitiveness and growth of the UK financial sector by avoiding placing new up-front costs on the banking sector. It is therefore an important Bill that underpins this Government’s vision to promote growth and economic stability.
The policy in the Bill builds on the proposals set out in consultation by the previous Government. I thank the previous Government—I do not always do that, by the way—for the work they did with the Bank of England on the consultation and on the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank UK, back in March 2023. The Bill provides the Bank of England with greater flexibility to manage the failure of small banks, and thereby embeds lessons learned from the volatility in the UK banking sector in 2023, notably that arising from the failure of SVB UK. I hope, given their origins, that these proposals will be welcomed by hon. Members from across the House.
The resolution regime was created by the Banking Act 2009 in the wake of the global financial crisis. It provides the Bank of England with a set of tools to manage the failure of financial institutions in a way that limits risks to financial stability, public funds and the UK economy. The regime was introduced in recognition of the global consensus that reforms were needed to end “too big to fail” and to ensure that, where necessary, financial institutions can be supported to fail in an orderly fashion. This regime has been developed and steadily added to by a series of successive governments over the past decade. That work has given the UK a robust regime that reflects relevant international standards and supports the UK’s role and reputation as a leader in financial regulation, enhancing confidence in our financial system and making the UK a more secure and attractive place in which to invest.
The resolution regime was last used to resolve Silicon Valley Bank UK, the UK subsidiary of the US firm that collapsed in March 2023. The Bank of England used its transfer powers under the Banking Act 2009 to effect the sale of Silicon Valley Bank UK to HSBC. That delivered good outcomes for financial stability, customers and taxpayers. All the bank’s customers were able to continue accessing their bank accounts and other facilities, and all deposits remained safe, secure and accessible. The Bank of England achieved the continuity of banking services, and maintained public confidence in the stability of the UK financial system.
The case of Silicon Valley Bank UK demonstrated the effectiveness and robustness of the resolution regime. However, as would be appropriate following any bank failure, the Treasury, the Bank of England and their international counterparts reflected carefully following this period of banking sector volatility, and following that reflection, the Government concluded that there was a case for a targeted enhancement to give the Bank of England greater flexibility to manage the failure of smaller banks such as Silicon Valley Bank UK.
At this point, I should explain that the Bank of England generally expects to place failing small banks into insolvency under the bank insolvency procedure, because their failures are not generally expected to meet the conditions that must be satisfied for the Bank of England to exercise its resolution powers. One of those conditions is that winding up the bank would not achieve the resolution objectives to the same extent as they would be achieved through the use of the resolution powers. Those objectives include protecting UK financial stability, covered depositors and public funds. When a failing firm enters insolvency, its eligible depositors are paid out up to £85,000 each within seven days by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, with higher limits for temporary high balances. This compensation is funded initially through a levy on the banking sector, and then, to the extent possible, recovered from the estate of the failed firm.
As was seen in the case of the Silicon Valley Bank, it is the Government’s view that in some cases of small bank failure, the public interest and resolution objectives are better served by the use of the resolution powers than by placing the firm into insolvency. Smaller banks are not required to hold additional funds and liabilities that could be bailed in during a resolution, so in a case in which a small bank does need to be resolved, additional capital may be required to support a successful resolution. For example, funds may be required for the bank in resolution to meet the minimum capital requirements for authorisation, or to sustain market confidence. At present, these recapitalisation costs have to be borne by public funds. The Government believe that that situation should be avoided to protect taxpayers from bearing those costs, and I hope that the Opposition agree; we shall see very shortly. To that end, the Bill aims to strengthen the protections for public funds when a small bank is placed into resolution.
Overall, this is a prudent set of reforms to ensure that the resolution regime continues to effectively limit risks to financial stability and, indeed, to taxpayers. The Bill does not make widespread changes to a regime that is working well, and it is important to emphasise that the bank insolvency procedure will continue to play an important role in managing the failure of small banks. That said, the Bill reflects the Government’s belief that a targeted set of changes is needed to ensure that, if necessary, existing resolution powers can be applied to small banks to achieve good outcomes for financial stability, while also protecting taxpayers. It achieves that by introducing a new recapitalisation mechanism, which allows the Bank of England to use funds provided by the banking sector to cover certain costs associated with resolving a failing banking institution.
The Bill does four main things. First, it expands the statutory functions of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, giving the Bank of England the power to require the FSCS to provide it with funds to be used to support the resolution of a failing bank. Secondly, it allows the FSCS to recover the funds provided to the Bank by charging levies on the banking sector. This mirrors the arrangements for funding payouts to covered depositors in insolvency, with the exception of the treatment of credit unions, to which I will return. Thirdly, the Bill gives the Bank of England an express ability to require a bank in resolution to issue new shares, facilitating the use of industry funds to meet a failing bank’s recapitalisation costs. Finally, following constructive debate in the other place, the Bill sets out a number of accountability measures that apply when the Bank of England uses the recapitalisation mechanism.
The Bill consists of eight clauses to deliver those key components. Clause 1 inserts a new section into the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which introduces the new mechanism. It allows the Bank of England to require the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to provide the Bank with funds when using its resolution powers to transfer a failing firm to a private sector purchaser or bridge bank. It sets out what these funds can be used for, namely to cover the costs of recapitalising the firm and the expenses of the Bank of England or “relevant persons” in taking the resolution action. “Relevant persons”, for this purpose, means the Treasury, or a bridge bank or asset management vehicle operated by the Bank of England. The clause also allows the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to recover the funds provided through levies.
Clause 2 sets out the reporting requirements for the Bank of England when it uses the recapitalisation mechanism, added to the Bill by the Government in the other place. The Bank must report to the Chancellor on the use of the recapitalisation mechanism and the stabilisation option that it was used in connection with. The Treasury can specify the content and timing of these reports, although if a final report is not produced within three months, the Bank of England must produce an interim report within that three-month period. The Chancellor must lay all reports before Parliament, although the clause allows discretion to omit any information that it would not be in the public interest to publish.
Clause 3, added by the Government in the other place, requires the Bank of England to notify the Chairs of the relevant parliamentary Committees in this House and the other place—the Treasury Committee in the House of Commons, and the Financial Services Regulations Committee in the House of Lords—as soon as reasonably practicable after using the mechanism. Clause 4 requires the Bank of England to reimburse the Financial Services Compensation Scheme for any funds it provides that were not needed. Clause 5, also added by the Government in the other place, states that the Treasury must include guidance on the contents of reports on use of the mechanism in the code of practice, a statutory document that the Treasury must publish and to which the Bank of England must have regard, which explains how the resolution regime is intended to work in practice.
Clauses 6 and 7 make several consequential amendments to reflect the introduction of the new mechanism. Clause 6 primarily ensures that existing provisions relating to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme apply to the new mechanism in the same way. The most substantive provision specifies that the FSCS cannot levy credit unions to recoup funds provided under this mechanism, and was added to the Bill before its introduction to Parliament in response to valid concerns raised by industry. In clause 7, which contains mostly technical consequential amendments, the most substantive change gives the Bank of England the power to require a failing firm to issue new shares. That will make it easier for the Bank of England to use the funds provided by the FSCS to recapitalise the firm, by using the funds to buy the new shares. Clause 8 deals with procedural matters, including the provision that the Treasury may make regulations to commence the provisions in the Bill. I am grateful to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for shepherding the Bill through its successful passage in the other place. As I have mentioned, the Government made a number of amendments to the Bill in the other place following constructive debate, feedback and engagement. They include the insertion of the requirements for the Bank of England to report to the Treasury and notify parliamentary committees. The Government also amended the Bill to ensure that there was clarity over whose expenses could be covered by funds provided through the mechanism. In addition, the Government published a number of important documents during the early stages of the Bill’s passage, including a draft update to their code of practice setting out how the mechanism is expected to be used in practice.
There remains one area of the Bill that will require the attention of this House, namely the question of the scope of the mechanism—that is, which firms the Bank of England can use the mechanism on to support their failure. This was heavily debated in the other place, and reflects concerns about the risk of the mechanism being used on a wide range of firms, with the potential for large levies as a consequence. Those concerns led to an amendment to the Bill, intended to exclude from the scope of the mechanism those banks that already hold the full set of equity and debt resources—the so-called MREL, or minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities—necessary to manage their own failure. The intent was to limit the scope to banks that are not required to hold additional capital resources, or banks that have not yet raised the full amount of additional resources to fully support their own failure. As I have alluded to, the Government note and appreciate the concerns being raised on this point, but as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury made clear during the Bill’s passage in the other place, the Government are clear that this Bill is primarily intended for smaller banks. My predecessor made a written statement to the House on 15 October to reiterate this policy position.
However, after careful reflection, the Government continue to believe that some flexibility should remain in the legislation on this point, in order to avoid constraining the Bank of England’s ability to use the mechanism in a highly uncertain crisis scenario. Narrowing the scope would constrain the Bank of England’s optionality, particularly where it might be necessary to supplement the bail-in of a firm’s own resources with additional capital resources. I note that this is considered an unlikely outcome, rather than a central case. Nevertheless, the Government consider it important to avoid constraining that optionality, given that the alternative may be to use public funds. Ultimately, we want to protect the taxpayer. The Government will therefore table an amendment in Committee to remove the constraint on the scope of the application of the new mechanism.
More broadly, I want to express my gratitude to the banking sector, with which the Government have engaged proactively and constructively both before and since the Bill was introduced. The Government appreciate the feedback from industry, and we have reflected on it carefully to ensure that the Bill delivers a proportionate reform. As alluded to earlier, in response to feedback from industry, the Government carved out credit unions from levy contributions to recoup funds provided by the financial services compensation scheme under the recapitalisation mechanism. That was deemed appropriate because credit unions are out of scope of the resolution powers. It would therefore be disproportionate to require them to contribute towards costs under the mechanism.
The Government have also sought to provide reassurances to industry on the impact of this Bill. For example, by modelling the mechanism on the existing funding framework for depositor payouts, industry will be liable to pay levies only after the point of failure, avoiding new up-front costs to firms. Alongside the Bill, the Government also published a cost-benefit analysis that sets out our general expectation that lifetime costs for levy payers will generally be lower under the mechanism outlined in the Bill, compared with insolvency. I note again the draft updates to the code of practice, which the Government have published to provide additional transparency to industry and Parliament on how the mechanism is expected to be used in practice.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am enjoying listening to the Minister’s speech, and I am learning quite a lot. Will she do me and the House a favour by sharing her thoughts on how I can best describe the benefits of this Bill to the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme when I go home tonight? I am sure she knows far better than me.
Emma Reynolds
My hon. Friend flatters me. It is not that easy to explain in simple terms, but I will do my best. Essentially, if a small bank is in trouble, it is better for it not to go into insolvency but instead to go through resolution to protect its depositors. In the case of SVB, only 14% of deposits were covered by the financial services compensation scheme, because the scheme only covers deposits up to the £85,000 threshold. Had public funds been required to facilitate the sale of SVB to another purchaser—in this case it was HSBC, but it could have been another institution—it would have had recourse to public funds. We are seeking to avoid a situation in which taxpayers in all our constituencies are on the hook for the failures of small banks. Where a bank has high-quality assets, which was the case for SVB, we can avoid the insolvency situation and pay out to depositors who have deposits above the £85,000 threshold. That resolution would be funded by the financial services compensation scheme and ultimately the banks, which contribute to the scheme through a levy. I hope that answer helps my hon. Friend—I am sorry that it was a bit long.
Stability is at the heart of the Government’s agenda for economic growth, because when we do not have economic and financial stability, it is working people who pay the price. We have to bear in mind what we are seeking to do, which is ultimately to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to ensure that we do not have to have recourse to public funds.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I welcome this Bill, but can the Minister assure the House that, at all times, the aim of the Government is to minimise the liability of the taxpayer? Where losses have to be sustained, they should be borne first by the shareholders, secondly by the bondholders and perhaps thirdly, and regretfully, by the deposit holders. That should be the order in which losses are sustained.
Emma Reynolds
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who puts it very well. He will know that there was a different order in the case of Credit Suisse, but the then Government said at the time that that would not be their order of priority. We are seeking to protect the taxpayer in this Bill, and he is right: had there been a cost associated with the transfer of SVB, it would have fallen first to those people before falling to the taxpayer. If we pass this legislation, for which I hope there is cross-party support, we will avoid that eventuality, because if we follow the order of priority and get to the financial services compensation scheme, the cost will be paid through a levy on the banks in that scheme. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question.
The resolution regime is a critical source of stability when banks fail, because it ensures that public funds and taxpayer money are protected. This Bill delivers a proportionate and targeted enhancement to the resolution regime to ensure that it continues to provide that important stability. As I said at the start of this debate, it is therefore an important Bill that underpins the Government’s vision for economic growth, and I commend it to the House.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I welcome the new Minister to her place. I think this is her first Bill that she has taken through as Economic Secretary and, interestingly, she is absolutely right. This is one of the frequent occasions on which we will agree on pretty much everything. This Bill was obviously written by the previous Government who, I think we all agree, delivered 14 years of strong and stable government.
Broadly speaking, we will not disagree on this Bill. As the Minister set out in her opening speech, this legislation was born out of the learnings of the failure of Silicon Valley Bank. The failure came out of the US parent company, with a contagion that quickly spread to its UK subsidiary. Although the Bank of England had initially planned to use insolvency procedures, HSBC emerged as a buyer thanks to the tireless work over the course of a weekend in March 2023, and much credit must be given to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), and the former Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). They secured an outcome that has not cost the taxpayer any money at all, and which protected millions of pounds’ worth of customer deposits, primarily in the tech sector. The bank’s customers would face an uncertain financial future were it not for that intervention, so I am sure that the House will join me in commending the action that was taken by the previous Government.
The failure and subsequent transfer of Silicon Valley Bank UK shows how robust our post-2009 banking reforms have become. The Bank of England has used its resolution powers only three times since 2009, and this was the first time since the Southsea Mortgage and Investment Company failed in 2011. It is fair to say that the process worked absolutely as it should have done: the transfer of Silicon Valley Bank UK to HSBC was done in an orderly manner, there was no wider contagion in the banking sector, and withdrawals and panic did not spread to other banks. In short, it demonstrated why the UK is such a financial centre of excellence, and we must continue to champion that point.
However, we can continue to uphold our world-leading reputation only if we review and learn from when the system is stressed in real life. In some ways, we were very fortunate. HSBC was the only credible bidder for Silicon Valley Bank that did not require financial support or guarantees from the Government or the Bank of England. In addition, HSBC’s level of capital and liquidity resources greatly reduced the risk to public funds, delivered stability and boosted market confidence. However, had HSBC not come forward, the only option for the Bank of England was the bank insolvency procedure. This Bill comes out of the subsequent root-and-branch review, and it went for industry consultation under the previous Government. I thank the current Government for supporting it.
The Opposition recognise that some banks may fail due to issues outside their control and should have pathways to continue as a going concern if transferred to another entity, and it is right that the Bank of England has more tools in its arsenal to support the financial system. We are therefore delighted to support the Bill—it is one that we started. As it made progress in the other House, it benefited from considerable scrutiny from noble peers. The successful amendments and new clauses enhanced the Bill and will significantly improve transparency.
This was a point addressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) during the Delegated Legislation Committee on Monday, which finalised the transfer of Silicon Valley Bank UK to HSBC with no compensation to shareholders. He rightly raised some of the unanswered questions on what changed the Bank of England’s decision between announcing that the Silicon Valley Bank UK was going into insolvency procedures on the Friday and being transferred under resolution by the Monday. These additional transparency arrangements will ensure that colleagues in this House remain confident in the independence of the Bank of England. Will the Minister confirm that the Government intend to support those amendments in this House? I would be amazed if he said no, actually.
I will move on to what could be the crux of any potential disagreement. When this Bill was introduced in the other place, there was no limit to the scope of this regime. We can safely categorise our banks into three different groups. First, there are the large-scale institutional banks that have reached the end-state minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities, or MREL, as it is known. Secondly, there are the challenger banks such as Monzo and Starling that are working towards end-state MREL. Finally, there are the smaller banks that do not meet the threshold for MREL, such as Silicon Valley Bank.
The Banking Act 2009 provides a robust framework for dealing with banks that have achieved end-state MREL status, and while there is a sensible argument for saying the new mechanism could provide top-up funding for banks working towards end-state MREL, it is not fair or reasonable to expect the mechanism to be used for the largest banks. The consequences of such a decision could be extremely costly for banks and their customers, and if an institutional bank failed and this mechanism were used to facilitate a transfer, our fear is that there could be a recapitalisation requirement that was many times the annual cap of the financial services compensation scheme. The only decision left to the FSCS would therefore be to borrow from the national loans fund via the Treasury. The ex-post levy set out in this legislation would therefore be charged not only in the year in which the levy was first implemented but potentially for many years thereafter. MREL requirements should ensure the safety of our largest institutions. Bank directors should be ensuring sound compliance of MREL, not taking comfort in the fact that they can fall back on to an ex-post levy of the banking sector in times of trouble.
The Opposition took reassurance from a policy statement that the mechanism would be used for the largest banks only in exceptional circumstances. However, this still left the key question as to why the legislation allowed large-scale banks to trigger the mechanism. In her opening speech, the Minister referred exactly to this. Baroness Vere’s amendment makes it clear that this mechanism cannot be used on the largest banks—those that have achieved end-state MREL. That amendment was opposed by the Government in the other place. I was hoping that the Minister would update the House today on the Government position and she has done that, but we may want to talk about this at greater length. Concerns were also rightly raised by peers that this mechanism, and using resolution to transfer failing banks, should not become the default position of the Bank of England, which is important.
Ultimately, banks are businesses. They have shareholders that bear the responsibility and the burden of risk, and we should not create a system where banks can always expect to fall back on industry-funded life support. The code of practice, alongside this Bill, rightly states that using the insolvency procedure should be the default position. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on whether there could be further need for that to be strengthened in the legislation.
The introduction of this mechanism is another example of a banking industry in strong health. In 2007, it was the taxpayer bailing out the banks. Now we have a system whereby the industry is expected to cover the cost of a failing bank. This raises questions as to whether the Government need to review how we can make the UK banking sector more internationally competitive—we have had an informal chat about this.
Let us take the bank levy as an example. It was introduced for three main reasons. First, it was introduced to help repay the cost of the banking bail-out, and it has raised something in the region of £25 billion since it was first introduced. Second, the bank levy acted as a kind of insurance premium in case the post-financial crisis stability of the banking sector were to falter and fall and there needed to be another bail-out. Finally, it was almost a quasi-punishment to the banking system for the failures that led to the financial crisis. It was there to reassure unhappy shareholders that there were consequences for a sector in which there was bad practice. If we add up the total cost to the UK taxpayer of the financial crisis, it was £137 billion, according to the House of Commons Library, as of 2023. That has been reduced to £33 billion now, so there still is some outstanding cost.
On top of the bank levy, other post-2009 reforms include much more stringent ringfencing and capital requirements. That might not be a subject for this debate, and I am not calling for the bank levy to be abolished, but I would certainly welcome the Minister’s comments on whether there could be scope to review the international competitiveness of the banking sector alongside the Chancellor’s growth agenda. The international competitiveness of the City of London should be an absolute priority for this Government—I believe that it is—yet according to UK Finance’s 2024 banking sector tax report, produced by PwC, UK banks face the highest tax contribution since the study started a decade ago.
In terms of international competitiveness, according to PwC, the total tax burden of a model bank operating in the UK is currently 45.8%. That is significantly higher than our competitors in Frankfurt at 38.6%, in New York at 27.9%, or in Dublin at 28.8%. The City, as I am sure Ministers and the whole House will agree, is an extraordinary asset for this country. For a Government who are seeking a growth agenda, the City is the oil in the engine of that economic growth.
Banks do a very important job, and it is a job of significant social and economic importance. Banks take money from where it has accumulated and distribute it to where it is needed for investment. This is crucial to fairness across our economy and delivering growth. They transfer overnight deposits into 25-year mortgages that provide hope and opportunity for people to bring up their families in safety. So we should not demonise banks, and we must remember that shareholder returns on bank investments are as important as shareholder liability in the event of a failure. We must ensure that there is a good return, given the fact that bank shareholders bear the ultimate risk of losing everything.
This Bill is a shining example of the fact that the banks and regulators are now in a position to keep their industry in order. As I said at the start of this speech, I believe that there is cross-party support for the Bill, and I look forward to working with the Government as these reforms progress through the House. They are magnificent, because of course they came from the previous Government, but I thank the Ministers for continuing with them in the spirit with which they were intended.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I would like to start by welcoming both the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), to their new positions. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West and I go way back, and I am enjoying now being able to address him as a Minister in His Majesty’s Government. I congratulate both of them. I did not quite agree with the shadow Minister’s description of the previous Government as “strong and stable”, but it was certainly worth a try—I mean that in all good spirit, honestly!
I thank the Minister for her speech and for her thorough but accessible explanation of the reach of the Bill. I shall look forward to talking about it with the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme tomorrow on the doorsteps of Town ward, where there is a by-election, which I look forward to the Labour candidate, Sheelagh Casey-Hulme, winning. I will make sure that I share the benefits of this Bill with the voters in my constituency when I knock on their doors tomorrow. This Bill has the good fortune of being supported by both sides of the House. We have heard that from the shadow Minister, so I want to reassure all colleagues that I shall speak very briefly indeed.
I have never received an invitation for a prawn cocktail in the City—although all good things come to those who wait—but the Bill and the issues contained in it are important and I am pleased to be here to speak in favour of them today. I have just a couple of points that I would like the Minister to touch on in his winding-up speech. Could he set out in greater detail how the payslips of workers in Newcastle-under-Lyme will be protected by the contents of the Bill? My constituents’ finances and livelihoods are obviously my focus, so I welcome anything and everything this Government do to protect and enhance their lives, or to promote growth across the economy. I would welcome anything the Minister can do to provide reassurance both on the growth agenda generally and on the specific benefits of the Bill.
Ahead of this debate, like all keen newbies, I read the Hansard report of the debate in the other place, and I hope Ministers have ensured that the legitimate points raised by the noble Lords were taken on board. I agree with the noble Lord who noted that small banks play a big role in our economy, and I thank the Economic Secretary and the shadow Minister for acknowledging that.
I echo the shadow Minister’s point about the importance of the City, which is an engine of growth that reflects the success of our country and the strength of our economy. However, my focus as the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme is on ensuring that the growth, benefit and skill of that powerful engine reach up the M6 to junction 15, so that my constituents in God’s own county of Staffordshire can benefit from all that the City does.
This is a technical but important Bill, and I am pleased to be here today to give it my support.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
All of our constituents are still feeling the cost of living crisis very acutely, and mortgage holders are still suffering from the misery of the mini-Budget, so the very last thing that taxpayers want to worry about is whether public money will be used to bail out banks that have gone bust. That is why we Liberal Democrats are broadly supportive of the Bill, which we hope will make sure that taxpayers do not have to do so.
A number of improvements were made to the Bill in the other place, as the Economic Secretary alluded to, and we welcome the improved requirements on reporting and accountability. However, as she and the shadow Minister acknowledged, there was a point of contention on the Bill’s scope. Liberal Democrats in the other place supported the successful Opposition amendment to prevent the Bank of England from using this mechanism, which is meant for smaller banks, to support bigger banks that are signed up to a different scheme.
The Economic Secretary said that an updated code of practice has been produced, but it is disappointing to hear that Ministers intend to table an amendment in Committee to try to delete the Lords amendment from the Bill. The Economic Secretary suggested that the purpose of keeping it in the code of practice, rather than on the face of the Bill, is to ensure flexibility in a time of crisis.
I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), to say a word or two about that in summing up, because it strikes me that if this is not on the face of the Bill, it could create uncertainty rather than provide flexibility in a time of crisis. There is a danger that even the suggestion that this mechanism could be used to support a bigger bank could cause chaos, confusion and instability. I encourage Ministers to think again and to ensure that the restriction on the Bill’s scope remains on the face of the Bill.
The Liberal Democrats tabled a further amendment in the other place that sought to create a secondary objective for the Bank of England to consider the competitiveness and growth of the market before directing the recapitalisation of failing small banks through this levy. In effect, the amendment was designed to protect against unintended consequences. Obviously, it could be a catastrophe if the Bank of England were required to rescue one small bank, even if that act may put others in jeopardy. The intention behind the amendment was to protect against the systemic collapse of the banking system. Will the Minister set out the Government’s objections to that amendment? Can the Government provide assurances about alternative protections that could be put in place to achieve the same goal of protecting against unintended consequences?
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have no desire to detain the House for long, but I have some questions that I hope the Economic Secretary can address, continuing our conversation in the Delegated Legislation Committee earlier this week.
The Economic Secretary and I are both alumni of TheCityUK, so she will know that what financial services want most of all is certainty of regulation and decision making. They need to know that the playing field is level and predictable. While we are all patting ourselves on the back about Silicon Valley Bank, the consensus that everyone did a good job makes me slightly suspicious.
The Bank of England effectively made three decisions during the unravelling of Silicon Valley Bank that I want to put on the Economic Secretary’s desk for her to consider. Is more certainty required from the Bank of England on the triggering of those decisions?
First, the Bank of England denied Silicon Valley Bank short-term funding. SVB UK was solvent, as it would have to be as a UK subsidiary regulated by the Bank of England. It applied for £1.8 billion of short-term funding when it became clear that its parent company was in trouble. That funding was denied by the Bank of England, and I do not think there has ever been any significant examination of why the Bank took that decision.
Obviously, there was a run on Silicon Valley Bank, with depositors seeking to pull out their money, and the bank was unable to honour those withdrawals, which is why it applied for short-term funding. A possible alternative route could have been a temporary freeze on withdrawals and/or the provision of short-term funding, which could have allowed the bank to remain solvent in the UK. Understanding what triggered that decision, and how other banks in similar circumstances might be handled by the Bank of England in future, is key.
Secondly, as the shadow Minister said, the Bank of England initially decided to put Silicon Valley Bank UK into insolvency and rely on the £85,000 depositor guarantee and the £170,000 joint depositor guarantee. We do not know why the Bank changed its mind.
Emma Reynolds
I can tell I am going to enjoy discussing these matters with the right hon. Gentleman. I have looked into this since our exchange on Monday, and I want to clarify what happened on the Friday before the Monday in March 2023. The Bank of England issued a statement on the Friday evening saying that it intended to apply to the court to place SVB UK Ltd into a bank insolvency procedure, absent any meaningful further information. However, a buyer came forward over the weekend, which is what changed between the Friday and the Monday. It was judged to be both in the public interest and in the interest of SVB UK customers that this resolution on the Monday morning was preferable to the insolvency procedure that had been announced on the Friday.
Kit Malthouse
That is useful information about the Bank’s decision making. However, the Bank still decided to go for insolvency prior to a resolution mechanism. I find it hard to see that, within that 36-hour period, it had not canvassed whether there was a market for the bank. My point remains: if I were an investor or an overseas bank trying to establish and invest significant funds in a UK branch, I would like to understand why the Bank of England makes these decisions, and the criteria and parameters by which it is likely to make a decision either way. Then, of course, the final decision was taken to sell or transfer the bank to HSBC—for a minimal consideration, I think. I really want to understand what value was placed on that bank going to HSBC, as opposed to any of the other banks that might have been bidding for it.
At the heart of this is my worry about competition. When a bank is put in this resolution position, obviously it needs to move to another bank that has significant assets and can fulfil the rightful demands of its depositors to withdraw their funds. That will naturally be a bigger bank, and there is a possibility—although hopefully this will not happen, as we will not use resolution very often—that small, higher-risk challenger banks will find themselves unable to obtain short-term funding from the Bank of England because of their size, and will therefore be gobbled up by the leviathans of the banking system. Over time, there might be a natural move back towards where we were prior to all these challenger banks appearing—to having four or five massive banks that dominate the system in an uncompetitive way.
I am asking the Minister not necessarily to change the legislation, but to consider setting out in a code of conduct what consideration the Bank of England has to give to the competitive landscape when it is resolving a bank. When it transfers one small bank to another small bank as part of a resolution, for example, that wheel might be oiled with a bit of short-term funding, in the interests of maintaining that competitive landscape. The cost of that should not fall on the taxpayer; effectively, it should be a loan for repayment. One of the benefits, if you like, of the 2007-08 crash—one of the silver linings of that cloud—is that we have a much more diverse banking landscape than before. There was recognition that having these huge organisations that crash the entire global economy if they fail was dangerous for the western economy, and that a much more diverse landscape was therefore desirable. The problem with that, obviously, is that there is more inherent risk in those smaller banks. If there is more inherent risk, we are likely to see more resolution, and in time we may end up back where we were.
I support the Bill. I think that resolution is exactly the right way to go, and we should obviate the risk to the taxpayer. There are also negatives to the system, though, so I hope that the Minister, who I am sure will do the job with aplomb, will think carefully about the impact on the world of the Bank of England’s decision making and predictability; about what the Bank can do to provide transparency, whether through a code of conduct or indicators of practice; and about the impact of resolution on competition.
Mark Garnier
It gives me great pleasure to wind up this debate, with the leave of the House, on behalf of the Opposition.
First, I thank the handful of Members present, who have made very helpful contributions. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) rightly asked questions on behalf of his constituents. He asked whether they will be under the cosh if a bank goes bust again—they should not be, under this legislation—and what banks will do to generate economic growth in his area. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), rightly raised a point about the legislation being extended to and used for the larger banks, which is not its intention. As ever, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) has brought an intelligent scepticism to the question of what could happen with this legislation, and has demonstrated why Parliament is such a brilliant place, with intelligent people like him scrutinising what goes on.
I also welcome the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. He has had a glittering career, and has done extraordinarily well in his meteoric rise to Minister in not one but two Government Departments in his first Parliament. He is double-hatting already; he is a clever chap. We have come across each other in the past.
I will not take too much of the House’s time, as I was on my feet just a few minutes ago, but I would like to come back to three points that I hope the Minister will address. The first is the amendment to the Bill; the Economic Secretary to the Treasury made the point that the Government do not want to support that amendment. This may come up later, and we may have more conversations about it. Secondly, does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury feel that the Bank of England’s code of practice provides enough reassurance that the bank insolvency procedure remains the default option for failing smaller banks? Finally, how does he weigh up continued use of the bank levy and regulation of our banking system against the Chancellor’s growth agenda? I appreciate, however, that that is beyond the scope of the Bill.
As I said in my opening remarks, the Bill retains surprisingly strong cross-party support. It is a good thing for the Bank of England to have more tools at its disposal during periods of heightened stress, and the version of the Bill before us today—the version amended in the other place—is more robust than it started out. We look forward to getting clarity from the newly appointed shadow Minister. [Hon. Members: “The Minister.”] My apologies—it will be a few years before that. I congratulate the newly appointed Minister on his appointment.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this debate, which were small in number but high in quality. I also thank those who contributed in the other place, or by responding to the consultation that brought the Bill forward. As today’s short debate has demonstrated, there is broad support, both political and industrial, for the Bill. I thank hon. Members on the Conservative Front Bench for their kind words and constructive approach, particularly, to echo the shadow Economic Secretary, previous Treasury Ministers, not least the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), who brought us to where we are today.
The enhancements to the UK’s resolution regime are relatively modest, targeted and proportionate. That regime was established in the wake of the global financial crisis, and its powers were put to the test when Silicon Valley Bank UK failed in March 2023. That episode demonstrated that the regime was broadly working as intended, but it is right to learn the lessons from that experience. The first of those lessons is that the implications of a firm’s failure cannot always be anticipated before the event, and sometimes it can be in the public interest to use resolution powers even on small firms that were not deemed systemic prior to their failure. That was the case with Silicon Valley Bank UK, and insolvency would have had implications for public confidence in the stability of the UK financial system.
The second lesson is that there is a potential gap in the resolution framework when it comes to managing the failure of such firms. They do not hold the additional resources to absorb losses and facilitate recapitalisation in the event of their failure. Silicon Valley Bank was well capitalised, and it was possible to find a willing buyer in HSBC. However, such an outcome may not be possible for a small bank with a shortfall in capital. At present, such a shortfall would have to be met through the use of public funds, and there is cross-party support for reducing that risk.
We also wish to increase the options available to the Bank of England for managing the failure of a small bank. The Bill does so without imposing any new up-front costs on the banking sector, or fundamentally altering the broader resolution framework, which has been shown to work well. It rightly does not alter the public interest test that underpins the Bank of England’s decision on whether to use its resolutions powers or place a firm into insolvency. I will return to that point shortly.
The shadow Economic Secretary raised a number of points. I broadly agree with his description of the events around Silicon Valley Bank UK. It was a helpful summary of developments. I can confirm that the Government welcome the amendments made in the other place, with the one exception raised by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, which I know we will discuss further in Committee.
We have been clear that the powers are to be used for smaller banks, but that does not mean that use of the powers will become the default. Insolvency for small banks remains the default approach. The shadow Economic Secretary also raised the wider question of banking taxation. I am sure we will discuss that in the months and probably even years to come. Our view is that banking taxation remains competitive, but his comments have been noted, and we will always keep that matter under review.
The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) focused on the proposed size limits for banks. As I have mentioned, we do not think that what she suggested is the correct way forward, but we will continue to discuss it. The intention is that the powers will be used in the case of small banks, but the lesson of the last 20 years—not just in the UK, but around the world—is that flexibility is important when it comes to resolving bank failures. She asked whether a wider growth objective should be inserted for the Bank of England. This is a narrow Bill, and we do not think it is the right place to discuss wider issues about the Bank’s approach. The public interest test, which the Bank is already required to apply when it comes to resolution and questions of bank failure, provides much of the protection that she seeks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) asked about the impact on ordinary workers. That is a good question, and we always need to come back to it. Another lesson of the last two decades is that a stable and strong banking sector is an important underpinning for a strong economy, and for rising wages right across the country.
I started my career in the Treasury in the years when the UK and other advanced economies were having to swiftly relearn that banks can, and do, fail, and that the consequences of them doing so in an unmanaged way are very big and very bad indeed. The lesson from that crisis was clear: a comprehensive resolution regime is important for protecting financial and economic stability and public finances in bad times, but also for underpinning confidence in the financial system at all times. This lesson is especially significant for the UK, as the financial services sector plays such a vital role in our economy—a point that was powerfully made during the debate. We have also learned that it is important for the Bank of England to have a range of tools available for managing firm failures, because those failures can be unpredictable. The best tool for managing the situation is not always apparent prior to the point of failure, as evidenced by the failure of Silicon Valley Bank UK. That is why, despite the UK’s resolution regime having worked well in practice, the Government believe that it is important to learn the lessons of the banking sector volatility of 2023.
The targeted enhancements in the Bill provide the Bank of England with a more flexible toolkit for responding to the failure of smaller banks, while also protecting public funds. The Bill also supports the Government’s growth agenda. Although it is common to focus on the trade-offs between regulation and growth, confidence in and the stability of the banking sector are key to supporting long-term growth.
I am glad to have heard this afternoon that there is broad support for this Bill in the House. Assuming that support continues for at least the next few minutes, the Government look forward to engaging further with hon. Members in Committee. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords] (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 13 February 2025.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Gen Kitchen.)
Question agreed to.
Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords] (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the National Loans Fund of any sums payable out of the Fund by virtue of the Act.—(Emma Reynolds.)
Question agreed to.
Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords] (Ways and Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the imposition of charges for the purpose of meeting expenses incurred by the scheme manager of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme in connection with the recapitalisation of a financial institution.—(Emma Reynolds.)
Question agreed to.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Public Services: Rural Areas
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
Colleagues across the House will be delighted to know that, as we have rattled through the business today, we get to have a four-hour debate, so I welcome interventions, and will welcome anybody else making a speech.
It is genuinely a delight to lead my first Adjournment debate, especially one focusing on access to public services in rural areas. I am proud to be a rural Labour MP, so it is especially good to talk on this subject. I have given my debate the subtitle, “The Case for the Countryside”; Members can feel free to bear that in mind when making an intervention.
The key point in this debate is that we as a country need to value the people, the landscapes, and the produce of our countryside a great deal more. For too long, successive Governments have not recognised the crucial role of rural communities to our national flourishing. Up to 10 million people across the country live in rural areas like North Northumberland, and our natural landscapes and quiet places form a deep and enduring part of Britain’s imagination. Rural areas often possess enduring community, but they also risk becoming museums, full of interesting artefacts for visitors, but lifeless and neglected underneath. That is something, I am sure, that none of us in this Chamber wants. It is vital that rural communities are vibrant and full of life.
In this speech, I will outline the domino effect, by which a range of below-average rural public services, especially poor public transport, underperforming education, inaccessible healthcare and low connectivity, interact and overlap to drag rural areas down, including North Northumberland. I will also remind this place that rural Britain is a deep and integral part of our nation. As the frantic pace of life in our big cities has increased, so has our ability to extract, consume and bottle the virtues of rurality, while rural regions struggle at times to see the benefit in return. Every time we eat a meal, switch the lights on, turn the radiator up or take a trip to the countryside, we are benefiting from rural areas doing the hard work of producing and delivering, often out of view.
I have to ask whether our increasingly urban nation is committed to the flourishing of our rural areas in return, because the quality of our public services sometimes suggests that it is not. According to the Rural Services Network, those in predominantly rural areas pay 20% more council tax than those in predominantly urban areas, yet in urban areas, Government-funded spending power is 41% higher. I am not trying to set up some kind of dichotomy or competition between rural and urban areas; we simply have to acknowledge that sometimes our rural areas miss out when it comes to public services.
That spending gap impacts the practical delivery of services. In the northern part of my constituency, the nearest accident and emergency department is an hour and a half away. Many children heading out of the constituency for secondary school spend two hours a day travelling to and from school. The village of Pegswood, of 3,000 people, has a doctor for just half a day a week. I wonder how rural Britain can nurture our nation’s traditions, history and community, as well as produce the goods so desperately needed by urban areas, when its basic public services can fall below the basic standard.
Any conversation about rural public services begins and ends with transport. Rural authorities spend 4.6 times less per head on bus services compared to urban authorities, yet those living in small rural settlements travel a third greater distance than their urban counterparts.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this important topic to the House. As an MP whose constituency also covers part of Northumberland, I know all too well the impact on public services in recent years. A mum in New Hartley recently shared with me how the unreliability and inconsistency of the local bus service means that her son is often late for school. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unacceptable for children to miss out on their education as a consequence of poor public services in rural areas?
David Smith
I could not agree more. I will come on to talk about bus services, but the situation is especially challenging in counties such as Northumberland. I certainly find that there are students in my constituency who struggle to get to school.
Getting around areas such as North Northumberland without a car is extremely difficult, and North Northumberland residents are right to be sceptical of local bus services, considering that Arriva, which runs the primary bus service in my area, is owned by an American equity investment fund based in Miami. Members can make of that what they will. From 2017 to 2022, the distance travelled by bus services in Northumberland fell by over a third—the highest reduction of any authority in the north-east. The confused status of cross-border buses makes a bad situation worse, with many people around Berwick crossing the Scottish-English border multiple times a week, and having to own multiple bus passes or buy new tickets to change services. Also, the elderly cannot use their free bus pass on both sides of the border.
Recently, I was made aware of a constituent’s teenage daughter who undertook an apprenticeship across the border in July. Emma—not her real name—lives in Berwick and was catching a bus to and from work; however, just a few weeks later, Borders Buses removed the morning bus. This young woman is now relying on taxis to get her to her apprenticeship in the morning. This is costing her family, who are not in a position to afford it, £150 a week. She endured a difficult time at school, but was thriving in her apprenticeship, yet that is now at risk.
What we need in rural areas is a publicly controlled bus system run for public service, not private profit, with an emphasis on accessibility, affordability and simplicity. As luck would have it, that is exactly what the Government are aiming for and what Kim McGuinness, the Labour metro Mayor for the North East, is seeking to introduce. She has capped bus fares at £2.50 for over-18s and started the process of bringing bus routes back into public control, and she wants to invest in an integrated public transport system that gets people where they need to go. No one expects rural Britain to have the same level of public transport as central London, but a reliable network would boost confidence, improve work and school opportunities, and boost struggling communities.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
This is the second useful contribution the hon. Member has made to our affairs this afternoon. I have two points that he might want to take on board in the considerations he is offering us.
First, public funding formulas should be sensitive to the particularities of rural areas such as Lincolnshire and his constituency, and at the moment they are not. The local government funding formula and the police funding formula, for example, are skewed towards urban areas.
Secondly, and pertinent to the hon. Gentleman’s point about transport, we need to re-dignify small towns and rural places by ensuring that the footprint of government in those places is felt. Over my time as a Member of Parliament, we have closed magistrates courts and removed tax offices. Driving test centres have been centralised, and cottage hospitals have reduced in number. When the dignity is taken out of rural places, it obliges people to travel much further to access what they need and it changes the character of those communities.
David Smith
Absolutely. I welcome the fact that the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), is looking at the formula for how grants are made to local authorities in rural areas. Fundamentally, there should not be a penalty to living in the countryside or in a rural area. It is not an indulgence; it is vital to the future of our country, so we need public services in rural areas.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for his comments. We know that it costs more to deliver services in rural areas, yet rural councils are set to receive 41% less central Government funding than urban councils in the local government finance settlement that is coming up. Does the hon. Member agree that the settlement formula should consider rural deprivation alongside clustered deprivation to ensure that rural areas receive the services they deserve?
David Smith
People would expect me as a Member of Parliament for a rural area to say it is absolutely essential that we consider the peculiar circumstances, geography, logistics, the long-term challenges and the rural deprivation, which really does exist, when considering grants to local authorities in rural areas.
I will move on to education, which is another of the four areas I want to discuss. Assuming that children can get to school, having just talked about transport, we need to ensure that they can go to a good school that sets up their future and energises the local community, but when the school provision in rural areas suffers, so does the whole town or village, because there is no business or transport link more significant than the nearby secondary school.
The town of Berwick is extremely reliant on its one secondary school for the nurturing of the necessary skills and qualifications for the town’s economy, so when the school struggles, the town struggles. A report from 2017—I think it still stands—noted:
“Berwick is one of Northumberland’s most deprived towns. It has a vulnerable economy characterised by poor quality job opportunities, part time working, low wages and very limited education facilities.”
Berwick does not just need a better school; it needs a school that can generate a revival in a beautiful but isolated town that has no A&E, no major employer and minimal further education. Right now, Berwick deserves, and has the opportunity to build, a new world-class educational campus on the secondary school site that combines learning with further education, vocational study, special educational needs provision, local enterprise and primary healthcare. That makes the slow progress of Conservative Northumberland county council’s plan to rebuild Berwick Academy frustrating for parents, students and the whole community.
The further education point is important. North Northumberland students keep pace with their national peers up to GCSE level, but at A-level and higher education level they begin to struggle, because further education opportunities are few and difficult to access. One constituent in Berwick told me about their son who wants to be on a sports course in Newcastle that would set him up to go to university. The council is able to provide basic transport, but only to a course in the closer town of Ashington, which would not provide him with qualifications for university. Instead, his family are paying £15 a day for his transport to the educational opportunities that he needs—an unsustainable amount for basic provision.
Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the record settlement given to Scotland by this Government should be spent by the Scottish Government on vital infrastructure such as schools and transport for constituencies such as mine, which feel sadly neglected after 18 years of SNP Government? No SNP Members are here for this debate, unfortunately.
David Smith
I do not know whether I should declare an interest as a Scotsman who is the Member of Parliament for an English constituency—and proud to be so. I have seen that with my own eyes, and I agree that the record settlement that the UK Government have given the SNP Government in Edinburgh should be used well to provide for the whole of Scotland, but especially rural areas.
I will stick with education but look a little more at special educational needs. There are 588 children on an education, health and care plan in North Northumberland. Many of those with more severe special educational needs face a 100-mile round trip to access adequate education. There are not enough specialist schools nearby, or enough specialist places at mainstream schools, to support their learning. That is why I welcome the Government’s £1 billion increase in special educational needs funding—that is excellent—and I look forward to ensuring that rural areas receive their fair share of it. Rural areas get held back by a lack of educational opportunities. They need help from a broad coalition of local residents, businesses, council and Government to develop outstanding solutions that can become engines for opportunity.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful speech. I can tell him that people in the west of Northumberland share his frustration about the neglect and the contempt in which they seem to be held by the Conservative administration at county hall. I am delighted that he has picked up on the point about provision of SEN transport. Constituents visiting our surgeries are devastated by the challenges they face in getting their children into an appropriate educational environment. Does he agree that we must judge local government on the provision of those opportunities, and that residents of Northumberland will ultimately judge the Conservatives on that come the local elections?
David Smith
Yes, I wholeheartedly associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. Last Friday, I was in the village of Chatton, which is near the border between our two constituencies, to speak to a group focused on autism and special educational needs. There was palpable frustration in that room among 30 parents and carers who are simply unable to get the support they need from the county council, despite the additional funding. I believe that he and I can work on that together.
Let me move on to my third and fourth points, which relate to healthcare. Until schools improve, and until transport becomes more reliable, healthcare professionals will not move to rural areas. For Berwick to have an accident and emergency department, and for North Northumberland to have genuinely local primary care, we must incentivise doctors and nurses to move, with their families, into our neighbourhoods. Until they do, rural healthcare will continue to suffer.
Some 25% of rural residents are aged 65 or over, and in North Northumberland the average age is 54, but rural councils receive 14% less grant funding for social care services and 58% less for public health. Dental care provision is also extremely sparse. It is estimated that a 1,500 sq km region of North Northumberland has no NHS dentist. Imagine someone living alone in Wooler or Rothbury—miles from the nearest NHS dentist—whose tooth starts to twinge.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
On healthcare provision in rural areas, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a desperate need to review GPs’ core contracts, so that we better incentivise GPs to set up in rural areas? Would he also agree that, in areas where the ongoing need for a GP surgery is clear, integrated care boards have a role in managing that estate so it can be secure over a long period?
David Smith
Yes, we need to do everything in our power to encourage healthcare professionals, including GPs, to move into rural areas, where they can have a fantastic quality of life. I think there is a role for ICBs. I am pleased to see that, in my part of the world, 25% of GP surgeries in the Northumbria healthcare NHS foundation trust are working directly as a part of the trust. We should look at any option that can draw additional healthcare resource, especially people, into rural areas.
We need to rethink how we do rural care and primary care. In Orkney, for instance, I am reliably told that doctors practise in rotating shifts—one week on, eight weeks off—and pursue other work. It is certainly an unusual solution, but to provide rural residents with quality care, we may need to think and work creatively together. I welcome the Government’s work and funding to incentivise GPs to see more patients, as well as more of the same patients, and the promise to introduce 700,000 more urgent dental appointments.
That leads me to the last of the four points I would like to make.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is being incredibly generous in giving way, and I thank him for giving me a second bite of the cherry—I know he is moving on to his exciting peroration. GPs seem less and less keen to meet people face to face and still less keen to visit them in their homes, as they once did routinely, by the way, in my lifetime. Would he agree that, rather than their distribution, the centralisation of services, which seems to have been the order of the day under successive Governments on the grounds of rationalisation, is particularly bad for rural areas and for least advantaged people?
David Smith
I do agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It may be utopian to imagine the family doctor doing home visits, but we should always aim for the ideal. As I have said, there are particular challenges in attracting and retaining GPs in rural areas.
The last point I want to make is about digital connectivity. Any discussion of rural areas must also include the ultra-rural. It can be hard to believe, but thousands of homes across this country do not receive mobile coverage, gas from the mains or even electricity. If we split the country into urban and rural, there is this other category of the ultra-rural, and many of these ultra-rural areas are in North Northumberland. I am thinking of settlements such as Elsdon and Thropton, tiny villages in the east of my constituency, which are perhaps as isolated as it is possible to be in modern England.
Perhaps 12,000 properties in North Northumberland are not connected to the gas grid, instead relying on a mix of alternative fuels, and a handful of properties do not even receive electricity. This year, residents in the upper Coquet valley are being connected to the electricity grid for the first time, thanks to the Ministry of Defence. Prior to that, two neighbours could not put the kettle simultaneously on without both houses being plunged into blackout. I remain hopeful and excited about the promised potential of Great British Energy for these ultra-rural communities. I look forward to finding out in more detail about hyper-local and hyper-rural communities can benefit from the renewables that will come about from Great British Energy.
On top of this, BT estimates that 1,000 premises in North Northumberland will not benefit from commercial investment in gigabit-capable broadband coverage, because they are simply too hard to reach. It is a similar story when it comes to mobile networks. I can hear my constituents groaning as they listen to this, because mobile signal comes and goes as we drive up and down the constituency. Ultra-rural settlements cannot take advantage of the digital age because they can barely get online. I am thankful for the Government’s commitment to the shared rural network and to developing ways of supporting Project Gigabit so that ultra-rural communities benefit from these upgrades, otherwise we risk turning into two divided nations.
I could go on, and I am sure hon. Members would be delighted if I did—
David Smith
I thank my hon. Friend. However, I hope a few points have become clear from my remarks.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am pleased to see the hon. Gentleman in his place, both as the special envoy for freedom of religion or belief and because I understand it is his first Adjournment debate. I wish him well—he is using his time well. He has lots of time; he can go to 7 o’clock if Madam Deputy Speaker does not take exception.
One issue in my community and countryside, and the constituency I live in, is mental health—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had the chance to mention that. The hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), who is sitting in front of me, always speaks about farmers living alone, independence, and the pressures of life, and never more in all my life do I remember those pressures being this intense. Does the hon. Gentleman have similar problems in his constituency to those I have in mine?
David Smith
Yes, sadly my constituency absolutely has those same challenges with mental ill health in the farming community but also in the rural community, which often comes about from isolation. People living generation after generation in rural communities are proud and resourceful. Sometimes they perhaps do not reach out for help, but I would encourage them to do that—it is always a good thing for someone to reach out for help if they are struggling, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important point.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech. He and I sit at opposite ends of our region, but rural communities across the region share similar challenges. He has spoken about mental health, and I wonder if he would comment on the problem of addiction and substance abuse in our rural communities. That is a real issue in communities in my constituency, but there are some positive community-led initiatives that local councillors have been involved in, in particular Brotton, which has a peer-led scheme called Recovery Connections in the local village hall. Will my hon. Friend join me in commending that work, and does he agree that it is important to tackle the issue of substance abuse in rural communities?
David Smith
I am so pleased that my hon. Friend made that intervention. I declare an interest because, before I became a Member, I was chief executive of a homelessness charity, and I was delighted to work with Recovery Connections, which is a great organisation doing great work. We have talked about mental health challenges in rural areas, but we also have challenges with drugs and addiction, which is not the preserve of urban areas. We have our own challenges, and we need support as a result of that.
Rural areas provide so much for the flourishing of the nation as a whole, but they are not receiving enough in return, especially in terms of public services, which is the subject of this debate. Public services overlap and create a network effect to either energise or hinder the flourishing of rural areas. Bad public transport means less educational access, which dampens the desire of healthcare professionals to move in and treat our sick. That issue is not easily fixed or accounted for with a simple spending algorithm, but we need to address it.
Raising the quality of public services in our rural areas will require a combined approach across Government. The Country Land and Business Association may have a point when it says that Ministers and officials across Departments assume that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has sole responsibility for the rural economy—I am pleased to see the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs in his place—but DEFRA does not have the economic levers at its disposal to unlock the potential of the countryside by itself. DEFRA has an important role, but it cannot do that itself. That power lies in other Departments and, increasingly, local authorities. We need a cross-Government approach to rural public services, and I appreciate the Minister being here today.
Rural areas are not simply urban areas with fewer houses. They cannot be approached and handled with the same calculations as in our cities because they are serving our country in different ways, whether preserving land, investing in local communities, producing our food, reminding us of our past, generating our energy, or offering a vision of the good life. To do all that, rural residents need to know that their children can hop on the bus to a good local school that sets them up for the future, that they can access primary and urgent healthcare when they need it, that they can phone family and friends without fear of a power cut, or hop in an electric car, charged by the mains, to visit them. They need to know that their nation values them and their way of living, and is determined to see them thrive. I am encouraged by all the Government are doing and have done to serve rural areas, and I encourage them, and all Members of the House, to ensure that rural Britain plays as key a role in establishing our future as it has our past.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this debate on a really important subject. My constituents in Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages surrounding them, like people across the country, know just how hard it can be to access basic public services in rural areas. I rise to talk about an incident on Monday that has already had a significant amount of national press coverage and was mentioned yesterday by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), in winding up a debate.
In the early morning hours of Monday morning, an enormous pile of rubbish was fly-tipped at the top of Watery Lane, a country road leading out of Litchfield that has about nine residential properties. When I heard about it, I popped up to have a look, and a genuinely staggering amount of waste was up there: it was a cuboid perhaps 20 feet wide, 15 feet high and probably at least 40 foot long. This was not a few tyres out the back of a Transit van but an industrial scale, enormous fly-tip, which meant that the lane was completely unpassable from the north. Unfortunately for residents living on Watery Lane, the southern end of that road has been closed for a housing development for a few months, so for a time they had no access to public services. When we talk about public services, there can be nothing more basic than the ability of the fire service, ambulances and the police to get to an emergency, should one occur.
I thank Redrow homes because, as soon as it was made aware, it put a member of its staff up the top of the lane by the road closure who could keep the service road—the road that runs past—clear and make sure there were no accidents involving people crashing when trying to get down the road. Redrow also opened up the compound on its site so that the emergency services could access those properties, should they be needed. In the event, they were not, but that was more by luck than anything else. I am glad that, should they have been needed, Redrow was able to step in and do that. The company also offered to help the council clean up. When it comes to asking builders to be considerate to their communities, that is a great example of an organisation stepping up.
It is important that we raise such serious examples of industrialised rural crime. There must have been a serious set-up involving an articulated vehicle of some type because of the sheer size of what was left. Some residents have estimated that there may have been 200 tonnes of rubbish, which has today been cleared following hard work by the district council. Although there was a way for those nine households to get in and to get out to work, that morning they faced not being able to go about their business—they could not get to school or to work.
The fly-tip also led to a massive issue for the Curborough countryside centre just off Watery Lane. About 20 businesses are based there—I will declare an interest as my old man’s art studio is up there now, although he is not a commercial exercise—including a butcher, a distillery, a café and a bakery as well as a host of others, including Cocker Hoop Creative, which runs Lichfield’s food festival. All those businesses lost two days of trade due to this rural crime.
When we talk about the provision of public services in rural areas, that is not always just about the availability of hospitals, the availability of doctors, the distances from A to B or the availability of bus services. As important as all those are, it is also really important that we see a response, including from the police service, that is attuned to the issues of rural areas. That fly-tip was much more serious because of where it happened.
In that instance of serious fly-tipping, as in other such instances right across the country, it is really important that the police have the necessary framework to prosecute these individuals. We need an investigation into the case in Litchfield this week, because there may be some clues in that tip that could lead to a resolution. But investigations need to end not only with significant fines; we also need to start considering custodial sentences, because the actions of those individuals pose a genuine risk to life, for example if an ambulance cannot reach someone having a heart attack.
This problem affects rural areas much more significantly than urban areas, which is why it is important to raise it as part of this excellent debate. I thank again my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland for securing the debate and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting me leave to contribute.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), a good Staffordshire man. He and I do lots of work together, so I enjoyed seeing him cast the iPad away and speak from his heart, which he did very well.
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak—I will say just a few words, you will be reassured to know. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), who made an excellent, thoughtful, comprehensive, authoritative and engaging speech. He gave voice to his passion for his constituency and for our rural communities up and down our United Kingdom. In this House we talk about being hon. Friends, but he and I are actually friends, which is great. We have a mutual friend who I am thinking of right now, who will be enjoying the fact that I have contributed to this excellent debate.
Like my hon. Friend and many others on the Government Benches, I proud to represent a number of rural communities in God’s own constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme—Audley, Madeley, Betley, Balterley and Wrinehill, to name just a few. I am proud to speak on access to good-quality, affordable and reliable transport; on tackling flooding—in Madeley that is a particular challenge—and on school finances. I am going to Ravensmead and a number of other schools to talk about some of the pressures that our schools are facing. I am proud to speak about NHS pressures, as was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, our ambulances being able to get to incidents and our rural community generally. Newcastle-under-Lyme is indeed on the frontline.
Last Thursday evening I had the great pleasure and fortune of attending a meeting of Audley parish council. I am grateful to all its members for their hard work to champion the needs of their neighbours and our community. They also do very well at holding me to account, as well as the sometimes questionable leadership of Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council. A clear theme of that meeting was the contempt—I use that word consciously—with which the parish council is treated by the Conservative party leadership of the borough council. Planning is just one example of that.
Alongside that Conservative-led borough council, which shows the contempt to which I referred, Staffordshire county council is missing in action—unsurprisingly, it is run by the Conservative party, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield will know. As we are thinking about improving access to services in rural communities such as mine in Newcastle-under-Lyme, thank goodness we have the chance to vote the Conservatives out in May. I look forward to electing good Labour county councillors in Newcastle-under-Lyme.
I do not need to wait until May to vote, of course, because tomorrow in Newcastle-under-Lyme the good people have a chance to express their frustration with the lack of effective services in our rural communities and town centre in the Town ward by-election. The Labour candidate, Sheelagh Casey-Hulme, is brilliant. She has campaigned passionately for a very long time about Walleys quarry, which the Minister heard me make representations about when I was in the shadow DEFRA team, and now as the Member of Parliament for Newcastle-under-Lyme. I wish Sheelagh well in the election tomorrow, as I am sure you do, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
I think probably not.
Adam Jogee
No confirmation was sought or provided.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumber-land noted, our rural communities remain at the heart of our country, economy, society, culture, heritage and arts. They deserve to be championed by all layers of Government.
We heard from my hon. Friend just what His Majesty’s new Government are doing to ensure that our rural communities get the support they need. I say gently to the Minister, who knows me well, that we will be holding him and his colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to account to ensure that we do just that. With that in mind, I wonder whether the Minister would accept my urging to ensure that the rural communities of Newcastle-under-Lyme, and Staffordshire more generally, are at the top of his agenda as he carries out his important duties in the months and years—many years, I hope—ahead.
I also echo the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, which I think is bang on, and note the cross-party nature of the approach required from Government to ensure that we deliver for our rural communities. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland raised that point, too.
By the nature of their job, vocation, passion and commitment, our farmers are at the heart of our rural communities. They feed us and, in some cases, they clothe us, with sheep’s wool and the rest. They play an important role in keeping our life going, and I therefore urge the Minister to ensure that we advance the buy British and eat British agenda of both this Government and many Labour Members. It is one tangible way that we can not only help our farmers, but ensure that our rural communities get the well-functioning and reliable public services that they deserve. When the Minister winds up this important debate in response to my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland, some clarity on the buy British, eat British agenda would be welcome.
As I conclude my remarks, I invite the Minister to accept an invitation I think I may have already gently put to him—perhaps in a less formal way than raising it on the Floor of the House this afternoon. I invite him to come to Newcastle-under-Lyme to see and understand the challenges facing the rural communities in my wonderful constituency, where he would be very welcome. There are a number of excellent places we can have a cold drink; I think of the many pubs in our rural communities, and there are also tea shops and places for cake.
The Betley Tea Room is an excellent example. It is on a working farm, but it has an excellent tea room. The National Farmers Union has a satellite office there, so we would be able to kill two birds with one stone: we can have cake and see the farm and understand the challenges. In fact, now that I think about it, the Secretary of State—then the shadow Secretary of State—came to the farm and had some tea and cake and a tour. The only thing I would note is that when the Secretary of State came to the farm, he forgot his wellies, so I urge the Minister to make sure he has the appropriate footwear when he accepts my invitation to come and see us in Newcastle.
As I say, there are a number of pubs; I think of The Swan in Betley and The Hand and Trumpet in Wrinehill. You would be very welcome to come and visit us there any time, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will get the first round in. I will take anybody who is interested in seeing the wonders of North Staffordshire, with our local economy and all that we have to offer, exemplified by our rural areas.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland for securing this debate. As I said earlier, he gave an important speech that had us both listening and, I think, inspired—I mean that seriously—both by his commitment to his community and by the wider commitment of His Majesty’s Government to delivering for rural communities. I look forward to working with him and other colleagues—there are now a number of Labour colleagues who represent rural communities, and we are working together to get things done—to deliver for the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme, to help to support the people of North Northumberland, and, most importantly, to deliver for rural communities up and down our United Kingdom.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before calling the next speaker, I think it is important to clarify that, although I am a huge supporter of women standing for election, I have not actually endorsed Sheelagh’s candidature. [Laughter.]
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this debate. He gave a really long speech of considerable depth. I am not going to repeat that, purely because I do not want to repeat any of the things he has said in such detail.
I am grateful for the debate because it offers an important chance to reset the narrative that has gone around over recent months about our rural areas. It has been suggested that our rural areas are suddenly in crisis because of things that have happened in recent months. Let us be clear: our rural areas are in crisis because of 14 years of under-investment and the betrayal of the post-Brexit deals that undercut our famers, making their lives much more difficult than they were previously. That needs to be put on the record.
In many ways, our rural areas are suffering because they are too robust, too resourceful, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland said, and too innovative, so they have not been seen to suffer as much as other parts of the country may have done. I have a couple of examples of that from my constituency.
House prices are an issue in my area, as they are across much of the rest of the country. In one village, Hook Norton, people working in local shops and even artists—people valued by the community—have had to leave because they could not afford to stay. Not content to allow that to continue, people in the village set up a community land trust and invested capital in purchasing land to build properties. Last year, the trust opened 12 affordable homes in the village, catering to local communities. The scheme has its own power generation and the homes are covered in solar panels. It is a brilliant example of innovation and looking after the community in the face of challenges from elsewhere.
In the village of Middle Barton, in my constituency, bus services had been cut by the previous Conservative county council, because of decisions made by the Conservative Government in Westminster. Local people took it upon themselves to set up their own bus company, although, granted, it was manned by volunteers. Last year, not long after I was elected, I had the privilege to open the new bus scheme and see the two brand-new buses serving the community, ensuring that people there are not stranded. Those buses are electric, so they are thoroughly in keeping with our climate agenda.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about rural bus services in Oxfordshire. My seat of Reading Central has a boundary with Oxfordshire, and we have noticed in our area that the complete withdrawal of services by Oxfordshire county council was a terrible mistake. Luckily, Reading Buses, a council-run company, serves some of the neighbouring parts of Oxfordshire, near Reading, including villages like Sonning Common, but I have enormous sympathy for his residents in the northern part of the county. I offer my support to those local companies that are obviously doing a very good job.
Sean Woodcock
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.
A further example is the village of Charlbury, where there is an installation called South Hill solar farm, a community-owned solar farm providing energy to 1,200 residents. It is an incredibly popular and well-run scheme. It is in an area of outstanding natural beauty, but absolutely everybody there loves it. I mention it because this Government’s ambitions are not contrary to the ambitions of those in rural areas. This Government’s ambitions rely on delivering in rural areas, whether on housing justice, improving public health or, above all, delivering growth, which is our main focus.
However, people are being held back, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland said. They face a double whammy of poor connectivity in relation to transport—we have already touched on buses—and to access to broadband and decent communication services. My plea to the Minister, in my final remarks, is that he makes it clear to his Cabinet colleagues that people in rural areas do not want anything different to what is wanted by those in the urban seats, which may previously have been seen as the Labour heartland. People in rural areas want exactly the same as those in urban areas: access to good health services, education, jobs and affordable housing, and the same opportunities as everybody else.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
Quite often, I do not know how to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and his thorough remarks. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) on securing the debate. I have known him for only a short time, but I know how dedicated he is to his rural constituency and how passionately he feels about these issues. I listened to his four points and the interventions.
I am very fortunate. The Boundary Commission has changed my constituency many times, but it has not changed the names of the many villages that it encompasses: Astwood Bank, Inkberrow, Harvington and Norton. Most people think of Redditch as a very urban area with some significant deprivation and economic challenges, but the challenges and the deprivation in the rural parts are often forgotten. We hear the old adage, “Don’t go knocking on those doors. They are wealthy in those areas; they have no problems.” However, some of the biggest problems in my casework folder come from rural areas where there are no transport links and no access to dental treatment or healthcare. My constituency also faces some of the most significant challenges in relation to truancy and, I have said, transport links.
This debate has provided an excellent opportunity for us to focus on issues affecting rural communities, but I ask the Minister, as the Government move forward, to ensure that we take on the challenges in areas that are deemed to be affluent but actually face some of the biggest social and economic challenges in our constituencies.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith). I understand that this is his first Adjournment debate, and I have to tell him that they cannot always run for as long as this—but what a brilliant debate we have had, and how splendidly he made the case for the countryside, which has been echoed in the excellent speeches from other colleagues. Let me respond briefly to some of them before turning to his main points.
I will not go into the details of the incident in Lichfield because I suspect, and hope, that a criminal case may result from it. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) described it as not just fly-tipping but a serious example of industrialised rural crime, and it is right to put on record the grief that has been caused to local residents and businesses. My hon. Friend and his constituents have my absolute sympathy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) characteristically and elegantly name-checked many of his local businesses, beauty spots and hostelries, but also mentioned parish councils, an extremely important level of local governance with which we need to work closely. I assure him that when it comes to supporting buying British, this Government are entirely in line with his wishes and the wishes of the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) raised a series of important points about community initiatives. Community land trusts are always important for promoting housing. I liked his points about rural transport very much, and I will say a bit more about that later. He also mentioned community solar initiatives, which showed just what can be done in rural areas with that kind of leadership and passion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) was right to refer to the aspirations of people in rural areas. There is a 19% productivity gap between the rural economy and the national average, but what an opportunity there is for us and for people in rural areas to show just how important we can be. I will deal with his point about transport in a moment.
The Government are absolutely committed to improving the quality of life for everyone living and working in rural areas, so that we can make a real impact on their everyday lives and realise the potential to which I have referred. Given that part of my job title is “Minister for Rural Affairs”, it is my job to make sure that these matters are at the very heart of policymaking. As Members have said, it is a structural Government challenge to ensure that rural issues are taken up, and I am delighted that there are so many passionate voices on these Benches because it will make my job easier.
Freddie van Mierlo
National trails, which run through much of the countryside, provide vital access to the countryside both for people coming out of urban areas and for people living in rural areas, but the amount of funding for National Trails UK has not risen since 2012, and stands at just £1.7 million a year. Will the Minister commit himself to looking at that again and seeing what we can do to help out our friends at National Trails UK?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the hon. Member for trying to lure me into an unfunded spending commitment. I assure him we do not do that on this side of the House, but he has made an important point, and I will of course look at it.
The Government have wasted no time in getting to work on a whole range of issues that affect both urban and rural areas. In order to pursue our growth mission, we have announced a series of planning reforms to get Britain building, removed the de facto ban on onshore wind, established a national wealth fund, announced a pensions review to unlock growth, boosted investment, delivered savings for pensioners, launched Skills England, announced a White Paper on getting Britain working, and taken the first steps to create Great British Energy. All of those measures provide opportunities for people in rural areas, and all sectors can shape and benefit from wider policy reform through the growth mission, which will create the conditions for businesses to invest and employ, and for consumers to spend with confidence. However, we absolutely recognise the specific challenges and opportunities.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
Will the Minister bear in mind the importance of community benefits from renewables? The whole of the highlands is covered in turbines, which are built overseas and often owned overseas. We have the highest level of fuel poverty in Britain, and renewables offer the only chance for rural Britain to level up financially that we will see in our lifetimes. I greatly fear that the opportunity will pass us by.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but I do not share his pessimism. There are real opportunities, but it is up to us to make sure that they are realised. He makes an important point.
The Government absolutely recognise that there are specific challenges and opportunities that make rural communities and economies distinctive, and we acknowledge the need for direct support through programmes such as the rural England prosperity fund, which provides targeted support to rural businesses and communities. We recognise that community-owned businesses play a particularly important role in rural areas by providing opportunities for communities to come together and access services, but we also recognise that there are significant challenges facing rural community businesses and that the Government have a role to play in overcoming them.
A number of my hon. Friends have talked about rural transport, which is key to those living and working in rural communities. We know that a prosperous rural economy requires improvements in rural transport and, of course, digital infrastructure. The availability of affordable housing is key, as are affordable energy and access to a healthy and skilled workforce, so a complex mix is required to get the growth that we so want to see.
We also recognise that the need for rural residents to travel further to access work, education and training, and essential services such as healthcare raises additional challenges. We know that it can be more costly and time consuming for them, and we recognise their frustrations. I was struck by the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland about what happens when services are withdrawn. We know all too well the problems that that creates for our constituents, so this Government are determined to deliver better bus services. We have set out a plan to achieve that in our Bus Services Bill, which will give local leaders the tools they need to ensure that bus services reflect the needs of the communities they serve.
My hon. Friend was absolutely right to raise the issue of digital access, particularly for those in ultra-rural areas. Digitisation is at the heart of this Government’s agenda, and we are committed to ensuring that rural communities and businesses are not left behind or disadvantaged. Through the shared rural network, which has helped to deliver 4G mobile coverage to 95% of the UK a year ahead of target, we will continue to deliver 4G connectivity to places where there is either limited coverage or none at all.
However, we are aware that rural parts of the UK still lag behind when it comes to mobile coverage, and we will continue to work with the industry to deliver new coverage to such communities via the shared rural network, enabling them to thrive. Our ambition is to go further and for all populated areas to have higher-quality stand-alone 5G access by 2030. Project Gigabit is the Government’s programme to deliver gigabit-capable broadband to UK premises, many of which are situated in rural communities that are not included in suppliers’ commercial plans.
Freddie van Mierlo
Some villages, including Ewelme in my constituency, successfully signed up to the previous voucher scheme but were then excluded from Project Gigabit as a result. The previous Government failed to deliver on the scheme, which meant that such villages were left with no internet at all or no fast broadband. Will the Minister commit to looking specifically at the village of Ewelme to see what he can do to include it in Project Gigabit?
Daniel Zeichner
I will certainly ask my officials to get in touch with the hon. Gentleman so that we can get him an answer on that specific question. Sadly, only 85% of UK premises can access gigabit-capable broadband at the moment. Our goal is for nationwide gigabit coverage by 2030, ensuring that at least 99% of UK premises can access a gigabit-capable connection.
Turning to rural housing, access to genuinely affordable homes is essential to sustaining vibrant rural communities, and the housing shortage drives high rents and leaves some of the most vulnerable without access to a safe and secure home. We will reform planning laws so that we can build the homes that our rural communities desperately need while ensuring that we protect our green spaces and the natural environment. As part of that, the Government recently ran a consultation to reform the national planning policy framework, and we will carefully consider how best to build more homes and introduce a wider set of growth-focused interventions that will help us build those homes in the places where people want to live and, importantly, that are supported by the right infrastructure and services.
Luke Myer
The hamlet of Aysdalegate in my constituency has no access to safe running water. This risk was identified in 2013, but now, 12 years later, it still remains. The Drinking Water Inspectorate carried out an inspection in 2023 and described the situation:
“The water from this stream is captured in a makeshift pool lined with tarpaulin and then piped to two rudimentary settlement tanks with ill-fitting handmade lids.”
Does the Minister agree that this is not a situation in which anyone should be living in the 21st century? It is typical of the inertia we saw under the previous Government that nothing was done for over a decade. I note that there is not a single Conservative MP in this place to listen to this debate today. Will the Minister commit to doing something about the water and to working with me and the parish council who represent that hamlet?
Daniel Zeichner
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Let us speak outside this debate about that particular case; I am not qualified to comment on it at the moment.
Rising energy costs also pose a challenge to rural communities and businesses, and I am all too aware that fuel poverty rates are higher in rural communities. We also have many homes that are off grid. My party’s manifesto was clear: we are determined to lower bills, boost energy security and protect our environment by setting up Great British Energy. GB Energy will also support local and combined authorities and community energy groups to roll out small and medium-scale renewable energy projects, with the goal of increasing local generation across the whole country by up to 8 GW of capacity by 2030.
Matt Rodda
In my constituency, there is an excellent small renewable scheme, and I wish to raise that with the Minister and perhaps point out the need for further similar schemes elsewhere. It is a low-head hydro scheme on the River Thames in the village of Caversham, where several hundred users benefit from cheaper electricity. However, there were significant obstacles to setting up the scheme. May I meet my hon. Friend to explain those issues? There are many other weirs along the River Thames. Most of them are not used for such schemes, yet almost all of them are potentially suitable sites for this type of wonderful renewable energy, which offers residents in rural areas a cheaper form of energy.
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend and I meet frequently, but I will very happily meet him to hear more about what sounds like an excellent initiative.
I shall turn now to another point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland, which was the importance of education and skills. It is absolutely essential that we ensure sustainable improvements in skills in rural areas, and to do that we are planning to expand our childcare and early years system, drive up standards and modernise the school curriculum. We will also boost rural and agricultural skills by reforming the apprenticeship levy into a growth and skills levy, giving businesses the freedom and flexibility to upskill their workforce. We will also be opening new specialist technical excellence colleges to give rural communities the chance to fit skills to the needs of their local economies and empower rural businesses to play a bigger role in the skills revolution. My hon. Friend also raised, again rightly, the challenges around rural health.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
People from primary schools in rural areas of my constituency have come to me, and one of the challenges they face is a falling population because of the declining number of jobs. Although they have both fixed and variable costs, they lose per pupil funding as a result, and some of those primary schools are becoming unviable. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a different funding settlement for schools in rural areas?
Daniel Zeichner
Again, my hon. Friend tempts me to rewrite the policies of the Department for Education, but I recognise the problem he highlights. I am pleased about the presumption against the closure of maintained rural schools, but he points to a very important challenge. As we all know, the survival of local schools is key to many communities, so I have sympathy with what he says.
Health was raised by a number of colleagues. We are very aware of the mental health challenges faced in rural areas, which I have discussed with colleagues on a number of occasions. My Department has recently established a new group to look specifically at these issues, because we know it is an important challenge.
Colleagues have also talked about GPs and dentistry, which is one of the issues that consistently came up in rural communities during the run-up to last year’s general election, and it is a key challenge. We know that people in rural areas who need care are often more likely to live far from those facilities, and we are mindful of that challenge. The integrated care system will have a role in designing those services, but it will need to work closely with clinicians and local communities at neighbourhood level.
We are making significant new funding available for local government in 2025-26, which we think will help with some of the wider issues. There is £1.3 billion of new funding in the local government financial settlement, with £600 million to support the most deprived areas, including in shire districts, through the new recovery grant. There is also £233 million of additional funding for homelessness services.
There is a guarantee that no local authority will see a reduction in its core spending power in 2025-26 after taking account of any increase in council tax levels. We believe this will provide the protections required for all authorities, including district councils, to sustain their services between years. Taking into account both the money allocated to councils through the settlement and the extended producer responsibility guarantee, every council will have more to spend on planning and social care services in 2025-26 than in 2024-25. For almost all authorities, we expect that to be a real-terms increase. We are also providing a flat cash funding floor after council tax increases, which means that every council will receive as much in core spending power next year as they received this year, if not more.
This Government recognise the importance of providing accessible, high-quality services across rural communities, and we will continue to do everything in our power to ensure that they are delivered effectively.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) Regulations 2025.
The draft regulations were laid before the House on 28 November 2024. As heat networks have not yet been debated in this Parliament, I want to say a few words about the context for the draft regulations. Some 23% of the United Kingdom’s carbon emissions come from heating buildings, so decarbonising heat is key to reaching our net zero commitments and to reducing our reliance on international fossil fuels as we sprint to clean power by 2030. Heat pumps and heat networks are the two principal technologies that we believe will achieve that.
We believe that heat networks will be key to reducing bills for the next generation. Their energy can be drawn from large, efficient heat pumps or even from heat that would otherwise be dumped into the air, such as from data centres and waste incinerators. Heat networks, which have been proven internationally to provide affordable low-carbon heat, are especially suited to dense urban areas. The Government therefore expect that about 20% of the UK’s heat demand will be met by heat networks by 2050, up from 3% today. I have visited Mersey Heat in Liverpool and seen at first hand the huge potential of heat networks, not just to benefit consumers but, critically, to regenerate our urban centres.
Alongside growing the market for heat networks, we need to ensure that the 470,000 households supplied by heat networks today, as well as the many households that will be connected in future, can receive a fair deal as the market grows. One of the biggest barriers is that heat networks are inconsistently regulated. As people on heat networks cannot change their supplier, heat networks are effectively a monopoly with a captive market, which makes it harder to ensure that consumers are treated fairly. Through lots of conversations with consumer groups and through Government-commissioned research, we can identify gaps where the current market is not providing consumers with a fair service, heating is less reliable, suppliers are less transparent and it is harder for consumers to represent themselves or make complaints.
The current situation is clearly intolerable. These are not just consumers, but people trying to keep themselves healthy and warm and trying to live their life. I spoke to the Association for Decentralised Energy in October about the need to ensure that these people are at the very heart of the energy market transition that we need to make and at the very heart of how we think about heat networks.
The Energy Act 2023 provides powers for the Secretary of State to introduce regulations across Great Britain that will protect heat network consumers comparably to consumers of other regulated utilities. The draft regulations are the first step in introducing this regulatory framework. They will introduce an authorisation regime to be implemented by Ofgem, which will work in a similar way to the gas and electricity licensing regimes that Ofgem already regulates. They take an outcomes-based approach to reflect heat networks’ diversity of scale and their nascent market position.
The draft regulations will ban running a heat network without an authorisation. To phase in market regulation, existing heat networks will automatically be given an authorisation. The conditions for authorisation are set by either the Secretary of State or Ofgem and apply rules for running a heat network. Ofgem will be able to monitor compliance with the regulations and act where appropriate. Actions that Ofgem can take include issuing information notices for compliance data, investigating suspected non- compliance, inspecting commercial premises and issuing a range of orders to require remedial action. Consumer redress orders can also be issued to require that affected consumers be given compensation.
The draft regulations will require Ofgem to publish statements of policy on how powers are used. Penalties will be proportionate to the authorised person’s size and the scale of harm that their non-compliance has caused. Additionally, the draft regulations will give Ofgem powers to set standards of performance for heat networks, determining minimum performance levels of service provision to consumers.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Like the Minister, I have visited heat networks around the country and I think they have a significant part to play. She has told us what she expects the heat network contribution to be in 2050, but can she tell us what she expects it to be in 2030? What steps are being taken now, other than changing the regulatory environment, to encourage the take-up of more heat networks around the country?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are running at the roll-out of heat networks. We want to get to 20%—for me, that is the minimum level to reach by 2050—and we want to make huge progress in this Parliament. That means getting the investment framework right, so we are talking to industry and are thinking about what investment looks like so that we can scale it up in the UK. We are trying to create a regime in which local authorities can work in a co-ordinated way to incentivise the roll-out of heat networks in their patch. Critically, we are putting in a regulatory framework, because in the end we need consumers, whether they are commercial or domestic, to have faith and confidence that heat networks will deliver for them. The draft regulations are critical to showing people that a heat network is not just good for heating their home, but good for their pockets.
Graham Stuart
I appreciate the Minister’s enthusiasm. Can she put any kind of number on her expectation for this year and for the coming years until 2030? The year 2050 is a long way off, so I would like to know the trajectory and the Government’s priority now.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I would love to give the right hon. Gentleman a number, but as it is not fully in our gift, because we are working with industry partners to get to the scale we want to achieve, I will refrain from doing so at the moment. But will he please be absolutely reassured that we are trying to run at pace? I see the huge potential of heat networks. They are a way in which we can not only decarbonise our urban centres, but fundamentally lower bills for large numbers of consumers. We are doing everything we can to reassure industry, put incentives in place and ensure that we have a regulatory framework that absolutely works for industries and for consumers so that we can get to 20% sooner rather than later.
Let me say a little about how the draft regulations will apply parts 1 and 2 of the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007 with some modifications to apply them to heat networks. They will create the roles of consumer advocacy bodies for heat network consumers, which will be key to providing access to advice. They will also extend the Energy Ombudsman’s redress scheme to heat network consumers. The draft regulations will automatically enrol all heat networks into the scheme.
Hon. Members may have noted that the commencement dates for some of the provisions are slightly different. That is because delays to the passage of the Energy Act mean that Ofgem cannot commence regulatory activities before January 2026. To ensure that heat network consumers are afforded some support before then, because we know that that is critical, we are establishing the roles of consumer advocacy, advice and redress scheme providers earlier: in April 2025.
Finally, the draft regulations will make amendments to the Heat Networks (Scotland) Act 2021 to ensure that Ofgem can regulate consistently across Great Britain. My Department has consulted extensively with counterparts in the Scottish Government to reach agreement on those amendments.
The content of the draft regulations is based on two consultations: a 2020 consultation on creating a market framework and a 2023 consultation on consumer protection. Across both consultations, broad support was expressed for the structures that are being created in the draft regulations. The content of the authorisation conditions is still being consulted on; the outcomes will be published before the authorisation regime commences.
The draft regulations are the first step to introducing comprehensive regulation to the heat networks market. I am absolutely committed to ensuring robust consumer protections across the energy sector, because we have to maintain the confidence and the trust of consumers. Heat networks have huge potential to transform clean power, as I am sure everyone in this room agrees. Delivering cheap and efficient heat across the country is an absolute priority. The draft regulations will pave the way for a fairer industry that does not grow at the cost of consumers.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and a great pleasure to be back at another Delegated Legislation Committee. I am thinking about getting a camp bed and staying on this corridor for the rest of the year.
Of late, His Majesty’s official Opposition have been accused of seeming to oppose for opposition’s sake; in last week’s Second Delegated Legislation Committee there was an uncomfortable moment when the Minister quoted a 2023 speech of mine back to me verbatim. That will not be the case this morning, however, because the Opposition welcome the move to regulate the heat networks market, which has hitherto been largely unregulated. Heat network users currently have fewer rights and diminished customer protections compared with other utility consumers. Although heat is an essential utility, the existing legislation covers only issues that pertain to metering and billing usage.
We welcome the consumer protections that the draft regulations entail. Consumers and bill payers are at the crux of our energy systems, and changes made must be in their best interests. I believe that this change is indeed in their best interests: in this instance, the consumers stand to benefit.
Sadly, that does not seem to be true of the Government’s energy policy more widely. We are not seeing the £300 saving on energy bills that was promised in the election campaign. What we are seeing is a ruinous overreliance on renewables, with wind generation supplying just 0.7% of the UK’s energy demand today; the boiler tax, which Labour MPs waved through Parliament last week; and the increases to employer national insurance contributions, which will depress wages and dampen employment. Households and consumers rarely seem to be the focus when this Government are making policy.
Today, however, that is not the case. In the heat networks market, the consumer stands to benefit from the introduction of this regulatory framework. As the market for heat networks expands, the risk of exploitation of consumers becomes more pertinent. It is therefore right that legislation be introduced to remedy the gap and bring heat networks into line with the frameworks that regulate gas and electricity markets.
I will not detain the Committee any longer. The Opposition absolutely support the regulation of the heat networks market for the sake of the protection of consumers from exorbitant charges, so I do not wish to stand in the way of the draft regulations. I strongly encourage the Government to prioritise bill payers and consumers across the rest of their energy policy, so that once again we can be in a place where I am not opposing for opposition’s sake, as I was accused of doing last week.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions to the debate. It is great to see cross-party consensus on these important regulations.
The heart of our approach has been putting consumers front and centre in our energy transition. I reassure the Committee that that is not unique to heat networks; it is the approach that we are taking in every realm of the heat transition and the energy transition as we sprint to clean power by 2030. The draft regulations will begin the process of ensuring that existing and future heat network consumers both get a fair deal. I know of cases in my constituency, and in the constituencies of hon. Members I have spoken to across the House, where that is not happening, so we need to move at pace to ensure that it does.
I am excited about the potential of heat networks and what they can achieve, both for people’s pockets and, critically, for regenerating our urban areas. I hope that the consensus that we have achieved in this Committee Room today will continue in future debates as we move on to other areas of the energy transition.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Listed Places of Worship Scheme
(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
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Listed Places of Worship Scheme.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. There are around 20,000 listed—
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Western. Before my hon. Friend develops the debate, may I inquire about the fact that, according to the Order Paper, the fourth of the written statements to be made today, by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, is titled “Future of the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme”? If that statement is being made today, would it not be convenient for us to see a copy of it before this debate begins, so that it can inform the debate, rather than that being left until after the debate?
Matt Western (in the Chair)
Sir Christopher, thank you for your point of order. I am sure that that is something the Minister will attend to in his winding-up speech.
Bradley Thomas
There are about 20,000 listed cathedrals, churches and chapels in use across the UK, belonging to a wide range of denominations, together with a number of important listed synagogues, mosques and temples. The buildings are valued for their architecture and history and for the economic and social benefit they bring to the communities they serve. These beautiful buildings, with storied histories, serve both as sacred spaces for the religious community and as spaces for the wider public.
The listed places of worship grant scheme supports faith communities by allowing them to reclaim the full amount of VAT spent on eligible repairs, alterations and additions to their building. That includes vital repair works to roofs and stonework, and improvements to facilities such as kitchens and toilets and to the thermal performance of the building.
At present the scheme, which spends only around £30 million per year, is due to close on 31 March 2025, and no extension or alternative is yet known about. If the scheme is cancelled or scaled back, it will be devastating for these historic buildings, local communities and the heritage construction sector. What a travesty it would be if, for the sake of £30 million to the Exchequer, the Government exacerbated the decay of our historical, spiritual and social heritage, with no upside.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
I am very pleased my hon. Friend has secured this debate. He mentions the trifling sum the tax could bring to the Exchequer, but does he recognise the enormous, quantifiable economic value—billions of pounds—that church buildings bring to our communities? I particularly reference the work that Bishop Andrew Rumsey, the Bishop of Ramsbury in my constituency, is leading for the Church of England on this issue. Does my hon. Friend agree that the economic value outweighs the receipts that the Treasury would get?
Bradley Thomas
I agree wholeheartedly that this is not just about the social value. There is a profound economic value that goes beyond the £30 million I referenced.
The Church of England alone has a backlog of repairs to parish churches estimated at more than £1 billion, with the annual need estimated at £150 million per year. Large-scale closures are also sweeping across Scotland and Wales. There are 969 places of worship on Historic England’s 2024 heritage at risk register, and more than 60% of MPs in England have a church, chapel, meeting house or cathedral in their constituency that is on the register.
The listed places of worship grant scheme is the only regular financial support the Government provide to help those looking after these buildings. By “financial support”, I mean simply a refund of the tax already paid to the Exchequer.
Sir Christopher Chope
Christchurch priory is on the list of churches at risk. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport could be saved any costs if my private Member’s Bill—the Exemption from Value Added Tax (Listed Places of Worship) Bill—which is due for a hearing in the House on Friday 28 March, were passed? It would exempt listed places of worship repairs from value added tax, which in itself would sort the problem out.
Bradley Thomas
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting Christchurch priory. I am certain that he will be the strongest advocate of the proposal he puts forward on that Friday.
Refunding the tax our places of worship have already paid is vital because in the UK, unlike in the rest of Europe, they depend overwhelmingly on local people to raise the funding for their buildings. In France, Belgium, Germany and Italy, by contrast, such buildings are either owned by the state or supported by special taxes.
The scheme was introduced in its current form by the Labour Government in 2001, when the right hon. Gordon Brown, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, recognised the harm that changes to VAT could cause these buildings. It was launched in the House of Lords in December 2001 by Baroness Blackstone, who stated:
“This new grant will provide much-needed public support for these historic buildings. The scheme underlines the value this Government place on our important historic environment.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 December 2001; Vol. 629, c. WA129.]
I plead with the current Government to recognise that.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. The listed places of worship grant scheme is vital for our communities. The previous Conservative Government extended it in 2023, and since 2022 five grants have been awarded in my constituency. I have been contacted by a number of places of worship that are deeply concerned about the future of the scheme. Does my hon. Friend agree that, for the sake of worship, outreach, youth work, helping vulnerable people, and community hubs, it is right for the Government to extend the scheme?
Bradley Thomas
I wholeheartedly agree that the scheme should be extended, given all the economic and social benefits my hon. Friend touched on and the many others that Members will cite. It is a no-brainer that the Government should pursue this.
Since 2004, the scheme has been renewed by every Government, but now a new commitment must be made, because the current commitment comes to an end in just a few weeks’ time. Since 2001, the scheme has supported 13,000 places of worship, safeguarding the future of some of our most important local heritage. In addition to their architectural significance, cathedrals, churches and chapels form the nation’s largest art collections, including sculpture, stained glass, wall paintings, woodwork, metalwork and vernacular art. Church buildings also form a vital part of the identity of Britain’s landscapes and townscapes. They are the visual centre for tens of thousands of communities.
St John’s in my constituency is a grade II listed church in the centre of the town. The top section of the spire needs replacing to ensure that the church remains structurally safe and continues to be a beacon for Bromsgrove. The parochial church council and the Friends of St John’s are in receipt of nearly £250,000 from the National Lottery Heritage Fund, plus match funding from trusts, foundations and local fundraising, to meet a total project cost in the region of £430,000. If a VAT bill in excess of £80,000 becomes unclaimable, there is a risk that the project could become untenable.
Members from across the House will have stories from their own constituencies. Residents raise money to repair their local place of worship and keep it as a community asset to pass down to the next generation. We are merely custodians of these assets. St John’s is just one example, but there are more than 20 listed places of worship in my constituency that benefit from the scheme, and I want to highlight a few of them. They include Christ Church in Catshill, Holy Trinity and St Mary’s church at Dodford, St Leonard’s church at Frankley, St John the Baptist church at Hagley, St Kenelm’s church at Romsley, St Bartholomew’s church at Tardebigge, St Michael and All Angels at Stoke Prior, St Laurence church at Alvechurch, the church of St John the Baptist on St John Street, the church of All Saints on Birmingham Road, St Leonard’s in Clent, St Leonard’s in Beoley, the Roman Catholic church in Bromsgrove, St Catherine’s church in Lickey and Blackwell, St Mary’s church at Wythall, Holy Trinity in Belbroughton, St Michael and All Angels in Cofton Hackett, the church of St Wulstan and St Oswald in Clent, St Godwald’s church, and St Andrew’s church in Barnt Green.
We all have at least a dozen, 20 or maybe more churches or listed places of worship that are under threat because the Government have not committed to £30 million.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The grant scheme we are debating enabled St Paul’s in my constituency to undergo some radical improvements to accessibility and its community spaces. Without the community spaces that operate out of churches and cathedrals, the homes for charities no longer exist. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, given that every £1 spent in churches gives a £16 return to the community, this scheme is an investment in the future of community groups and charities?
Bradley Thomas
The hon. Lady has summed it up perfectly, and I thank her for highlighting the example of St Paul’s in Chichester. That is a perfect segue into the point I was just about to make: it is not just heritage and religion that are at risk if the scheme lapses. Churches and other places of worship are hubs of their local communities. Church of England churches alone support over 35,000 social action projects, including food banks, community larders, and debt, drug and alcohol advice and rehabilitation groups. In recent years, during which we have seen energy prices rise, churches have acted as warm spaces, and at times of extreme weather events they have been gathering points, providing the safety and hospitality required by communities seeking refuge from flooding and other weather events. Churches, chapels and meeting houses in the UK host and run vital support services—everything from Alcoholics Anonymous meetings to mental health support and parent and toddler groups. The saving to the NHS from delivering this kind of facility to communities is estimated as £8.4 billion a year.
The contribution that churches and cathedrals make to our creative industries and to tourism is also very significant. Some 9.3 million people visited English cathedrals in 2023—a staggering 17% increase on the year before—with many of those visitors coming from overseas. In that sense, churches, cathedrals and places of worship are a UK export.
Churches are also by far the largest base for amateur music-making by choirs and orchestras, as well as housing thousands of professional performances each year, ranging from pop to classical music. They foster talent, and musicians including singer-songwriter Ed Sheeran and leading violinist Tasmin Little began their musical careers by taking part in church music.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
My hon. Friend will obviously want to recognise the centrality to the country of Salisbury cathedral’s contribution in terms of music and architectural elegance. He will also want to recognise the fact that every church takes on great responsibility for raising funds itself before it looks to the Government. The Churches Conservation Trust and the National Churches Trust do a great deal to support churches that are trying to help themselves, but the continuity of VAT support from Government is a crucial additional element that goes alongside that private endeavour.
Bradley Thomas
I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution and for highlighting the significant cultural importance of Salisbury cathedral. He is spot on: volunteers across our communities sweat everything they possibly can out of fundraising endeavours. This is not a case of going to the Government in the first instance; this is people simply asking for support that ultimately enables churches to be net economic contributors to the communities in which they operate.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Mr Western, I probably ought to indicate that I have proudly served in the past as a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee, although I do not regard this as just an Anglican issue at all. Further to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), the support for these buildings—for our churches—comes from generous donations by members of the public, which are given for a very specific purpose. Does my hon. Friend agree that this money is freely given, but that it is not freely given to be taxed? I hope the Minister will be able to comment on that later.
Bradley Thomas
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There are so many generous benefactors across the country who are giving their funds—which, in most cases, they have paid income tax on—to support churches and places that provide spiritual and social wellbeing. Government should recognise that, and I certainly hope the Minister will reference that point in his remarks.
These buildings are loved by their communities, and in most cases they are also cared for by volunteers. Particularly in rural communities, the care of these magnificent buildings is in the hands of a few committed people, many of whom are later in their years. They diligently raise funds for the repair of the church building that has shaped the life of their village and community for centuries. Although I raised major projects earlier, the potential loss of the listed places of worship grant scheme in the places I have just mentioned—which may claim only a few thousand pounds per year—will determine how much maintenance and repair can take place. At worst, it could be the difference between being solvent or not, and determine the long-term survival and preservation of those buildings.
Places of worship are the very essence of place-making and community. They provide enormous value to society—value that our country would be immeasurably poorer without. The National Churches Trust’s “House of Good” report calculated that the total UK-wide economic and social value of places of worship had a market value and replacement cost of £2.4 billion per year. I hope that that puts into perspective what excellent value the listed places of worship grant scheme is for the long-term preservation of those assets. That is £2.4 billion of value for a scheme that costs just £29 million a year. Clearly, that amount of money makes no material difference to the country’s £1 trillion expenditure, so I simply cannot understand what is under threat. If the Government were not to renew the listed places of worship grant scheme, the task of keeping church buildings in good repair and open for people to use would be made much harder. More money would need to be raised by local people to pay VAT to the Government, on top of money for skilled labour, materials and other project costs.
The damage done to parish churches across England will come at a difficult time, when our communities are becoming less united than ever. The past 50 years have seen unprecedented change, with mass immigration, enhanced social mobility and evolving social attitudes. All of those factors have changed and pushed our communities in different directions and made society less cohesive. Instead of attacking one of the last few community spaces left, I ask the Government to continue funding the scheme.
I urge the Government to look now at making the scheme permanent, and not just at giving it a temporary reprieve. A permanent scheme would enable the larger places of worship, such as cathedrals that plan their repair work over five to 20 years, to commit to long-term projects with certainty that VAT costs will be covered by the scheme.
Several hon. Members rose—
Matt Western (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. Given that so many are standing, we will start with a time limit of three minutes. I ask that any interventions be kept to a minimum.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing this important and timely debate.
The strength of feeling on this issue is clear. An answer to my recent written question revealed that between early September and mid-December 2024, the Department received 323 items of correspondence on this topic. [Interruption.] Yes, I understand that. I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate this important subject.
Faith and charity sector partners are deeply concerned that the listed places of worship grants scheme may not be extended beyond its current end date of 31 March this year. The grants scheme not only helps to sustain treasured local buildings that hold the story of our nation and, through their work, contribute every day to the common good; by enabling repairs to historic religious buildings, it also directly impacts communities across the UK, benefiting people of all faiths and none, from all walks of life.
The Church in Wales operates 1,221 places of worship—cathedrals, churches and chapels—across Wales, and 73% of them are listed buildings. These treasured buildings play a central role in communities and form a remarkable treasury of significant architecture, art, history, local memory and culture.
As I outlined in my question to the Church Commissioners last week, over the past two years alone St Woolos’ cathedral in Newport has reclaimed more than £87,000 through the scheme. Further projects are in the wings and, if VAT cannot be reclaimed, it will lead to delays. The cathedral leaders are wondering whether to include in the repairs the upgrade and development of facilities that the cathedral offers for the benefit of the community. That would cost between £3 million and £4 million; adding VAT to that would make the project unachievable and it would have to end.
Given that repairs and developments are possible only through fundraising, as has been outlined, to find an additional 20% will mean that some projects will simply not take place.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The hon. Lady talks about some projects that will not be able to continue; St Martin’s Low Marple Heritage Trust in my constituency is in exactly that position. It is a treasury of the arts and crafts movement in England. I am sure the hon. Lady would agree that the scheme should continue, or clarity on its future should be encouraged from the Minister.
Ruth Jones
The hon. Lady is right. It would be good to have clarity today. I appreciate that a statement is coming, but it would be good to have clarity from the Minister this morning.
Places of worship contribute immensely to social and economic value, health and wellbeing. The cathedral’s weekly food collections enable 500 children in one school to be given breakfast for two weeks. The cathedral supports other schools, refugees, the homeless and other local food projects, and provides a place for the charity Mind to meet free of charge. Over the recent Christmas period alone, some 1,000 people passed through the cathedral doors for services—up 20% on last year. The cathedral is open every day and people regularly call in for quiet reflection and for assistance in distress.
Crucially, all that is possible only because the building is in good repair. I have given just one example of how places of worship in Newport West and Islwyn have used the moneys from the scheme wisely over the years. I strongly encourage the Government to extend the scheme, for all the economic and social benefits it provides, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on his speech. As the Government are making a written statement today, this might be one of the shortest and most successful campaigns ever.
Churches are one of the great glories of Lincolnshire. We have 124 listed churches in my constituency alone, and I have visited them all—often when I have had a rest from canvassing in the 11 general election campaigns I have fought. The later editions of the Pevsner guides describe Lincolnshire as
“incredibly rich in medieval churches from Saxon times onwards, many of them still little known”.
In villages and towns up and down the county, there are small churches, often medieval, that are precious works of art. They are also focal points for the community. As pubs, shops and post offices shut, the churches in our villages remain, whether or not services are held regularly. Lincolnshire is not unique in this regard, as colleagues from all over the country know.
I want to quote a worshipper and member of the parochial church council at St Chad’s church in Dunholme:
“We are all deeply concerned that the above scheme is due to expire in March 2025 and fearful that it may not be extended for another term.
I am sure you are well aware of the plight of fund-raising in rural areas in order to maintain and improve Grade I listed buildings plus the absolute need to, to ensure they are there for future generations.
We are constantly fund-raising to ensure that our beautiful rural church is fit for purpose to meet the needs of both the community and worshippers”.
She obviously speaks very much from the heart.
We have some glorious countryside in Lincolnshire. I spent many years as president of the Lincolnshire Ramblers, and one of the great joys of being the MP for Gainsborough is walking in the wolds. The old church at Walesby, which is known as the ramblers’ church, is open to one and all to come and spend a moment of quiet contemplation. Thanks to the efforts of many volunteers, we also have the West Lindsey churches festival every year. Across two weekends this May, 88 churches will be open to the public, completely free of charge, and church volunteers will be present to explain.
Public places of Catholic worship were not allowed until 1791, so our medieval churches today are only slightly more than a handful. None the less, there has been a growth in appreciation of the architecture of 18th, 19th and 20th-century churches. Indeed, Augustus Pugin, the architect responsible for much of what we see around us, designed many Catholic churches that are now listed. Of the 3,000 Catholic churches in England and Wales, 750 are listed, and many have had their listings upgraded to grade I.
I urge the Minister to listen to the debate, concede, and carry on with this wonderful scheme.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Mr Western.
Let me set the scene. There are around 80 places of worship in York, from York Minster through to a small Orthodox congregation who wrote to me this week and are seeking a new place—buildings young and old, including well-established places. The listed places of worship grant scheme is essential to their upkeep.
I want to raise two matters that have not been mentioned yet. First, the Belfrey, which is adjacent to York Minster, is currently under tarpaulin. The windows have been removed, the walls have been stripped back to the stone, the roof is about to come off and scaffolding is holding everything together. The grant is central to the £8.5 million project continuing; I hope the Minister will explain what will happen to this gutted church and its community of 600 worshippers without it. The grant is worth £1.5 million to them. After a tumultuous fundraising effort by the church, they need the scheme to continue, and urge the Minister to at least confirm that existing projects will continue until their completion.
This is about not just the church but the social infrastructure. Some £1.5 million is being invested in mental health support and children and youth services, as well as in making York a poverty-free city. The Belfrey is crucial for my community, as well as for the local economy, tourism and our fabulous heritage sector. It sits in the new cathedral precinct, which is part of the local neighbourhood plan. We must have the spec at the required standard, as 9 million visitors come to York, which is the second-most visited place in the UK, and to York Minster, which is the most visited place in the city. When it opens, it will be a place that not only explains the heritage but enables people to explore their faith. A 15% hole in the budget would stop the scheme.
Secondly, York has developed its new international centre of excellence for heritage craft. From stonemasons to glaziers, it will preserve the traditions that many people in this debate will benefit from. In fact, people around the world are looking to the centre. It is unique in the crafts that it will maintain, and it will ensure that the traditions are preserved. Much of the centre’s demand will come from different projects funded by the listed places of worship grant scheme. I hope the Minister will help the centre to greater success as it embarks on this new journey by ensuring that the grant enables demand to be placed at the centre’s door. So many churches and other organisations have written to me saying that the scheme must continue.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Western.
For more than 23 years, the listed places of worship grant scheme has been a lifeline for communities in South Cambridgeshire, enabling congregations to afford vital repairs to their historical buildings, which are quite often the beating heart of our communities. They provide youth groups, vaccine centres, and warm places in which to gather and bring people together. The loss of the scheme would put a lot of that in jeopardy.
Places in South Cambridgeshire where there are listed places of worship include Cherry Hinton, Coton, Stapleford, Gamlingay, Bassingbourn, Hinxton, Ickleford, Harston, Duxford, Thriplow and Great Shelford. The scheme is set to expire in March 2025, which would place all that progress and the vital roles played by these buildings in our communities in jeopardy.
Without a renewed commitment from the Government, congregations will struggle to afford the repairs needed to keep their places of worship open and functioning. The much-respected Reverend Karin Voth Harman of St Andrew’s church in Cherry Hinton explained to me that it will also impact on the congregation’s ability to access other grant funds. For example, they received a £250,000 grant from the heritage lottery fund, but they were able to receive and use those funds only because they had the exemption from the VAT scheme. If the scheme was taken away, they would not be able to do that, and that would affect many others.
The list of affected communities is long, as it is in many other communities. Let me mention the plans that people have in place that would be put at risk, which they have come to tell me about. The restoration plans to move away from fossil fuel reliance at St Peter & St Paul Bassingbourn parish church would be put at risk. The steep costs of the restoration of the three medieval churches in Fen Ditton, Horningsea and Teversham mean that essential repairs would be put at risk. The community spaces in All Saints’ church at Harston, which were used during lockdown and which the church wants to keep expanding, would be put at risk. The small village church of St Mary and St John in Hinxton relies heavily on the exemption.
St Peter’s church in Horningsea is being saved from disrepair with significant help from the VAT funds. The grade I listed parish church of St Mary the Virgin in Great Shelford relies on the VAT to afford essential repairs; without it, the church will not be able to maintain the structure and the historical Doom painting, which would be terrible. The 12th-century St George’s church in Thriplow wants, with the community, to level the nave floor, but it will not to be able to do that. Grade I listed St Mary’s in Whaddon would also be at risk.
The scheme is critical. Please continue it and ensure that we can keep these congregations and their listed places of worship at the centre of our communities.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing this debate. My constituency of South West Norfolk is home to 138 places of worship, all unique in character and valued by the local community. That includes Wiggenhall St Germans church just outside King’s Lynn, a 13th-century grade I listed church, which wrote to me just recently about the very topic being debated.
I am a proud Norfolk boy, and I am reminded of what the English poet and writer John Betjeman said:
“Norfolk would not be Norfolk without a church tower on the horizon, or round a corner up a lane. We cannot spare a single Norfolk church. When a church has been pulled down, the country seems empty or is like a necklace with a jewel missing.”
I cannot come up with words quite as poetic as John Betjeman’s, but I can tell Members that the churches in my constituency are treasured. In many cases, they are of an historic nature. We must make sure that we preserve them for generations to come, as previous generations have done for us.
Nearly half of all grade I listed buildings in England are churches. These buildings are largely run by volunteers who have to raise the funds needed for repairs. The ability to reclaim the VAT on these works makes an enormous difference, as we have heard from others, particularly at a time when costs for building works are substantially increasing. In South West Norfolk, like many rural constituencies, these buildings are so often more than a place of worship; they can be the very lifeblood of the local community, providing services to people who otherwise may miss out.
One church in South West Norfolk that exemplifies this is St Mary’s in Feltwell. I was fortunate enough to visit the church in 2024, and I was deeply impressed by the work it does to support the local community in Feltwell. That includes the food pantry, which sees a group of local volunteers set up a small shop with essentials at greatly reduced prices to help villagers. They also provide crisis packs free of charge to those in need. That initiative is run alongside the church’s regular coffee mornings and community group, which provides free access to computers and the internet—a provision that too many in rural communities sadly do not have.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is imperative that the listed places of worship scheme, or a replacement, is put in place in short order? This is not just about buildings; it is about supporting communities such as Horwich. Many worshippers from Horwich parish church have contacted me about making sure that places of worship are retained for future generations and to provide important spiritual and community support for people in my Bolton West constituency.
Terry Jermy
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; it has been wonderful today to hear so many examples of community services run through churches. We all have examples in our constituencies.
When I went to Feltwell, I was so impressed by the work of Sue Garland and the other volunteers. It was a joy to see that they are preserving the building, but importantly giving it life and purpose. These provisions are crucial and highlight what our local places of worship provide in their communities. That is why it is vital that we do all we can to support their maintenance. I would welcome the Minister clarifying whether the grant scheme can be renewed for another year.
St Mary’s is just one of 20 churches in South West Norfolk that has benefited from the listed places of worship grant scheme in the last financial year, but it remains on the heritage at risk register and is in desperate need of repair. I urge the Minister to consider what can be done to protect our most precious historic places of worship.
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and Tavistock) (Con)
It would be an act of cultural, social and spiritual mutilation not to continue with this scheme, which is why I do not think that the Minister will announce later that it will not be continued. My concern is that, although we are here debating this very important but limited scheme, there is on the horizon an even bigger problem with which the Government may have to grapple.
My concern, if I may say so, is not for the great cathedrals of this country that will always attract their supporters—my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) represents one of the greatest cathedrals—but for the small parish churches. They are small arks that have existed down the centuries as a repositories of the spiritual aspiration, the emotions, and the cultural and historical identities, of rural communities—ancestors have been buried there and pilgrimages paid to their gravesides. One by one, these churches are clinging on only by the efforts of half a dozen or so elderly volunteers, giving up time in the last years of their lives to preserve what has mattered so much to them. What happens when those volunteers go? We are seeing it already in Torridge and Tavistock. Churches are closing—I saw the Bishop of Exeter the other day to discuss it.
This scheme alone will not cause the survival of those extraordinary buildings so precious to our culture, our history and our nation. I implore the Minister to give thought to what should happen when these places of worship close. Are they to be converted into housing, often surrounded by open burial grounds? Not likely. We need to give thought to what will happen to these wonderful places, though not now sacred perhaps in some cases when they are closed, but still precious to the community’s identity and to our national inheritance. I know that the Minister will not discontinue the scheme; I would be astonished if he committed such an act of philistine vandalism, putting at risk all these extraordinary buildings for the sake of a few million pounds.
I ask the Minister to consider, “What next?” Let us not stop just at this. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) has a private Member’s Bill, the Exemption from Value Added Tax (Listed Places of Worship) Bill, on repair VAT. It is time that we considered what more can be done for these buildings and not only for the buildings—which are simply bricks and mortar, stone, with wonderful cultural artefacts within them—but for what they represent: the many hopes and aspirations of so many thousands of people, even if they do not now because
“The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full,”
but now is suffering from that
“melancholy, long, withdrawing roar”.
I know the Minister knows exactly that to which I refer. I have complete confidence in him and I look forward to his statement this afternoon.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing this important and timely debate.
Religious buildings are a vital part of our country’s heritage and architectural history, but of course they also play a central role in our communities. These spaces often serve has hubs, as we have heard, where volunteers come together to help the most vulnerable. Many of the churches and parishes across Suffolk Coastal host food banks and community larders, providing vital support to so many. These places of worship rely on the listed places of worship grant, and many parish churches receive no regular financial support and often rely on their local communities to dig deep. My main message to the Minister is that in rural constituencies, where we have small parishes and small communities, there is already a huge burden on fundraising, whereas, as we have just heard, the larger and more well-known cathedrals might attract fundraising more easily.
The 15th-century tower that is part of St Ethelbert’s church in Falkenham is a really good example of a rural church that provides so much for so few. Falkenham is a small village with a population of less than 200 and the church has an average attendance on a Sunday of about 15 people, but it plays a much bigger role in our community. There is nowhere in the village other than this church for residents to meet, so it is often used for coffee mornings, concerts and social gatherings, with up to 100 people attending those events. The same is true in Sibton—a parish whose only public building is the church, St Peter’s. The number of permanent homes is just 80 and the community rely on that church, which dates back to the 12th-century as a public building, but with a village population that could probably fit in this room, it is hard to fundraise the money that is needed. As hon. Members can imagine, the VAT refund is vital.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Shankill parish church in Lurgan in my constituency is iconic within the town. It has been part of the fabric of the town since 1725, and was rebuilt in 1863 following the Ulster revival in 1859. Shankill is a listed building; it is being refurbished at the moment, but the fact that the grant has been stalled means that that project is no longer able to continue—unless the grant is reinstated. That means that the preaching of the gospel is impacted, and the great spiritual and practical support that the church gives to the community is in jeopardy. The church will survive and continue, but the grant is a key part of that overall project.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I hope the clarity that we will receive shortly will provide reassurance to the hon. Member.
I would like to draw attention to two more churches in my constituency. St Edmund’s church in Bromeswell is a grade I listed building that has been serving the community for about 1,000 years. Although the community has raised the funds necessary for repair and improvement works, the task becomes all the harder and steeper if VAT is not refundable. In Blythburgh, the Holy Trinity church serves a parish of just 300 people, so it is an uphill task to fundraise and keep the grade I listed church in good repair and open to all.
The grant scheme has allowed the necessary works to be carried out for so many of the churches we have talked about today and many more besides. The changes and repair work done in places like Blythburgh have made massive improvements, with improved toilets and a new kitchen, enabling the people there to extend the use of the building for wider community purposes. These are important improvements that will help churches to continue to serve rural and remote communities. The same is true for St Mary’s church in Walton—a beautiful grade II listed church that has recently required works in excess of £35,000.
Those are just a few of the many fantastic churches in Suffolk Coastal that are doing so much for so many, and working hard to raise the funds that they need to ensure that they can survive and adapt to meet the needs of their community. I, along with many colleagues from across the House, urge the Government to continue the listed places of worship grant scheme beyond March.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on bringing this important debate to the attention of the House. The stakes are high if the scheme is discontinued, and it will put immense pressure on a small number of volunteers to keep those precious places of worship in good order.
Churches are not just places of worship. In my constituency, Holy Trinity church in Prestwood hosts a monthly breakfast between services, as well as toddlers’ activity groups and regular clubbercise sessions. St Mary’s in Long Crendon hosts choral evenings, mother and baby groups, orchestral events and—very importantly—a beer festival. Without critical restoration work, and the grant scheme making it possible, churches risk losing their vital place in the wider community.
At the 800-year-old St Mary Magdalene church in Great Hampden, fundraising started in 2018 for £300,000—excluding VAT—with restorative paintworks alone costing £50,000. The VAT relief afforded through the grant scheme was so critical to the project that, in its absence, fundraising would continue to this day; work would not even have started. The rector and her team have even arranged a loan facility to cover the time it might take to claim the VAT refund because they could not raise the funds to cover that element of the cost. In the rector’s words,
“The project would not have been possible without the grant scheme.”
I have also heard from St Mary’s church in Princes Risborough, which alongside St Peter’s church in Ilmer, has benefited hugely from the grant scheme, allowing both improvements and the maintenance of the building. In the coming months and years, substantial building works will be required that will benefit both the church and the community. Without the grant scheme, those simply will not happen.
In Great Missenden, the church of St Peter and St Paul provides a valuable service by providing a community space in the adjacent Oldham hall for activities supporting the village’s Church of England school as well as for the church itself. The treasurer has made it clear to me that the enhanced efficiency in planning for major works that the grant scheme allows for has been a great help to the church and the wider community in recent years.
I have given just a snapshot of how critical the scheme is to my constituents. When the Conservatives were in government, the scheme was renewed every year. We see and appreciate the value to communities of the vital and multifaceted roles that churches have, both in bringing people together and symbolising the proud history and traditions of our rural towns and villages. I hope that is foremost in the Minister’s mind when he, hopefully, delivers good news in his winding-up speech or in his written ministerial statement later today.
Matt Western (in the Chair)
Due to the constraints of time and the number of interventions, after the next speaker we will reduce the time to two minutes each.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing this debate.
In Taunton and Wellington, we are fortunate to have stunning examples of historic places of worship, from St Peter’s church in Staple Fitzpaine to what Simon Jenkins—someone I do not always agree with—called
“the noblest parish tower in England”,
St Mary Magdalene, the Minster in Taunton. These buildings are not just part of our history; they are living, breathing providers of community services. Almost half of all grade I listed buildings in England are historic churches and maintaining them, of course, comes at considerable cost. Churches and their congregations provide our country with a considerable public benefit by preserving these historic structures—a benefit that many of my constituents from such congregations worry that they will not be able to continue to provide if this scheme comes to an end.
Continuation of the scheme is simply a fair acknowledgment of that massive voluntary contribution. In fact, it is not just a fair deal for the Government, but a bargain; the value gained from this scheme goes way beyond the heritage and cultural value. It enables churches, mosques, synagogues and temples to deliver essential community and voluntary services, and we have heard examples from across the country. I know from my constituents how crucial they find St Gregory’s mother and toddler group, and how important they find Staple Fitzpaine’s weekly café and music events. These are also important places for the lonely to meet, enjoy a hot drink and access expert advice, which is provided at St John the Baptist, All Saints in Norton Fitzwarren, St John’s in Staplegrove, St Peter and St Paul’s in North Curry, St John’s in Wellington, All Saints in Trull and St Augustine’s in West Monkton, to name just a few.
The sheer scale and quantity of community services provided by those places of worship impossible to list—I would be here all day if I tried. They are not just buildings; they are community hubs of our towns and villages. It is right that we continue to recognise that fact and to support them. Let us protect not only our heritage, but the lifelines that these places of worship provide to the communities that they serve.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing this important debate. I have been contacted by so many pillars of the community in my constituency who are deeply concerned about what this might mean for their places of worship. This is about the preservation of heritage, ensuring that our future generations can enjoy places of beauty and history central to our heritage and culture.
In Great Staughton, St Andrew’s church has stood for 800 years. The chair of their renovation project, Anthony Withers, wrote to me at the end of last year, deeply concerned that their aim of building a community space might be affected or even rendered unfeasible if they are unable to claim back the VAT. Anthony expressed how this project was not aimed at conventional churchgoers, but rather a space for musical, theatrical and other community events. He would dearly like to hear assurances that 800 years of history will be able to carry on, with St Andrew’s remaining at the centre of their community.
I also received a moving email from a constituent who was deeply concerned about the future of the medieval All Saints church in Hamerton. The church was where she was married, where her children were christened and, she hopes, where future family marriages and christenings will happen too. However, with work needed to keep the church building safe, she is worried that the future of All Saints may now be at risk.
From Hamerton to Hertford, where the treasurer of All Saints parish church explained to me that in the last six years alone they have been able to claim back £50,000 for various projects, including repairs to the church tower, refurbishment of the bells, a new gas boiler, restoration and rebuild of the church organ, installation of a new lighting system and the limewash on the internal walls—all work that must be done to keep that church going. The site has had a church standing on it for nearly 1,000 years.
Our churches and places of worship are resorting to ever more inventive and ingenious ways to raise funds for the upkeep of their ageing buildings. All Saints Parish church in St Ives runs a popular event twice a year called “Booze in the Pews”. I attended the last two events and spoke with the vicar, Mark Amey. The funds raised go towards the upkeep of the church and, for anybody passing through my constituency in a fortnight’s time, the next event will be from 6 to 8 February—but I digress.
I know that all Members see on a daily basis the importance of these places and the people who selflessly devote their lives to serving those whom we represent. In summing up, on behalf of all the constituents represented by the Members present, I ask the Minister to outline what steps the Government will be taking in order to extend the listed places of worship grant scheme.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I thank the hon. Member for (Bradley Thomas) for bringing us this debate. All Saints parish church in South Antrim is one of the finest Elizabethan Gothic ecclesiastic buildings open for worship in the whole island of Ireland. Originally built in 1596, it is currently embarking on a repair project for its bell tower, which will cost just over a quarter of a million pounds. The church has applied for significant funding, but the £45,000 that it hopes to claim from the scheme is crucial to budgeting for that work.
That church is of specific interest because unfortunately, following this year’s Christmas morning service, there was a fire in the church causing significant internal smoke damage. The church is now looking to repair the smoke damage while continuing with the original repair work, so its small congregation is now required to undertake two significant fundraising efforts. It is willing to do that, but the continuation of the listed places of worship grant scheme is crucial to its budgeting.
In regards to other churches in my constituency and across Northern Ireland, representatives of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland who I spoke to talked about the essential services in other churches and church buildings that now may come under pressure, as all Members have raised. I have one word for the Minister, Proverbs 11:14, and I know he will listen to it:
“Without wise leadership, a nation falls; there is safety in having many advisers.”
The Minister has many advisers in this place who are advising him to keep this scheme open. I would encourage him to listen to those words.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing this debate. I am time constrained, but I want to mention St Mary’s in Stanwell, a grade I listed 12th-century Norman church. An overseas visitor remarked to me recently how odd it was that the Normans chose to build such a beautiful church right by Heathrow airport—I think they slightly missed the point. We also have St Peter’s in Staines, St Nicholas’s in Shepperton and All Saints in Laleham, all of which have benefited from the listed places of worship scheme.
When churches fall into disrepair, our generation lets our communities down, and when churches crumble, the fabric of society itself crumbles. The Minister is clearly not motivated by self-interest, so I point out that my own church, St Mary’s in Sunbury, a beautiful grade II listed church built in 1752 down by the River Thames, is due to be visited by Mr Speaker on 4 March, where he will conduct a conversation with the congregation. Should the Minister wish to make himself a hero and ensure that the Speaker gets a warm welcome from the people of St Mary’s in Sunbury, I am sure he will see sense, listen to the mood of this Chamber—indeed, the mood of the country—and extend this scheme.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on bringing us this important debate. Ely and East Cambridgeshire has many beautiful listed places of worship. They form part of the fabric of our villages and towns, and of course Ely cathedral watches over Ely and the fens and villages for miles around. Their congregations work really hard to maintain these buildings, not just for their own place of worship, but for the benefit of all of us, whether regular congregants, people who go just for special occasions or, as we have heard, people who use them as hubs and for events—or just because they are absolutely stunning buildings, part of the fabric of our heritage.
I used to help to assess a related grant scheme, so I have seen how hard these congregations work to raise money. Obviously, they do cake sales, book sales and all sorts of things, but one of the most inventive ones was guessing where the cow was going to lay her first pat in the field. Asking those people to raise an extra 20% is a significant ask and, as we have heard, it will stop many of these schemes going ahead.
I ask the Minister to extend the listed places of worship grant scheme and to consider, preferably, making it permanent—or, if not, extending it for a significant period of time. That is because these are capital projects that take a lot of planning, and it takes years to raise the money required. People need to know that this scheme will be there into the future to help them to make vital repairs.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Our churches are listed places of worship; they are treasured assets that really must be preserved.
During my degree, I loved studying the role of our church; I even read Bede’s “Ecclesiastical History”, which dates back to 731 AD. As the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), has noted, our medieval parish churches contain the vast majority of surviving medieval artwork in this country, so they really must be preserved.
For example, St Peter’s church in Brackley, which is in my constituency, is grade I listed. It is believed that the site the church is built on has been a place of worship since the 7th century AD. The oldest parts of the church itself are Norman, from around 1100 AD, and they play an important role in the charitable organisation—for example, hosting the Mother’s Union, which meets monthly on a Thursday afternoon in the church hall.
Talking about charity and voluntary activity, I am very proud of the support that the Tove Benefice in Towcester, which can be accessed via the grade I listed St Lawrence’s church, has provided to Ukraine. That charitable work has been led by Steve, the husband of the Reverend Paula Challen. They have collected in the church literally tonnes of aid and transported it to Ukraine on numerous journeys. I have so much respect for their support and continued dedication.
Finally, another example of a treasured asset, which is rather closer to home, is St Peter & St Paul church in Easton Maudit. It is home to the exquisite memorial to Sir Christopher Yelverton, who died in 1612. Sir Christopher was returned as the MP for Brackley in 1563, was then the MP for Northampton and, on 24 October 1597, he was elected as Speaker of the House of Commons. The church is also home to captivating architecture, glorious furnishings, other magnificent memorials and stained glass. We would be at a loss if we did not offer all the support needed to allow such buildings, and all the succour that they provide, to continue.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure, Mr Western, to serve under your chairship, and I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this debate for his contribution.
We wish to see the heritage and faith that we have in this country continue. The preservation and support of places of worship is not just a matter of heritage or architecture, although such places are a crucial part of the national heritage; they also provide hundreds of millions of pounds to the economy. However, the £30 million allocated for them annually is only a fraction of what is needed.
Strangford, my constituency, is a place steeped in history and tradition, where faith has been central to the community for centuries. It would be a tragedy both spiritually and culturally if places such as St Margaret’s church in Westminster, which is just across the road from Westminster Hall, or the many churches across this land no longer fulfilled their intended purpose, which is to be living places of faith and community.
It is crucial that the Government recognise that these buildings are not simply structures, but are central to the mission of the church, serving as a base for critical community outreach. They are sanctuaries—places where people come together for worship, prayer and fellowship. They are places where the community comes together to support one another—to be the hands and feet of God in this world.
The National Lottery Heritage Fund has been encouraged to support some churches with community projects and parks. St Mark’s church in Newtownards, the parish church in my local community, received money from the fund and is now a community hub, hosting groups representing every age from birth to the twilight years. Indeed, many churches are the driving forces behind volunteer-based care for the elderly, the disabled and marginalised groups.
The Government must acknowledge the vital role that the Church plays in the fabric of our society, not only in maintaining cultural heritage, but in providing essential social services. To that end, the Government should act decisively. By expanding the listed places of worship scheme and encouraging the National Heritage Lottery Fund to allocate more resources, ensuring that funding is available for all necessary repairs, whether they are urgent or preventive, the Government can ensure that churches, cathedrals and abbeys continue to be the heart of British life, preserving our heritage while serving our community, and preaching the gospel and the word of God as it is in the Bible.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western, and I thank the Minister—a trained Anglican priest who, I am sure, has our best interests at heart—for tolerating the lamentations of we lay people.
I start by thanking the dozen or so constituents who have written to me about the listed places of worship grant scheme, especially Mark Goodwill-Hodgson, John Edwards, Derek Hollis, Conrad Oatey and Tony Cox, who all shared deeply personal testimonies with me about the importance of their local places of worship in my constituency of Rushcliffe.
What is unique about the listed places of worship grant scheme is its accessibility, paying out approximately 500 grants a month at an average of £4,000 each. We should all be proud of the wider impact that this has had over the last 20 years, and I know that my constituency of Rushcliffe alone has many churches that have benefited from the scheme during that time. You have asked me to be brief, Mr Western, so I simply commend this scheme to all Members. I look forward to the outcome of the forthcoming spending review, as well as the statement later today, which I hope will provide greater clarity and certainty for listed places of worship about their futures under this Government.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing the debate. I come from a different angle as I was very much unaware of it, so I thank the Very Reverend Karen Rooms of Leicester cathedral for bringing it to my attention. Leicester cathedral is the cathedral where, when we found King Richard III in a carpark, we reinterred him, and many in our city believe that is what led to Leicester City winning the premiership the season after, so it is absolutely vital to us.
Cathedrals are more than places of beauty, religion and art. I, as a Muslim, volunteer for a Sikh charity serving food in a Christian church for the whole community. Reflecting what has been said, churches and cathedrals are places of community cohesion. I also come from a culture in which we do not own places of worship; we are simply their custodians. We are custodians of our churches and cathedrals.
Sir Roger Gale
The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. It has been raised earlier in this debate, and it worried me. Our parish churches are, of course, important, but is it not true that our cathedrals are also monumentally expensive to maintain? Is not the grant every bit as valuable to, for example, Canterbury cathedral in the see of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Shockat Adam
I agree wholeheartedly. They are our heritage and we must save them for our future generations. The scheme should not just be extended; it should be made permanent and accessible to many places of worship.
Matt Western (in the Chair)
I call on the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, and I would appreciate it if her speech could be reduced to around nine minutes.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on calling this debate and I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) on the points they have made.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
In my beautiful constituency of Tiverton and Minehead, I have 25 grade I listed churches. There is hardly a village that does not have a grade I listed church and churches with other statuses. I hope the hon. Member agrees that, without this grant, there are dark days ahead for these communities.
Tessa Munt
I thank my hon. Friend, and I add Tiverton and Minehead to my list.
First, let me quote one of the people who wrote to me. They said:
“It’s such a great scheme because the volunteers who raise money for church repairs find it such hard work making multiple lengthy applications for grants with usually little to show in return. This VAT relief once you have raised the funds is the one thing that is certain and takes the edge of all the effort”.
I recognise that in 2024 this scheme already gave 5,000 listed places of worship the benefit of returning up to £42 million from the Government to congregations across the country. That £42 million is a fixed annual pot, and there are, I understand, over 7,000 applications.
I will briefly indulge in talking about my own constituency, which I know the Minister has visited on occasion. I have had numerous communications with people, mainly from churches, but also, significantly, from Wells cathedral, where I saw Jethro Tull play a few years ago. The variety of activities is enormous. My partner and I should probably declare an interest; my partner played table tennis in Christ church at Theale last week. Holy Trinity church in Blackford has carols with vast slugs of wine provided to the whole congregation, St Cuthbert’s at Wells has a crib festival and St John the Baptist in Axbridge hosts the annual community awards presentation. There are others such as the Holy Trinity church in Burrington and St Mary Magdalene church in Wookey Hole. All of those places have Remembrance Sunday services where we recall the duty that people have paid to this country. My local church, St Mary’s in Wedmore, runs “The Clash of the Choirs”, which is now world famous, I have to say, and sounds sedate, but is actually a joyous celebration of all sorts of singing, school choirs, folk, handbells and a unique clap-o-meter. There are also the city of Wells almshouses, which are home to some of our more vulnerable elderly citizens. The chapel of St Saviour is benefiting at this moment from works that are being carried out under this scheme.
One of the things I would like the Minister to consider is the conditions that are required for people to claim under this scheme, in which the VAT refund is dependent on having work commissioned, carried out and paid for against a VAT invoice of £1,000 or more—as I understand it—and only then can the church submit a claim. One of my concerns is that if this scheme is to be reduced, or stopped and wound up, then I ask the Minister for great understanding and for transition arrangements for those churches and chapels that already have works in train. It is quite difficult for people to get that work done, particularly when a number of my communities have been suffering from flooding and various other things, meaning that the number of available contractors has also been reduced.
I will not carry on in too much detail, but I was very pleased to receive a letter from the Secretary of State that recognised that,
“Listed places of worship hold great cultural and historical significance, representing some of the nation’s finest heritage.”
I am grateful that the Minister and Secretary of State recognise that, and I would ask for some tolerance and kindness in continuing this scheme, which is so important to our various communities.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I start by praising my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this vital debate. As we can see, it is incredibly important to many hon. Members, and I want to acknowledge contributions from a number of them, but given the time, I cannot acknowledge everybody. I thought my hon. Friends the Members for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) and for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), the hon. Members for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) all made wonderful contributions, as did the other Members I have not been able to mention. They have all made their faith communities incredibly proud. I take your steer, Mr Western, and will try and give the Minister as much time as possible to satisfy the Members in this House, because this is an important debate.
Britian is defined by its history: up and down the country, people are fiercely proud of their heritage. As His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, it is therefore right that we hold the Government to account as we try and stand up for our history and protect our heritage. In Opposition, we have campaigned on this issue very vehemently and I know there is a written ministerial statement on the way. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said this might be the shortest campaign ever.
Saqib Bhatti
It might the shortest WMS, which I hope tells us how the Minister is extending the scheme. I want to thank all the people from across the country who have written to us on this issue—their voice matters. I thank all the volunteers who protect our most beautiful heritage sites.
The Conservatives are very clear that Britian’s rich history, deep sense of tradition and incredible national story is something we should always protect, and there is no doubt that our churches, and other places of worship that have been announced, are fundamental to that. These cherished buildings play key roles in their local communities, serving both as a window into our past and as active centres of support and sanctuary for people of all faiths and none.
The people who look after them, as custodians of our future generations, are volunteers who give their time and energy generously with very little external help, but many of them are reliant on the vital lifeline that is the listed places of worship grant scheme. Introduced in 2001, the scheme provides essential grants covering the VAT charge and repairs to listed buildings used as places of worship. I am proud that the Conservative Government had a very strong record of supporting that important scheme. Under the previous Government, the listed places of worship grant scheme was extended, providing funding to cover VAT on essential repairs, which meant thousands of churches were protected for generations to come.
However—this may change—Labour is yet to announce whether it will fund the scheme past its expiry in March this year. The Budget came and went without an answer. This uncertainty is making the task of those who look after these precious buildings more precarious and stressful. Many are understandably delaying their plans until the Government make up their mind, meaning more leaky roofs, more draughty windows and more cold churches during the vital Christmas period. With the WMS on the way, I am hopeful that the Minister will announce something meaningful that goes beyond one year. I share the ambition of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove for the permanency of this grant, so I hope the Minister will address that point.
According to Historic England, 969 places of worship are under threat, including churches in the Prime Minister’s constituency. When questioned about the scheme at the Dispatch Box last week, the Minister quoted a hymn, but the custodians of our historic churches need more than a hymn and a prayer. They deserve clarity and support from the Government, which I hope the Minister can give us today. That is important because Historic England’s informative heritage at risk register paints a harrowing picture for England’s historic sites. For places of worship in particular, the possibility of roofs collapsing or a lack of maintenance on stonework would be catastrophic.
Numerous constituents in my constituency of Meriden and Solihull East have written to me about their concerns for some of our most beloved local churches. They told me that discontinuing the scheme would
“be a disaster for listed places of worship”,
and that the ability to reclaim VAT
“makes an enormous difference, particularly at a time when the cost of building work has increased substantially.”
There is great frustration about the Government’s failure to confirm the extension of this vital scheme. It is not just felt by constituents; it has an impact on all our communities and on the rest of society.
The chair of the National Churches Trust, Sir Philip Rutnam, has called on the Government to renew the listed places of worship fund. Sir Philip states that the crisis affecting church heritage could get worse in the coming months if this vital “financial lifeline” is scrapped. The Bishop of Dudley, Bishop Martin Gorrick, also paints a bleak picture, saying,
“It is not just heritage that is at risk if the Scheme lapses. Churches and other places of worship are home to so much social enterprise and action: Church of England churches support over 35,000 social action projects such as foodbanks, community larders and debt, drug, alcohol advice and rehabilitation groups.”
The director of the Friends of Friendless Churches, Rachel Morley, wrote to the Secretary of State saying,
“The impact of this cut at a parish level would be devastating”
and that,
“We place the burden of caring for thousands of the nation’s most important buildings—undoubtedly the nation’s greatest free heritage resources—on a tiny proportion of the public who are, for the most part, volunteers.”
That view was eloquently shared by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox).
I hope the Government will confirm the continuation of the scheme as soon as possible or, better still, an expanded scheme that helps the custodians of listed places of worship to carry out vital repair works in the first place. One challenge I would put to the Minister is that the funding has been a rebate for many years. Let us make it into a grant and let us make it permanent. Will he also consider the private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), which raises quite a vital point? I hope he addresses that.
I cannot speak about this issue without addressing the broader economic picture. If the Government were to neglect these cherished buildings, it would be an act of vandalism, but it would come as no surprise to many of our constituents if the Labour Government did turn a blind eye to this threat to our heritage, given where we are economically. We have seen the calamitous impact of the Chancellor’s callous Budget on our great houses already, including on our historic houses, and I have already written and made comments about the impact. Independent analysis has shown that the dramatic increase in inheritance tax could spell an end for many of our historic heritage sites and estates across the country. This would cost jobs and mean that some of the UK’s most popular stately homes would be closed.
I have very little confidence in the long-term faith that the Government would put in our heritage. Of course, the dire economic circumstances make a big difference. I have already raised the matter on the Floor of the House, because it is becoming ever clearer that the Chancellor will have to cut budgets. Although many of our voters, including many of my constituents, do not believe that they can afford a Labour Government, what they certainly cannot afford is the Minister abandoning our most vital sector, so I encourage him to stand up to the Chancellor and try to protect those vital budgets. As the cost of debt goes up and the economic situation becomes more dire, the Chancellor will have even less headroom to spend on schemes such as the listed places of worship grant.
Mr Western, in deference to your timing request, I will conclude. I share the concerns of many beyond this House that the Government are yet to protect our heritage. As we have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, hundreds of churches have been left with a deep sense of uncertainty for months. The Government’s failure to commit to that funding risks imperilling centuries of British history and heritage, all while leaving gaping holes in our local communities and depriving our constituents of spaces to accommodate celebration, grief, art, music, sculpture, political hustings—of course—wellbeing groups, childcare, addiction support sessions and so much more. The listed places of worship grant scheme is essential, and I urge the Minister to make the strongest possible case for its renewal to the Treasury; otherwise, many of our constituents will ask, “Is nothing sacred any more?”
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
I feel as if I have been beaten up for the last hour and a quarter in the most genteel way, with a maniple rather than a boxing glove. [Interruption.] I see that most people do not know what a maniple is; perhaps I am the only former priest in the room.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), excoriates me for citing a hymn. It was:
“nearer and nearer draws the time, the time that shall surely be,
when the earth shall be filled with the glory of God,”
and the Department will announce its decisions. The hon. Gentleman says that the Church cannot rely on a hymn and a prayer. Actually, if I might gently correct his theology, that is literally what the Church does rely on. He needs to go back to the 39 articles; I am quite happy to provide tutorials.
We have had Bede—not in Latin, I note. We have had Jethro Tull; I think that that was Jethro Tull the band, rather than the 18th-century agronomist. We have had Matthew Arnold, to whom I will return a little later, and of course Betjeman. We have also had Proverbs; I think 11:14 was quoted, very sensibly, but if we go up to 11:13, in the King James version, which is always my preferred one—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I thought that that might carry at least half the House. It reads:
“A talebearer revealeth secrets: but he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter”,
or in a more modern translation,
“A gossip betrays a confidence, but a trustworthy person keeps a secret.”
That is what we have been doing in the Department for a while now.
I warmly commend the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), who put his case extremely well. I think that I agreed with nearly everything he said, as I will come to in a moment. The right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox)—one of my favourite Conservative Members—quoted Matthew Arnold’s “Dover Beach”, and he knew that I would know it:
“The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full…
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar”.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. Part of the problem is dwindling congregations, which are sometimes fewer than a dozen. I know that the Bible says
“where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I”,
but when we are down to two or three, it is difficult to raise the funds for a beautiful, ancient building that is very expensive to maintain or even keep warm. Those are significant challenges, on which I want to work with all hon. Members.
We have focused mostly on Anglican churches—there are obviously not many medieval Catholic churches around—but of course this issue relates to all listed places of worship in the country and to many different congregations, denominations and religions. There is a specific issue for many of our very historic churches, which are beautiful and need our help as a nation.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove is right that churches are community hubs as much as anything else. They host youth groups, such as the one I used to run at All Saints, High Wycombe; I think I was a bit of a trendy vicar back then—that is all gone now. He referred to food banks, which are also run in many churches. In fact, the old Conservative Association in one of my valleys closed and became a food bank, which is run by a new church that has been set up there. That has managed to save an old historic building, which is great.
Choirs and orchestras often perform in churches, and churches are often warm spaces for people in winter. Although my memory of most churches is that they are rarely warm, the fund has been able to help to make segments of churches into warm places. Churches are also refuges for lots of people. The bit that we have not mentioned very much is that they are a place of worship, which is an important part of the spiritual life of this nation. Births, deaths, baptisms, funerals and weddings are a very important part of community life and a commitment to God.
Churches are also of phenomenal artistic and architectural importance. Some of the most beautiful buildings in this country are historic churches. The right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) mentioned Salisbury cathedral. There is the famous painting, of course; it is a very beautiful cathedral. I cannot now think of it without remembering the horrific, horrible Russians who claimed that they had come to Salisbury to visit the tourist site there when we know that they came with murderous intent.
Many of those places are a vital part of our country’s tourism. They are also often a living archive. Whether it is the memorials on the wall or on the floor, the brass rubbings that people look at, or the churchyards themselves, genealogy is still a very big business around the world, including for thousands of Americans. I think Walt Disney at one point came to Northamptonshire or somewhere where there is a d’Isney who may or may not be related. Many Americans come to British churches to see where their forebears came from.
Sir Roger Gale
Will the Minister accept that the volume of tourists that he has just referred to is essential to many listed buildings, particularly places such as Canterbury cathedral? That volume of tourism also, of course, adds to the cost of maintenance.
Chris Bryant
Yes, it does. For many cathedrals, deciding whether to charge is a difficult balancing act. It is a complicated decision, but the passage of millions of people through a building does wear it down. Toilets have to be renewed, places have to be kept warm, and the electrics have to be repaired and kept safe; we have heard a couple of references to fires in churches over the years.
I fully accept that volume of tourists is a massive challenge for us. We have a different settlement in this country compared with other countries. In the Church of England, when I was in the diocese of Oxford, we had what we used to refer to as “dead men’s money”, which is the Church’s historic endowment, but it is often stretched very thin.
Hon. Members have talked about funding. The churches themselves do a lot of fundraising, and I put on record my tribute to the widow’s mite and to those who have contributed significant sums over the years to keep churches open. I think Andrew Lloyd Webber has played a significant role in that, as have many others who have given tens of thousands of pounds or have left money to their local church. When I was a curate in High Wycombe we had to raise thousands of pounds for the spire. I think I sat for 24 hours outside the church reading poems, including Matthew Arnold’s “Dover Beach”, to help to raise money, and then they threw me out of an aeroplane as well—with a parachute.
The single biggest chunk of money that goes to churches, as the hon. Member for Bromsgrove knows, comes from the National Lottery Heritage Fund. Between 2017 and 2023, the amount of money given to smaller churches came to £165,188,049. That far eclipses the amount of money that comes through the scheme that we are talking about today. Even Bromsgrove has received £1.2 million from that fund since 1994, including for St Laurence, Alvechurch, which got £189,000 for repairs to its tower last year.
In addition, there is the Churches Conservation Trust, which is governed by the Redundant Churches and Other Religious Buildings Act 1969. We will be laying a statutory instrument fairly soon to enable that to continue with something in the region of £3 million, and it is responsible for a specific number of churches. The Church of England has also set aside £11 million for its Buildings for Mission fund. All that funding is excellent.
I have to say that, as a Minister of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the financial situation in our Department is very tough. Many hon. Members who have spoken could equally have come along and asked about the museums or libraries in their constituency, which have struggled because of local authority funding cuts over the last 14 years; or they might have said to me, “What about the local theatre or the local arts venue, which are struggling for finances? Or the music venues that have been closing, two a week, for the last few years?”; or they might point to other forms of heritage at risk. I note that the shadow Minister made several spending commitments for the next general election campaign, including significant extra funding for a whole series of different heritage bodies. There are a significant number of churches on the heritage at risk register. It is good that 23 places of worship have been removed from that since 2023, but obviously we want to go further if we can.
I tried to come to the House as soon as I could after we came to a decision. Going through the process in the Department has been difficult because the funding is so tight and we have a lot of competing demands. In addition, we have a series of arm’s length bodies, such as the national galleries and museums that are Government-owned and under Government responsibility, which we cannot leave out of the equation. I note the Father of the House’s comments earlier—I am sure he is not accusing me of using some kind of hidden tactic—but I wanted to come as soon as I could to respond to the debate, which we knew was going to be today. I have officials and everybody lined up so that I can make the proper announcements to the House as fast as we possibly can, because I think Parliament should hear them first.
Members will be aware from the Order Paper that an announcement on the future of the listed places of worship grant scheme is due today. The written ministerial statement will not say much more than I am about to say now, so hon. Members should not get too excited. I am pleased to be able to give certainty and announce that the scheme will continue in 2025-26 with a budget of £23 million. We have made this difficult decision against a tough financial background and bearing in mind a wide range of compelling priorities for expenditure within the Department.
In order to meet the budget, we have introduced a cap on the total amount that a listed place of worship can claim per year. We have set that at £25,000, which can still be spread across multiple claims from the same church. In all the years so far, 94% of applications have been under the £25,000 cap, and the vast majority of claims—over 70%—have been for less than £5,000. A written ministerial statement will be made shortly in both Houses to confirm and provide further details of this announcement, but, to be honest, there is not much more detail there.
Chris Bryant
I will, but I need to give enough time for the hon. Member for Bromsgrove.
Gideon Amos
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He said £25 million. Is it correct that there was £42 million of funding in the past? Is this a cut of £20-odd million?
Chris Bryant
No, that is not correct. The maximum amount that was spent last year was £29 million—I will be straight with the hon. Member that it is a smaller amount of money this year. An allocation had been made for £42 million but that amount was never spent because there were not sufficient applications.
By tradition, a cathedral is not symmetrical because only God is perfect. I am sure this funding is not perfection in terms of what everybody would want, but I hope it is at least acceptable.
Bradley Thomas
Because I am conscious of time, I will not thank hon. Members individually, but I thank everyone collectively. I am really pleased to see the extent of cross-party support here. We have approached the matter in a non-political spirit, recognising the heritage and identity of churches and listed places of worship and the spiritual contributions they make across the entire country.
I welcome the Minister providing a continuation of the scheme for 2025-26, although the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) was spot on when he said that the scheme was a bargain as it was. It would be a false economy to reduce the scheme and not to give it a degree of permanence. I implore the Minister to go back to his Department and consider how the scheme can be extended permanently—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No.10(6)).
Child Arrangements: Presumption of Parental Involvement
(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
Matt Western (in the Chair)
I will call Dr Marie Tidball to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the presumption of parental involvement in child arrangements.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. There must be urgent reform of the presumption of parental involvement in child arrangements, known in law as presumption of contact, on the basis of evidence and principle, and to ensure that children’s voices are at the heart of our family courts.
The de facto common law principle of presumption of contact was legislated for in the Children and Families Act 2014, which inserted sections 1(2A) and (2B) into the Children Act 1989. That legal principle means that parents should always be given contact with their children, even in circumstances where there is a known domestic abuser.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for raising this massive issue—well done for bringing it forward. In the world we live in, it is always the most innocent—the children—who suffer the greatest in a family breakdown. Does she agree that we must do more to ensure that, where there are doubts about safety, we should utilise supervised parental visits? Getting this right is an essential part of the battle against violence against women and children.
Dr Tidball
I certainly agree. To illustrate why, I want hon. Members to imagine a school night with a child being repeatedly asked by his father if he had completed his homework. The child replied in an exasperated tone, “Yes.” His dad stepped towards him with his fists ready to punch him. The boy’s mum stepped into the space between the fist and her son, and pushed him out of its way. The full force of that fist hit her so hard that she was spun round and fell down the stairs, bruising her arms, legs and back. From the top of the stairs, the child’s father shouted to his son, “Look what you made me do.” Imagine the same boy being driven to tears after his father made his brother eat peas until he was sick. The boy’s mother left her husband, taking the children with her.
Imagine a scene, six months later, where the father barricaded a Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service officer in her office for 15 minutes. Social services were aware that that same father had made statements that he was capable of killing. Then imagine that, despite knowing all that, a family court permitted the father of those two boys five hours’ unsupervised contact per week. Claire Throssell, my constituent, does not need to imagine that nightmare. She and her two sons, Jack and Paul Sykes, lived it.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
Women’s Aid highlights that the pro-contact culture in family courts can force children into contact with abusive parents, sometimes against their will. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial that family justice agencies recognise children as victims in their own right, as outlined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, to prioritise their welfare and, most importantly, save lives?
Dr Tidball
I do indeed, and I will return to that point later, not least because Jack and Paul Sykes told their social workers that they were scared of their dad. The youngest told them that he was “pure nasty”. Their secondary school was so concerned about the domestic abuse at home that it also alerted social services. Yet, on a two-hour contact visit permitted by a family court and allowed to go ahead by that same CAFCASS officer, Jack and Paul were locked in the attic by their father. Using gasoline, their dad then set multiple fires alight across their home. Paul, aged nine, died at the scene after his elder brother tried to save him. Jack, aged just 12, died later in hospital. The father also killed himself in the blaze.
Jack and Paul Sykes were supposed to return to their mother Claire that night. Instead, the boys died at the hands of a known domestic abuser. Their voices were not heard by social services, nor by the court. CAFCASS never heard their voices either. In fact, the day that Jack was supposed to speak to CAFCASS for a welfare assessment was the same day Claire cradled him in her arms as he died. The only time Jack’s voice was heard was when he was held in the fireman’s arms as he used the last of his strength to say, “My dad did this and he did it on purpose.”
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The hon. Member is making an immensely powerful argument; that is a tragic tale. Does she agree that, as well as domestic abuse being taken into account, perpetrators of child sexual abuse should be taken into account in relation to parental involvement? I support the campaign of my constituent, Bethan Parkinson. Amending Jade’s law to that effect, to include domestic abuse and child sexual abuse, would be a useful step forward.
Dr Tidball
I do agree. I will discuss further proposals later in my speech. Jack and Paul would never have been in the reach of a known domestic abuser, were it not for the presumption of contact. Although schools have a statutory responsibility to report suspected incidents of domestic abuse, in contrast the presumption does not put the children of known domestic abusers first.
Ten years on, this place must hear Jack’s and Paul’s voices reverberate loud and clear, because tragically their voices are not alone. Women’s Aid found evidence of 48 child deaths at the hands of a known domestic abuser that took place following a permitted contact visit between 1994 and 2015. The Domestic Abuse Act, as my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) mentioned, recognises that children are victims of domestic abuse in their own right. Child contact is a known risk indicator for domestic homicide, yet we still do not know the true scale of the problem.
The vast majority of court reports are not published, with only 10% of rulings coming to light. Only last month, the sentencing of Sara Sharif’s known domestically abusive father and stepmother for her murder showed all of us that action is urgently needed to change the law. Her life must not be forgotten.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
As the MP for Sara Sharif, I am very thankful that the hon. Lady has raised her case. As she knows, I called for an immediate safeguarding review, to understand the reasoning. However, it appears that the perverse incentive for parental contact, with Sara’s father being given custody, contributed to her death. Does the hon. Lady agree that family courts and that perverse incentive need to be changed?
Dr Tidball
I absolutely do agree and will return to my proposals for reform later.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an immensely powerful speech. It was extremely moving yesterday for the Education Committee to hear directly from my hon. Friend’s constituent, Claire Throssell. Claire’s work, in the context of her unbearably painful experience, is deeply inspiring, and I pay tribute to her.
We heard from her how problems in the family courts, including but not limited to the presumption of contact, have knock-on consequences for the wider work of child protection. Will my hon. Friend join me in calling on the Minister to ensure that there is strong, joined-up and effective working between her Department and the Department for Education so that we make sure that everyone who has a role in the protection of children is doing the most effective work possible?
Dr Tidball
I agree. We have said that we will take a mission-centred approach in Government, particularly to halve violence against women and girls, and I will return to that point. As a reference for Hansard, I mention that Claire Throssell MBE is with us in this Chamber today.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making the most powerful of speeches. We need joining up with the police service. My constituent fears every day that her children are in contact with their father. It is really important that we look at the thresholds, particularly with the Crown Prosecution Service, for prosecuting cases.
Dr Tidball
I agree. As someone who has worked in criminology and criminal justice for over a decade, I think the need for us to move beyond siloed working can be no more important than it is in these sorts of cases.
Just yesterday, we learned that the man Kiena Dawes named as her killer when she committed suicide wants to launch a custody battle over their daughter, saying that
“I’m coming to get you baby girl”.
This man has been jailed for six and a half years for assault of and controlling behaviour towards Kiena. Our current law would allow this person to have unsupervised contact with their child.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing such an important debate and for making such a powerful speech. Does she agree that the visitation presumption, custody presumption and all these sorts of things that happen in family law courts are a continuing perpetration of the domestic abuse that the women and mothers were fleeing in the first place? I will keep this case anonymous, but in my constituency I was meant to meet a woman on Saturday. The handling of the handover of the children on Friday had been so abusive and painful for her that she had to cancel her appointment with me because she was in hospital with heart palpitations. Can my hon. Friend address how we can ensure in the future that the presumption in the court service takes into account that this is continuing domestic abuse for both the mother and the children?
Dr Tidball
Absolutely. I will return to this later, but the harm report makes quite clear the re-traumatisation of both children and parental victims of domestic abuse that comes with repeated attempts at contact and the presumption that is currently in place. The consequence of that is a generation of lost voices like Jack and Paul Sykes and Sara Sharif, but there is no definitive way of knowing how many parents whose partner or spouse is a known domestic abuser have been persuaded into some form of shared care because of the presumption.
The harm report, published in 2020 by the Ministry of Justice’s expert panel on harm, found that presumption of contact must be reviewed urgently, because the principle
“put a misplaced emphasis on the child’s right to a relationship with both parents…above the child’s welfare and right to be safe from abuse and its effects”.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I pay tribute to the incredible campaigning work of Claire Throssell MBE in the face of unimaginable grief. My hon. Friend mentioned the Ministry of Justice report, which highlighted that the culture of the family courts and professionals involved in cases showed a systematic disbelief of abuse and the acceptance of counter-allegations—for example, parental alienation—without robust scrutiny. Does she agree that the report, which was left to gather dust, must be dusted down and put into immediate effect?
Dr Tidball
I absolutely do. Furthermore, in response to my hon. Friend’s important point, the report specifically stated:
“To the extent that the courts’ pro-contact culture operates as a barrier to addressing domestic abuse, it serves to reinforce that culture.”
Indeed, section 6 of the report laid bare that children’s voices are being “muted or unheard” in domestic abuse cases because of the pro-contact culture.
Jess Asato
One of my constituents, a domestic abuse survivor, has had all contact with her children removed, as well as her domestic abuse claim rejected without evidence. She has now had to pay not just for contact visits but monthly drug tests, when her drug use was not proven at all, making it completely unaffordable for her to see her children. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is past time that we stopped our family courts from being used as a tool of abuse against survivors of domestic abuse and sexual violence?
Dr Tidball
I do agree. Our court system should be one where justice is achieved for vulnerable victims of abuse, rather than an additional and secondary means of victimising them.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way—she has been very generous in doing so in this short but important debate. A constituent of mine, who will remain anonymous, has undergone domestic abuse that the family courts process not only allowed to continue as economic abuse, but facilitated. With family courts still failing to ensure the safety of child victims, and given that around 60% of cases in the family courts involve domestic abuse, does the hon. Member agree that much more needs to be done to protect families from being re-victimised and traumatised via the very process that should be delivering them justice?
Dr Tidball
I agree, and nowhere is that clearer than in the cases of my constituent’s sons, Jack and Paul. Not only was their father known to be abusive, but the boys did not want to see him—all while he was demanding 50:50 contact in the family courts. Claire promised her sons that she would not rest until the law was changed to prevent more children from dying like they did. When I was elected last year, I promised to help her.
Labour’s important mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade will require a national effort, and require us to use every tool available to target perpetrators and address the root causes of abuse and violence. Last week’s Second Reading of the landmark Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill marked a transformative change to child protection in education, and now we need to hold family courts to the same standard by repealing section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this incredibly important debate, and I second many of the comments she has made in her incredible speech. Does she agree that the cases of children with special educational needs who cannot express their feelings and fears must be taken into account, and that the presumption of contact must be stopped in those cases where there is live domestic abuse?
Dr Tidball
I do agree, and those factors have a cumulative, additive effect on those young people, silencing their voices even more so than those of other victims. That is one of the reasons why the harm report was clear that
“the presumption should not remain in its present form”
and recommended that it be reviewed
“urgently in order to address its detrimental effects.”
Today we are focusing on presumption of contact, but there is much more that could be done to make the family court system child-centric. We can be bolder by changing the language in the Children Act 1989 to say explicitly that a presumption of contact should not be given to a known domestically abusive parent. Further, protections could be strengthened by incorporating practice direction 12J in primary legislation. We also need to ensure that no interim contact takes place before assessments are fully completed by CAFCASS. Additionally, we must legally recognise children as victims of financial abuse under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. Shockingly, there is currently no definition of rape or consent in the family court system.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important issue. Everybody in this room wants children to be born with two loving parents, but that is not possible for everybody, and it is definitely not a luxury that every child enjoys. Currently, when a woman is raped in this country, and she gives birth as a result, the rapist can apply for access to the child throughout their life. A woman in my constituency, and women beyond, talked to me about the trauma inflicted on them not only at the point of the attack but as they raise their child. The law now acknowledges that children born from rape are victims of crime, but it is vital that perpetrators are not given access to those children, continuing their unwanted presence in the victim’s life. The harm that that access can cause must be recognised to protect the young people and their mothers from violent offenders. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a change to the law?
Dr Tidball
I do agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for her powerful statement. That is why we must urgently spell this issue out in primary legislation, alongside having a more tightly drawn definition of domestic abuse towards children in section 3 of the 2021 Act.
Over four years have passed since the UK Government launched a review of the presumption, as recommended by the harm report. The Conservative Government made no response, but now there is an opportunity for our new Government to take action, look at what other countries are doing and embed child-centred approaches in the family courts. Australia has repealed a similar piece of legislation, and the US is rolling out a law to incentivise states to ensure that their child custody laws properly protect children.
We must show leadership and be a beacon of light for children’s rights around the world by changing the law so that family courts prioritise children’s welfare and safety over the privilege of parental contact rights. Our Government must do what the previous Conservative Government failed to do, by taking a child-centred approach and changing the law on presumption of contact.
No more towns such as mine should be left to grieve. No more parents should have to make the ultimate sacrifice of the life sentence of losing a child at the hands of an abusive spouse or partner. No more parents should ever have to send their child on a court-ordered visit and hold them tightly in their arms hours later as they die. This Government must now act to save lives for generations to come by ending contact at any cost.
Let us not just imagine a world where the voices of children are put at the heart of our family court system, where children such as Jack and Paul are listened to, not ignored, where children have a childhood free of fear and oppression, and where children such as Jack and Paul live the lives they deserved to live. Minister, I urge you to do all you can to make that world a reality.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for securing this debate on an incredibly important subject. I am deeply sorry about what her constituent, Claire Throssell, has been through. The loss and trauma that Claire and her family have experienced is unimaginable and, frankly, unspeakable. If I can address you directly, Claire, the resilience you have shown in the face of the devastating loss of Jack and Paul is astounding. Your commitment to campaigning and advocating for children and adults who have experienced domestic abuse is inspirational, and you are shaping the national conversation on this issue. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend and to you, Claire, for the time you spent with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), back in November to discuss the presumption and the wider issues surrounding it.
There is no question but that protecting vulnerable children from violence and abuse must always be a first priority for the state, and the family courts have a vital role to play in that mission by protecting children and safeguarding victims of violence against women and girls. What does the statutory presumption we have been discussing do? As currently designed, it has two important aims. The first is to ensure that any parent who poses a risk to their child can be prevented in law from being involved in their child’s life. The second is to ensure that when it is safe, and only when it is safe, to do so, children are able to maintain some form of relationship with their parent after separation.
Under our current law, the child’s welfare is, as it must be, the paramount consideration. This is known as the welfare principle, and it is enshrined in section 1 of the Children Act. The presumption reflects an understanding that, where it is safe, and only where it is safe, to allow it, and where it would be in the best interests of a child’s welfare, both parents being involved in a child’s life is a goal of family justice.
The Children Act sets out this two-stage process, and it is important that we understand what that process is and how it works when family courts come to consider it. First, the court will consider whether a parent can be involved in a child’s life in a way that does not put that child at risk of suffering harm. If it cannot be assured of that, the presumption does not apply. If a parent can be involved in a way that does not put the child at risk of suffering harm, the child will move to the second stage, and the court will consider whether the parent’s involvement would further that child’s welfare. If there is evidence that a parent’s involvement would not further the child’s welfare, the presumption can be rebutted and will not apply to that parent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge set out the history of how that came to be enshrined in our law. In 2014 the Children Act was amended to introduce the presumption of parental involvement, built on well-established case law in our domestic law and in law enshrined in the European convention on human rights. The intention was to recognise the benefits of both parents being involved in a child’s life.
Emily Darlington
I appreciate that the Act was amended in 2014, but our understanding of abuse has widened since then to encompass financial, emotional and coercive control—abuse is not limited to just physical violence. In the light of that, is it not time to review the law and change the definition of harm to the child to encompass the wider definition of what we now understand abuse to be?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the broader understanding of what can constitute abuse has to be incorporated in how we reflect on and review the presumption. The point made by a number of Members—that family courts must never be locations where victims can be re-traumatised by the legal process itself—is a vital one. It is also important that, at the centre of our family courts and law, the best interests and safety of the child are always the focus of any decision making. If we were to ask any family court judge, they would reiterate that that is the law they apply.
It is right, however, that a review has taken place. The Government understand the concerns that have been so eloquently raised today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge pointed out, the previous Government and the Ministry of Justice conducted a wide-ranging review of private family law proceedings. A harm panel comprising experts analysed submissions of evidence from victims and families from right across the public, publishing a landmark report on private family law. As I said, family courts must never be a tool for domestic abusers to continue to exert their coercive control and abuse over others.
The panel recommended that we review the presumption of parental involvement, because in some cases it is leading to negative and unintended consequences. That review has been undertaken, and the Government will be publishing the findings. At the moment, we are grappling with what the policy implications of those findings will be. It would not be right for me to pre-empt the publication of the findings, but it is on its way. As soon as we can publish it alongside our policy response, we will.
Dr Sullivan
May I ask the Minister for some advice, then? If some of our constituents have found that the family courts process and procedures have led to the re-traumatising of victims, what advice can we offer them? As the Minister eloquently set out, the family courts are not designed to do that, but it does occur.
Sarah Sackman
If that is what is being experienced, it needs to be fed back. His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has complaints processes and, in my hon. Friend, her constituents have an outstanding advocate to make those points. I will be taking back the lessons that we learn in today’s debate, and it is right that the feedback happens. I will come in a moment to what we are doing, not least through the pathfinder pilot, to reshape and reform our family justice system so that the re-traumatisation does not occur. The progress that we are seeing through the pathfinder pilot, which this Government will extend, is a vital part of that work.
One hears talk about reviews, but it is not enough to simply have a review, and it is important that we act on it. We are not waiting to act. As others have said, this Government have a landmark ambition to halve violence against women and girls within the next 10 years. There is a role for our family courts to play in achieving that wider culture change. Others have made the point that we need joined-up, mission-based Government—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Education, Health and Care Plans
(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
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for education, health and care plans.
I thank everybody for coming along to this really important Westminster Hall debate on a subject that fills our inboxes. The Government Benches are very full, and some of the Opposition Benches are reasonably full. I will try to keep my speech as short as possible, because so many people want to speak, but there are various points that I want to make.
The debate is about Government support for education, health and care plans. For the benefit of anybody watching the debate who does not understand the system, EHCPs are a fundamental part of the special educational needs system. They are responsible for providing the additional support that children need in school to help them through their educational life and beyond. The big problem is that children and parents do not get the support they need through the EHCP system. Even when EHCPs are granted, schools are sometimes unable to deliver the support set out in them, so parents end up in a ridiculous situation and in many cases have to take their local authority to court. Local authorities lose 99% of cases, but that delays and delays the process and costs parents and local authorities a huge amount of money.
On 3 September 2024, the Government published local authority-level figures on waiting times for a decision following an education, health and care needs assessment. That assessment is the first stage: the parent applies for an EHCNA, and the local authority has six weeks in which to decide whether it will accept it, and 20 weeks in total in which to issue the EHCP. So how long are people actually waiting? Well, there are huge discrepancies across the system. Hampshire county council issues EHCPs within 20 weeks 75% of the time, which does not sound too bad, right? Essex county council, where I am situated, issues EHCPs within 20 weeks 0.9% of the time. Both councils have more than 3,000 requests.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing forward this important debate to the Chamber, as she is right to mention the timescales. As she knows, in 2023 only half of EHCPs were issued within the statutory 20 weeks, and whether children receive support depends too much on their postcode and how well their parents can navigate what can only be described as a chaotic system. Does she agree that the special educational needs and disabilities system is failing families? We cannot have a sticking-plaster solution; we need a root-and-branch review.
Marie Goldman
I wholeheartedly agree that the system is completely broken and needs complete reform. I gently say to the Minister and anybody listening to the debate that the longer that reform takes, the more harmful it will be for children. Children are suffering right now because they are not getting the support they need. Children keep getting older; they do not wait for Governments to decide what they are going to do or for root-and-branch reforms. Children and their parents need the support right now. Although I would absolutely welcome a wholesale review and change, there are things we can do now to alleviate the problems. If the Minister takes away only one thing from the debate, I hope it is the plea for more to be done now and for the reform and implementation to be sped up. I will come in a bit to the things we can do.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this vital and important debate. She talks about inequality, and SEND funding is unequal across the country. Somerset council is part of the f40 group, which includes a number of the most poorly funded councils across the country. It received less than £8,000 in gross dedicated grant funding per mainstream pupil in 2024-25, which is more than £5,000 less than the best-funded local authorities. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must tackle this postcode lottery and urgently provide better support for some of our nation’s most vulnerable pupils?
Marie Goldman
Of course, and my hon. Friend raises an important point. We must tackle that inequality. The Government will say, “We put £1 billion of extra funding into special educational needs.” That is great—it is much better than no extra money for special educational needs—but it will not touch the sides. Local authorities are saying that they have a deficit in the high needs block of £3 billion, and some estimates say that that will go up to £8 billion in the near future. We are looking at a massive funding shortfall.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing today’s important debate. In Slough, attainment outcomes for children with special educational needs and disabilities were below the national average, and that is precisely why we need more funding and resources for Slough children. As a parent, I can only imagine the anguish of parents who have to navigate the complex and time-consuming process of gaining an EHCP, particularly given that only half of EHCPs are issued within the statutory 20-week limit and 98% of appeals are successful. Does the hon. Lady agree that, to improve EHCPs, we need first to regain the trust and confidence of parents?
Marie Goldman
Absolutely. Parents’ trust in the system is important, so we need to show that we are listening to them. We also need to show that we are giving them the information they need to alleviate their stress. Someone who has a child with special educational needs knows that their child needs extra support. This is already a stressful time in their life; they then have to sit and wait for an EHCP to land in their inbox, perhaps in week 19 —it is supposed to be 20 weeks, so of course it should land in week 19—but then it does not turn up, and keeps on not turning up. That is incredibly stressful, and it takes away parents’ trust in the system. We should be more transparent about that.
We talk about an EHCP being issued within 20 weeks, but across England 37.4% of decisions took six months or longer—that is just ridiculous—and 5.7% took a year or longer. That is completely unacceptable, and it leaves parents in a very difficult place. We need to be more honest with parents and to make that information much more available to them. My new clause 3 to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill would help to make the system much more transparent for parents by making local authorities publish how well they are performing against those statutory deadlines. That would be much better for parents.
What is the impact on children? We must remember that we are not talking about random numbers or about figures on a spreadsheet somewhere; these are real children who have real lives, real parents and real families. They have aspirations in life, and we need to support them. What does all this mean for them? One SEND professional wrote to me about one child’s case:
“This child, who is autistic, non-verbal, and has sensory processing challenges, applied for an Education, Health, and Care Plan (EHCP) in October 2023. It is now January 2025, and they are still waiting for their EHCP to be issued. In the meantime, they are placed in a mainstream school with no tailored support. The result has been incredibly stressful for the child, their family, and the staff working with them. The school has now reached a point where they cannot cope, and the child is being home-schooled, isolated from peers and without access to the specialized education they need and deserve.”
One SEND co-ordinator, who is also a teacher, wrote to me:
“It is very frustrating with the length of time it is taking for EHCPs to be finalised. Although they are back-dating the funding (which is great), by the time the EHCP actually is agreed, it is often too late for parents to request school placements ready for a transition at the start of the school year, which is often what we need it for.”
There is a preference for mainstream, and I hear the Government say that we should educate as many children as possible in mainstream. I do not fundamentally disagree, but mainstream is not suitable for all children, and certainly not when mainstream schools do not have the resources they need to provide education and support.
Mainstream sounds good in principle. However, Contact—a charity for families with disabled children—wrote to me, saying, “Local Authorities like Essex”—again, that is where I am—
“are reducing the provision in section F for a child with an EHCP as they believe that a lot of the provision in section F comes under ordinarily available provision, which they say the school can provide as standard. All the special educational provision that a child with an EHCP needs is legally required to be stated in section F of an EHCP. It is through section F that there is a legal duty for Local Authorities to make this provision. Parents have been told by schools that there is no funding for SEN provision or ordinarily available support. How can children be reliant on SEN support when there is no funding for it?”
Schools are really struggling to deal with the situation. The idea of mainstream and of “ordinarily available” provision is great, but not if schools are not provided with the funding they need. I know that the Government can say, “Well, we have increased the funding for schools,” and they have also increased teacher pay, which is great— teachers absolutely should be paid more—but they have also told schools that teacher pay needs to be funded out of their budgets, which makes the situation very difficult.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I must congratulate my hon. Friend on her preparation for this debate, which has attracted so many people to Westminster Hall today—except, of course, from the party that created a lot of the problems we now face. On her point about mainstreaming and special school education, does she agree not only that many rural areas are underfunded but that people in those areas face the additional challenge of expensive home-to-school transport to access specialist provision, because there is insufficient budget for that transport? That issue needs to be addressed if we are to have an even playing field across the country.
Marie Goldman
I thank my hon. Friend for that really important point. I do not live in a rural area, so it is easy for me to overlook issues such as this. However, I do know that many councils have raised it; indeed, to be fair to Essex county council, it has raised it with me. When we talk about root-and-branch reform of the system, we need to make sure that we address the whole system and everything that goes with it, including transport. My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I thank him very much for that.
What is the impact on the school budget? One primary school is funding 90 hours of learning support assistant time a week because there is no EHCP, and it is having to find that funding out of its own budget. That is not through lack of trying to get EHCPs. The school said that it had applied for an ECHP for one child in January 2024, but that child has not even seen an educational psychologist yet.
Schools tell me that they do not have the buildings and the other resources to be able to safely look after these children using ordinarily available provision.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important and timely debate. Even when plans are eventually put in place, children and young people struggle to get suitable school places. They face hours of travel each day, especially in rural areas, or they are left at home without appropriate education. Does my hon. Friend agree that funding needs to ensure that provision is local, meets needs and is well resourced?
Marie Goldman
Yes, and it is very hard to disagree with that point. Of course provision needs to recognise what the local challenges are, and those differ in different localities. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point.
Let me return to LSAs and the support they provide in schools. Often, there are several children with EHCPs in a class, so it is sometimes necessary to have more than one LSA to support them. However, it is hard to recruit LSAs, because, as schools have told me, the salaries do not match the skills that LSAs require. Also, LSAs are not suitable in all cases, because young people with severe special educational needs can—through no fault of their own; I want to make that very clear—be very disruptive and, unfortunately, endanger other children if they are not properly supervised. That is why it is really important that we have LSAs, teaching assistants and all the support staff necessary to support these children. One special educational needs co-ordinator told me:
“As much as the LSA children don’t need 1:1 support full-time, there are some children that really do require 1, or sometimes 2, adults with them throughout the day if everyone is to be kept safe and for the child to have their self-care needs met in a mainstream environment.”
We talk a lot about schools, but this issue also affects further education—for example, sixth-form colleges. They tell me that the annual reviews that are done as part of the EHCP process focus too much on educational attainment and on academic achievement and progress, when colleges in fact need to understand what special measures they need to put in place to best meet the needs of the children who are coming in. That is not necessarily about academic achievement; it is about how colleges can best manage the behaviour that pupils exhibit and keep them safe. Colleges say that, unfortunately, EHCPs do not place enough emphasis on behaviour, and their plea—I hope the Minister is listening—is that if we look at the EHCP process, we should encourage it to focus on that issue and not just on educational attainment. Colleges also say that some information in the annual review of behaviour is historical, and might put sixth-form colleges off accepting pupils, even though it would be perfectly appropriate to accept them because their behaviour had changed and they could be supported in different ways.
I also want to emphasise the importance of early intervention, because addressing issues early is key. Some children will not need support throughout their entire life or even their entire school life, but getting in early, especially with speech and language issues, can help children to progress just as well as children who did not need additional support. It is not necessarily always about long-term support; sometimes it is about early intervention, and then we can save money later.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
It was good to hear yesterday from the all-party parliamentary group on special educational needs and disabilities about the importance of early intervention. We heard from the Lancashire and South Cumbria integrated care board, which showcased its really interesting work. On the back of that, I reached out to my ICB in Suffolk and North East Essex and I understand that the health response there on early interventions is quite good. Bearing in mind that the hon. Lady and I both represent Essex constituencies, it would be worth her looking at the ICB connected to her area. Perhaps we could work together on improving outcomes for parents and kids in Colchester and Chelmsford.
Marie Goldman
Of course, I would be delighted to work with the hon. Lady on that sort of issue. I was also at that APPG on SEND meeting, although I could not stay for the whole thing. I am glad she raised it, because at that APPG meeting, an example was given to us of a child who had situational mutism. The intervention they received early on meant that they were able to progress and achieve their full potential, which I thought was fabulous. Unfortunately, I have an example of exactly the opposite in my constituency, where a child with selective mutism did not receive that support and is now not in school at all. The importance of that support cannot be overstated.
We could talk a lot about why there has been an increase in EHCP applications, about covid and its impact, about the lack of socialisation and what that has led to and about the lack of early intervention. Maybe some parents are asking for EHCPs because it is the only way to get the support that might ordinarily have been available if schools were not feeling the pressure so much. Ultimately, this is a systemic failure, and I want to move on to some solutions.
We need to do this quickly—remember, every single day that children grow up without that support is another day they are suffering. Other than root and branch reform, we need better communication between schools and colleges, between local authorities and parents, and between schools and parents. The list could go on, but I remind everybody that communication is two-way. It is not just the local authority sending out a briefing pack—that is not good enough. We need them to listen, and we need the Government to listen.
We need more training. We need qualified and experienced people working with children. A qualified and experienced SEND professional told me:
“People like me, who are trained to work with SEND children and adults, often find there is no structured role for us within councils or government systems to support schools, families, or nurseries effectively.”
We need to do more about that. There are people who are willing to work and have amazing experience in the system, so let us help them get the qualifications to be able to help parents and young people. One SENCO said that SENCOS need more career path options. Could we have an option, for example, to fast-track some training? Could there be some kind of associate ed psych qualification? I do not know, but maybe that could be looked at. We need to make it easier for parents to understand what is going on.
Returning to the issue of tribunals, when local authorities are losing 99% of cases, something is seriously wrong. I wonder whether some of those delays, where the local authorities are deciding to take parents all the way through to tribunal, are—to be very cynical—a way to avoid having to pay the costs of providing the support to the children during that time.
I welcome the Education Committee’s inquiry on solving the SEND crisis and advertise to everybody that the deadline to contribute is 30 January. I say to the Minister that, at the risk of repeating myself, we really do need some action now. I urge the Government to work on what steps they can take now to make children’s lives better because, at the end of the day, this is about supporting children’s futures. I look forward to hearing from colleagues across the House and thank them for taking part in this incredibly important debate.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
We are going to work out the time limit for everyone, because 34 names were submitted to speak, but I think there may be even more Members in this room now. The Clerk has done the calculation and it is 75 seconds each—one minute 15 seconds. We will start, as a model of brevity, with the Chair of the Education Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Thank you, Dr Huq. With such limited time, I simply reiterate that we have a SEND system in crisis. It is letting down children and their families. It is a contested and embattled system and is no way to decide and deliver on what is in the best interest of children. As Chair of the Committee, I welcome some of the measures that the Government are bringing forward, but I also believe that there is further to go. That is why, as the Committee, we have prioritised SEND as our first substantial new inquiry of this Parliament. I have good news for Members with constituents who are interested in and concerned about this subject: today we have extended the deadline for the submission of written evidence to 6 February.
We are serious about looking at the evidence of what is happening across the country, but also at where there is good practice, both in this country and overseas. We will do our best to assist the Government to set out a programme of reform that delivers for children and their families. I urge all Members who have an interest in this topic to encourage their constituents to submit evidence to our inquiry.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on calling this vital debate.
EHCP provision is a national crisis, but how it plays out locally varies enormously. In East Sussex, 87% of EHCPs are issued within the 20-week target, but hop across the border to my area of West Sussex and it is just 3.6%—I thought that was the worst statistic out there, until I heard what is going on in Essex.
This crisis is destroying people’s lives. Take the example of Sarah—not her real name—from my Horsham constituency. Sarah’s son was offered a place at Crawley college, where it was claimed the post-16 SEND provision would be just right for him. Within weeks, the college said that they did not have the resources to support him and that he did not meet the minimum grades. He was excluded. Desperate to rescue his future, Sarah is now paying almost £500 a month for private tuition, and that is not the only cost; her son’s removal from full-time education means she no longer qualifies for the child element of universal credit, despite being his main care provider. Sarah is a single parent on a low, part-time income, and these are almost impossible obstacles to overcome. I recognise that this was not the present Government’s fault, but it is now their responsibility.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I am limited by time, so I will congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing this debate, and thank all the teachers, parents and pupils who are struggling with this system, and in particular the Brinnington SEND group in my constituency, who I have met on a couple of occasions.
Unfortunately, Stockport is one of the lowest-funded school systems in England. Stockport has a higher proportion of EHCPs than the national average, and that is causing a lot of issues in our constituency. I receive regular correspondence on that. The number of EHC plans in Stockport has increased by 60.4% since 2019, and Stockport is part of the f40 group, which represents the 40 local authorities with the lowest level of school funding. I highlight that, currently, the lowest-funded authority for SEND receives £950 per pupil, while the highest-funded receives £3,250 per pupil. Stockport receives around £1,100 per pupil for SEND—among the lowest funding nationally. The £1 billion of extra funding announced by the Chancellor in the Budget is very welcome, and we should reflect on the 14 harsh years of the previous Administration and the coalition Government. However, that extra funding must not be distributed according to existing criteria; the funding distribution is unfair, and we need to address that. I thank the Minister in advance for her contribution.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. With limited time, I would like to raise a very specific issue. My constituency of Frome and East Somerset falls under both Bath and North East Somerset council and Somerset council, and there have been instances in which children’s specific cases, claims or tribunals have fallen between two different systems.
One of my constituents wrote to me about their child, who is 14 and has central nervous system lupus, epilepsy, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and visual and sensory processing disorder. All the child’s needs were documented by an educational psychologist, who recommended an EHCP. Despite the medical recognition of the need for an EHCP and despite the diagnoses, Bath and North East Somerset council and Somerset council went back and forth for over a year about which local authority should take responsibility for the EHCP, because the child’s parents were separated, with one living in each authority, and the child’s time was split evenly between the two. That cannot be an uncommon occurrence, yet there were delays and stress for the family while they waited for their case to come to tribunal. The child’s mother estimates that he has missed 1,100 lessons in the 15 months that it has taken to resolve this issue.
Many local authorities are, of course, under immense financial strain and I cannot see how this situation can be resolved until the Government relieve councils by providing extra funding and by making EHCP applications as simple and straightforward as possible. We are better than ever at diagnosing additional needs, but the system is woefully under-resourced to support children to thrive.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing this important debate.
When a child lacks, for a single day, the support that they need to thrive at school, that is a day’s potential that will forever be wasted. The sad reality for too many children in my constituency is that too many days’ potential is being wasted. This Government recognise the need to move urgently on this issue, and the investment of £1 billion into the high-needs block in the Budget and the £750 million for school adaptations must be welcomed, but it is clear, looking at ECHP performance, that specific and focused work is needed. Across the country, just 50% of ECHPs were delivered within the statutory timeframe last year, so this is far from an isolated problem. We need to ensure that we have robust improvement plans for local authorities so that all are achieving the best outcomes and not allowing that national challenge to be an excuse to tolerate failure.
We also need to build out the workforce strategy; I welcome the recent news from the Minister of research commissioned to make sure that we have a good understanding of the drivers of the problem, and of investment in more educational psychologists. We need to make sure that we are thinking through the workforce requirements for EHCPs. It is not always apparent where an educational psychologist is needed and that can delay delivery in those cases where they are not. We need to also ensure that health partners are fully prioritised here; health partners have not always played their part, and that must end. Fundamentally, we need to make sure that we are meeting needs much earlier, so that fewer children need these assessments in the first place. I know that the Minister shares that ambition and I look forward to working with her to make it a reality.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Since I was elected as the Member for Tunbridge Wells, my inbox has been inundated with cases of children who are not having their needs met because Kent county council is failing in almost every regard. In 2020, 33% of EHCPs made the deadline; in 2023, only 13% did. I wanted to go through some examples, but we do not have time.
In September 2022, Kent county council was put into special measures because of significant weaknesses in its SEND services. Those measures were lifted in September 2024, but the Minister for School Standards told me that KCC needs to make further progress and that the Department for Education must still keep a close watch on the council. The next formal review of KCC and its SEND services will happen at the end of this month. I remind the Minister that KCC breaches time limits in 87% of cases, misses out key pieces of information, arranges SEND transport too late and refuses to communicate effectively with parents. In November, I called for KCC to be put back in special measures and I reiterate that call today, not only for the children of Tunbridge Wells, but for all our children across the land.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register of interests as a corporate parent in Lancashire.
In the past six months, I have had to intervene in dozens of EHCP cases. Children in Morecambe and Lunesdale are being held back by the abject failures of the system. We know we cannot fix this in six months—it is a problem that has been building for 14 years—but it is fair to say what the Labour Government are doing, because we are taking action. Stable, longer term funding for local government is absolutely vital to making sure that systems work and changes can be implemented properly.
We are changing the Education Department so that SEND sits with the Schools Ministers, increasing education spending and earmarking £1 billion specifically for SEND and working on public health, including on early intervention and the wider determinants of health and poverty. All these things together will help the SEND ecosystem. I hope to goodness we can get it done quickly enough for my constituents because they are suffering right now.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing the debate. Parents in my constituency of Surrey Heath will know all too well the failures of Surrey county council to deliver an effective SEND system. In 2023, only 16.2% of EHCPs were issued in the statutory 22-week period. Even though Surrey county council now celebrates a frankly miraculous rise to 70% issuance of EHCPs in the statutory 22 weeks in the latter half of 2024, parents tell me that those EHCPs are coming back with the wrong name or date of birth, describing the wrong conditions and offering inappropriate packages of support. It is, of course, parents, families and children who suffer the consequences of that.
My constituents tell me that some of their children have attempted to take their own lives. Other parents have had to leave full-time employment in order to become permanent carers for their children, which is bad for them, their family, their family finances and the economy. Timeliness and quality are not mutually exclusive, and they are essential components of good EHCPs. Our children deserve better, as do the families, the educators and the professionals who are becoming permanent advocates on their behalf.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
In the interests of time, I will just endorse so many of the comments made today. It is fantastic to see the passion and commitment of so many Members here, as well as the passion and commitment that the Government have shown since day one of our coming into office.
In the interests of time, I will focus down on just one issue. My constituency of Rossendale and Darwen spans two local authority areas: one is the small unitary authority of Blackburn with Darwen, and the other is the shire county of Lancashire. One hundred per cent of my EHCP cases are in Lancashire, which demonstrates a stark and completely unacceptable postcode lottery.
There is no doubt that money is a fundamental issue, but we also have to raise a question about to what extent culture, attitudes and systems matter. Time and time again I hear from families who feel that the whole system is set up to fail and to stop them from getting these plans. As well as addressing those fundamental funding issues, I hope that, as a Government, we will address the cultural, systemic issues by giving our families, in Rossendale and Darwen and in all of our constituencies, the support they desperately need.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing this important debate. Every time I talk to a parent whose child has special educational needs in my constituency of Eastleigh, they tell me that they spend a huge amount of time fighting for the support their child needs, including EHCPs. One mum told me about the difficulties she was experiencing trying to get an EHCP for her nine-year-old son. She said she felt powerless battling a system that was slow, unresponsive and incredibly difficult to navigate.
In the end, after doing everything she could to get her son back in school, she had to take her case to a tribunal, adding to the stress on her family. Thankfully, her son was granted an EHCP, but it should not be the case that parents have to fight a broken system and go through a tribunal just to get their children the education that they deserve. EHCPs were designed to provide tailored support, but they can only succeed if there is an end to the postcode lottery and the system is properly funded, staffed and focused on the needs of children and their families.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. From visiting schools across my Bolton West constituency, I know how much concerns around special educational needs and disabilities play on the minds of teachers, teaching assistants, parents and school governors. Only last week I was with Chris Howarth, the head at Washacre primary academy in Westhoughton, and Phil Orth, the chair of governors. They took me through a tour of their school and outlined the work they are doing to support children with special educational needs, and the challenges that staff manage in the classroom. I want to put on the record my thanks to Chris and Phil, plus all the staff and governors at Washacre primary, for their hard work.
Bolton has 8,961 children and young people diagnosed with SEND, which is a 20% increase over the past seven years. The number of ECHPs has nearly doubled since 2018 to nearly 3,645 across the borough. The council’s compliance in issuing EHCPs within 20 weeks has increased from 38% in 2023 to 71% in 2024. Although the direction of travel is positive, that means one third of parents and children are being still being let down. With that in mind, I welcome the Government’s new investment in family hubs and early years, with the Chancellor’s autumn Budget in October setting aside £1 billion in additional funding for SEND support, and I thank the Minister for her continued endeavours in this regard.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
Only 49% of children in Buckinghamshire receive their EHCP plan within the statutory limit, which means that more than half are waiting way beyond that time frame. There are hidden impacts to those delays: one family in my constituency faces a three-year waitlist for autism spectrum disorder and ADHD assessments. They have serious concerns about their current accommodation, but the lack of diagnosis for their son is delaying their eligibility for suitable housing. That is three years in unsuitable housing with no additional support.
I have spoken to schools in my area that say they have children with EHCPs who would be better served in a specialist setting. The demand for places means that they remain in mainstream education, where, in the words of one local headteacher, that the SENCO workload is unsustainable for staff.
The Department for Education’s own survey showed that only 63% of classroom teachers felt able to meet the needs of pupils with SEND. I am keen to hear from the Minister on what work is ongoing to help give the current teaching workforce the training and confidence they need to meet the demand in our mainstream schools.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
The last Conservative Education Secretary described SEND as a “lose, lose, lose” situation and, under the previous Government, she was right. I have a case in Stafford, now my constituency, where two parents are moving house to a different area with their two children who have additional needs. One child has an EHCP and the other is in a mainstream school. For their child with an EHCP, they are being told that, although they are moving from Stafford to Cheshire, they will have to retain a place in their current school, which is around an hours’ drive each way. The other child, who attends a mainstream school, has had her pick of schools, has chosen where she would like to go, and is looking forward to her future. The child with an EHCP has been left in limbo.
The difference in experience for those children is night and day and the stress it has caused their parents is completely unnecessary. That is precisely why we need to change the way that EHCPs are handled. This Government cannot undo the last 14 years of disruption to our SEND system in six months, but the investment we have seen recently is incredibly welcome, and I look forward to the Minister telling us more about that.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing this important debate. I will not repeat what colleagues have said about the impact on children, but will instead talk about the impact on teachers.
The current EHCP system is grossly unfair to teachers who are expected to cope. I recently visited the Gattons infant school in Burgess Hill. As an infant school, it has only three school years. Four-year-olds arrive there with clearly unmet needs, and they quite often leave the school before the EHCP has been processed by West Sussex county council. That is clearly unfair on those children, and it is clearly unfair on the children who do not have special educational needs or are not yet diagnosed. It is unfair to expect teachers to be able to cope with a classroom of 30 children, a significant number of whom have needs that are not being met. In conclusion, it is absolutely essential that is this is turned around with urgency, and I thank the Government for all that they are doing.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing this important debate today.
To be frank, SEND support in Hillingdon is poor and getting worse. In Hillingdon, there has been a 40% drop in the number of families getting their determination for an ECHP within the 20-week statutory limit since 2015. The situation is worsening. Conservative funding cuts locally, a lack of planning for specialist school places, rising demand and a shortage of specialists have all contributed to increasing waiting times and poor provision. Unfortunately, the situation is only going to get worse. Hillingdon council is proposing a £7 million cut to local schools this year and potentially next year, which goes against the principles of mainstream inclusion and collaboration in the education system. It will undoubtedly make the deficit worse. I hope Hillingdon council thinks again and that the Department holds it to account to do so.
I want to raise the issue of homeless and displaced families. I have been contacted recently by a number of families fleeing domestic violence or experiencing homelessness who have moved with an EHCP into the borough, but the borough not taking up its duty of care and providing support. It is simply unfair for families to have to go back to the start of the EHCP process.
We have heard compelling evidence from a number of places. I ask the Minister what support is in place to ensure system improvement and to hold local leaders to account, so that children in Hillingdon will no longer be failed.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing this debate.
My surgeries are full of distraught parents of SEND children. In Surrey, 1,800 children are missing education because they cannot get provision. Children are waiting an average of two years for an ADHD diagnosis. Surrey is at the bottom for getting EHCPs in on time and near the top for the number of parents going to a tribunal. Educational psychologists are assessing children by Zoom, sometimes not even meeting the child. Children are in the wrong tier and in tribunals possibly because it costs less in the short term. There is a lack of places in both specialist and mainstream environments. Money is diverted from schools’ budgets, and therefore from all children. So, yes to root and branch reform, and proper funding. Surely there must be Government accountability for local authority provision when we are so poorly served in Surrey.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing this debate.
In my constituency, more than 100 children and young people classified as in elective home education, which includes 30 with EHCPs. We know there are many more who are unaccounted for. There must be a question mark as to whether home education is a genuine choice, or is due to the child not getting the support they need. One family in Scarborough reluctantly withdrew their child from a mainstream school as their needs were not being met, despite their having an EHCP. The child’s mother had to give up work to home school, which took a toll on her health and the family finances.
I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to address the SEND crisis, but I would like to encourage the Minister to use the register of children and young people not in school, proposed in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, to gather the evidence we need to understand why those children and young people are not in school.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for bringing this important debate.
Like many, I have spent considerable time with leaders of local schools and parents who have told frankly harrowing stories about children’s needs not met and resources at breaking point. In my constituency, 23% of children have special educational needs. Although the council has made great strides to get children on to the EHCPs they need, at one stage 88% were waiting more than 20 weeks.
I want to bring up two things that parents have brought to me. Even once they get the EHCPs in place, they are poorly constructed. One parent said that they are not worth the paper they are written on. Parents are told that there are no resources to deliver the support that their children need. One parent was told she needed £25,000 a year of one-to-one support for her child but was offered only £6,000 a year by the council. They lack planning and the follow-up that parents need to deliver the support in their local schools. A second significant feature is the impact on the educational outcomes and mental health of the children who are not receiving the support that they need.
As we have heard from other hon. Members, several have attempted suicide. In almost every case we have had, the children have ended up referred to child and adolescent mental health services, with serious mental health issues. School absenteeism is increasing, with long-term knock-on effects. As a result, parents feel punished for a system, when they really just want the best for their children and feel they have to fight all the time. I welcome the Government’s focus—
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing this debate.
Like many others, I am horrified by the amount of correspondence I get about this issue. Just this month I was contacted by a constituent with a child who was well supported in school and was looking to do well in their GCSEs, but the school can no longer provide for them and they now get only 11 hours of tuition. The school asked three times for them to get an EHCP assessment, and they were always refused. My constituent went to a tribunal, at which point the council finally said it would do the assessment. That was last September, and it has still not been done. That child is now unable to access the education they need to achieve their full potential.
Parents and other responsible adults spend time, energy and even money trying to get the support that their child needs. Local authorities deliver what they can, building up vast debts that are currently hidden from their accounts, and their staff feel under siege. The correspondence often lacks clarity and transparency, let alone empathy. Most importantly, children and young people are let down day in, day out by the very structures that are supposed to help them to achieve their potential.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members to bob if they wish to speak so that I can work out exactly how long they have.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
In the seconds available to me, I cannot do justice to the cases I have heard of pupils and parents who are stuck in the system.
Ten years on from the passing of the Children and Families Act 2014, it is time to look at where the current system is failing. Local authorities had additional responsibilities loaded on to them, and at the same time they had powers and resources taken away. It has become harder for them to plan shared resources, and that is a major cause of delays and cost increases in the system.
I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of the GMB. We cannot lose sight of the role of school support staff in this equation. I appeal to the shadow Minister to please rethink the opposition to reinstating the school support staff negotiating body. Classroom-based school support staff spend the majority of their time supporting SEND learners. We cannot resolve the SEND crisis without resolving the workforce problems.
I am proud to have been a SEND pupil. I am open about my differences as an MP. I hope that, on a cross-party basis, we can look back at the end of this Parliament and say, “We found a system in crisis, and we changed it.”
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
This crisis is failing children, exhausting parents and overwhelming schools, not least in my constituency of Epsom and Ewell. Over the past six years, Surrey county council’s timeliness in issuing EHCPs within 20 weeks has plummeted from 57% in 2017 to 16.2% in 2023.
An excessive focus on meeting deadlines appears also to have undermined the quality of the EHCPs. Decisions are increasingly being appealed, and parents in Surrey won 98.3% of appeals last year. Local headteachers have highlighted to me that EHCPs often do not accurately reflect the children’s needs, leading to inappropriate placements. The children often become dysregulated and disruptive, which affects staff wellbeing and the learning environment for other pupils. The headteachers also reported that some assessments are being conducted remotely; how can a child’s needs be accurately captured through an online assessment?
Parents are increasingly asking headteachers to exclude their children, believing that that might be the only way to secure appropriate care. That is a devastating indictment of the system. The system is failing at every single stage, leaving children and families in absolute crisis. Without urgent reform, we risk failing a generation of children. Every child deserves a chance to succeed, and it is our responsibility to ensure that no child is left behind.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing this debate. As she said, Essex county council is one of the worst-performing local authorities in the country for delivering on EHCPs. It is vital that we hear from the frontline—from parents, teachers, educators and assessors. I recently held a roundtable on these issues in Colchester with those groups, and I am delighted to say that the participants are now sharing their experiences through an Education Committee inquiry. I urge the Minister to pay close attention to that evidence and those voices, and to make the change that we so badly need.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. Well done to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing this debate.
The cost of SEND provision for Wokingham borough council is incredibly high. This has a huge impact on our council’s budget and frequently contributes to parents’ expectations and, sometimes, elements of the EHCP not being met, with all the consequences that come with that. Despite costs rising, Wokingham borough council is set to lose another £1 million of funding under the current draft local government settlement scheme, when Wokingham is already the lowest-funded unitary authority in England. What are Ministers’ thoughts on how the Government can help councils like Wokingham? Will the Minister meet with me and representatives from Wokingham borough council to discuss the challenges we face locally when it comes to funding SEND provision? Are there any plans to review the process of producing EHCPs to make them more user-friendly, thereby leading to greater efficiency and effectiveness?
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing this debate. It is very encouraging to see so many parliamentary colleagues present, although I must comment on the notable absence of those who should be here and be held accountable.
I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which recently published a report on support for children with educational needs. I observed the process closely and was deeply saddened by what we found over the course of that inquiry. I represent a constituency that is 69% Somerset and 31% Devon. The Somerset side, with a Liberal Democrat-controlled council, issues 42.1% of EHCPs within the 20-week requirement. The Devon side, which has a Conservative-controlled council, only manages less than 5%. The Government, in consultation with local authorities and those who use and rely on the system, need to urgently review the infrastructure to support EHCPs, the systems available to assess and issue them, and what future provision in the system will look like, so that we can start to get this right on a regional and national level.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) and refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Conservative-controlled Norfolk county council is failing too many SEND children—moreover, the Conservative Government failed SEND children—but the system is also failing children and families, and Norfolk wants to be part of the solution. There are many settings that are worthy of national best practice exemplification for the way they support a high incidence of SEND without needing to refer to EHCPs. The council is keen for the Department for Education to use Norfolk as a test bed for innovative solutions to the crisis in SEND, and our county is keen and eager to be a big player in the national conversation about the important transformation that must come to the way in which these services currently function.
I would be incredibly grateful if the Minister took the time to meet with me, Norfolk county council and others to discuss the challenges we face and, more importantly, how we can help. I have pledged to those who have got in touch to tell me their stories and challenges in the SEND system that I will keep fighting for them.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing this important debate.
I welcome the drive for diversity in our mainstream schools, but we also need to make sure that we provide specialist provision for our children. I draw the Minister’s attention to a primary school in my North Cornwall constituency that has had to repurpose its staff room for two year 7 SEND students who currently do not have a school place. I do have some good news, though: we have a new SEND school coming to Bodmin, which will hold between 60 and 70 students. But with hundreds on the wait list that will barely touch the sides.
Briefly, I want to mention one student on that list, James. He has endured delay after delay, with no clear answers, no certainty and very little support. His mother got in touch with me in a desperate plea for help, saying:
“The system is utterly devasting for young people”,
adding that her son
“has been completely let down.”
James’s parents are now looking to see whether they will have to sell their house to pay for private schooling provision. Funding is key to this. Cornwall ranks 142 out of 151 in per pupil funding, and Cornwall council currently has a £41 million deficit for SEND.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq.
The current system is creating a horrendous conflict environment and a depressing, stressful professional working experience for teachers and support staff. Parents are spending their lives fighting, costing their own mental health and livelihoods, and councils are on the brink of resisting because they simply cannot cope with more. Far from early diagnosis adding to the strain, we believe that more investment can save money, reassure parents and ensure that schools and councils understand better the needs of the children who come through the system.
I have been contacted by so many parents, but I want to share what Rachel from Wimborne told me. She said:
“As a preschooler, there is a chance to give my daughter a full education, but the Dorset Child Development Centre is drowning in referrals, with a two-year wait for speech and language referrals.”
Her mum is a teacher, and she said:
“The red tape around autism and other neurodivergent conditions is ridiculous. Why do they have to go to the CDC when their needs are so severe that it is obvious to other educational and health professionals?”
I have sent the Minister details of an exciting pilot scheme at Broadstone middle school, and I look forward to hearing about a meeting soon. Does she agree that SEND children are entitled to the same quality of life and happy childhood as everybody else?
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I join my colleagues in commending my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing a debate on this important topic. I agree that it is good to see so many people here from the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches but, as they say on Radio 4, it creates a challenge of delivering my remarks in just a minute.
According to Oxfordshire county council, in the last 10 years in the county of my constituency the number of EHCPs has doubled from 3,000 to 7,000. The deficit of high-needs funding in Oxfordshire is estimated at £21.3 million, but that is in the wider national context of an estimated £3.16 billion deficit in England. Although the £1 billion extra allocated by the Chancellor in the Budget is welcome, it clearly does not go far enough.
I will use the example of St Blaise primary school in Milton to show the wider context of some of these problems. The school was bitterly disappointed to hear that it could not access mental health support teams, but, in an example of the postcode lottery, children just a few minutes up the A34 are able to access that support. The child and adult mental health waiting list is ever growing and feels out of reach, making it difficult to provide wider support for children.
I join my colleagues in calling on the Government to tackle the crisis in SEND funding by giving local authorities extra funding. Please do that to support our children, our parents, our teachers and their assistants.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq.
In my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon, I have heard from numerous parents and carers how they are constantly battling to get their children assessed for EHCPs. Some are waiting years. That leaves families in limbo, often forcing them into lengthy and stressful tribunal processes. With schools unable to meet the needs of children, they are left without educational support while they wait for their assessment.
We urgently need a long-term funding plan for the whole SEND process from early years to post-16 education. We need robust accountability for local authorities and sufficient school places supported by well-trained staff to ensure that all children, no matter where they live, can access the education they deserve.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Thank you for accommodating me, Dr Huq.
Education should not be this devastating or exhausting, but that is what all our constituents feel when it comes to finding adequate provision for their children with specialist needs. I will talk about one specific aspect. It is not about the exhaustion of actually getting an EHCP, although that is devastating for families. When armed with an EHCP, as in the case of one of my constituents, the exhaustion began in trying to get the school where their child was enrolled to agree to the one-day-a-week provision they had identified as being suitable for their child. It was the first step in getting their child back into that school, yet the school could not or would not agree to allow that provision to be paid for under the EHCP.
This is about not just fixing the bureaucracy around EHCPs, but ensuring that the support and encouragement are there for our schools to meet the educational needs that parents know are right for their children.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Dr Huq, for your excellent chairship, which has allowed everybody to contribute.
This is a national issue, but SEND services in Ipswich and Suffolk have been in a desperate state for more than a decade. Like everywhere else, we need specialist places and specialist professionals. We welcome the massive boost in funding provided by the Government.
However, as hon. Members from across the room have said, culture and accountability are crucial. One way in which we can start to inject a bit more accountability and scrutiny into the system is to hold a review of the ombudsman process, which Members have described today as combative, complex and exhausting for so many families. In particular, tribunal hearings are held in public only in exceptional circumstances. Given that around 95% of tribunal hearings, if not more, find in favour of the families, all cases should now be heard in public. I urge the Minister to look not only at the ombudsman process, but at those tribunal hearings.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing this important debate.
Parliament has had a number of debates on SEND since the general election, and every one I have attended has been a blockbuster—an absolute sell-out, with people struggling to get in. I say to the Minister that that is a testament to the fact that pretty much every Member—this is why I am so shocked that there are no Conservative Back Benchers present—has an inbox full of heartbreaking stories of families up and down the country who are trying to access the support that they deserve and need. These are some of the most vulnerable children in our society, and it is incumbent on us to ensure that they get the support they need.
Today’s debate is specifically about education, health and care plans, which were introduced in 2014. The vision behind them was to bring health and care together into one plan that would follow the child up to the age of 25, while being regularly renewed and updated. It would set out the support needed and provide assurances to the parents and the pupil involved. However, as we know far too well—we have heard the stats today—the system has become overwhelmed, demand has soared and resourcing has not kept up with that demand. The whole system is creaking at the seams.
For too many children with SEND, as well as their parents and carers, just managing to get an EHCP will feel like a significant victory. Their families fight their corner, knowing that without an EHCP, the support their child needs will not materialise. However, even when an EHCP is granted, it is not always a guarantee of support. Certainly in my casework, the issue is less about the waiting times and much more about the delivery of what is laid out in the plans. That is partly because of the severe shortage of special school places across the country. The previous Conservative Government promised a number of additional special schools, but they were very slow to deliver them. I welcome the measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that will allow local authorities to open special schools where there is need. A number of local authority applications have been rejected in recent years.
In the meantime, without specialist provision, the cost of transporting children well out of area to appropriate provision, or sending children to independent special schools, some of which are private equity run and profiteering at local authorities’ expense, is shocking. A number of children with special needs are missing from school because their needs are not being met.
We have heard so much today about the delays, fights and conflict. Parents should not have to go through that process and the stress and strain that it causes them. It is unacceptable that almost every EHCP appeal that goes to tribunal is decided in favour of the appellant. Parents are carrying the cost and stress of that battle and local authorities are spending further millions losing those cases.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) talked about the impact of delays on school staff, as well as on parents. When I speak to school governors, headteachers and teachers in my constituency, I hear time and again that while children who perhaps should be in a different setting are waiting for an EHCP in a mainstream setting, sometimes their behaviour causes safeguarding issues for other children. Sometimes teachers, teaching assistants or learning support assistants are injured in the process, as my hon. Friend pointed out. Learning support assistants are paid a very low salary, and they are often driven out of the profession.
Some of the delays, as a number of hon. Members have commented, are caused by a shortage of educational psychologists. Talking to my local authority, I also hear that sometimes the delays from its side are because of a lack of co-operation from NHS partners. I support new clause 3 to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford tabled to ensure transparency on local authorities’ timeliness with EHCPs. I urge the Government to go one step further and say that, where there are breaches, we need an explanation; we need transparency on where delays are being caused, because we know that sunlight is the best disinfectant. We must put pressure on all partners in the system to keep to their responsibilities and ensure that every child gets an EHCP in a timely manner.
We have heard in this debate that this waiting game is a real postcode lottery. Some local authorities perform reasonably well against the 20-week limit, but we have heard that in Surrey, just 16% of EHCPs were issued on time in 2023, and that in Essex it is less than 1%. That is shocking. We have heard time and again that the system is failing and needs urgent whole-system reform. That reform must include addressing the financial barriers and disincentives that prevent children from being identified, included and supported without having to fight for it.
That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for increased funding for local authorities to reduce the notional amount that schools are expected to pay towards supporting a child with special needs before applying for an EHCP. That would be an important step, because too often I hear from headteachers in my constituency who are trying to do the right thing that parents have come to them because someone from a school down the road has whispered in their ear, “Well actually, if you go to that school, they are much better at delivering for SEND children.” That comes down to the fact that so much of the support needs to be delivered out of schools’ budgets, because we know that the £6,000 threshold is only notional. We need to address that disincentive in the system.
The Minister was disagreeing when my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said that school budgets are being strained further still by teacher pay rises having to be found out of efficiencies. The Secretary of State has written to the School Teachers Review Body saying that pay rises will need to be found out of school efficiencies. I can tell the Minister—she has met some of the school governors in my constituency—that our schools do not have any efficiencies left. Our schools are asking parents to buy glue sticks, they are cutting teaching assistant posts, which is affecting special needs provision, and they are cutting school trips. They have cut, cut, cut, so there is no fat in the system. If her vision is to make our mainstream schools more inclusive, that has to come with the financial support to deliver it, and delivering teacher pay rises out of those budgets is just not possible. I hope she will address that point.
I urge the Government to consider establishing a national body for children with very high needs, so that we do not have a postcode lottery in which, if there is a particularly high needs child in one local authority, their budget is put under significant strain. We need a dedicated national body for those children. We also need to improve early identification through better training of staff. Early identification needs to start right down at the early years, not late in primary school or even secondary school, as we often find.
I have one last point to make to the Minister: we must provide clarity to local authorities. We know from the National Audit Office report that the finances of 43% of them are on the brink. A £3.3 billion deficit is projected. The £1 billion announced in the Budget is welcome. We have still not heard how that will be allocated. It will not even touch the sides of the black hole I have just mentioned. We know that the statutory override—an accounting trick that allows local authorities to keep their SEND deficits off the balance sheet—is due to end in 2026, but we do not know what will happen after that. Perhaps the Minister can provide some clarity on that.
As I said, the Minister met some of my school governors, and we are very grateful to her for that time. We discussed mainly the SEND issues that they are experiencing. I know that this is high on her list of issues to tackle, but I say to her again that this issue is urgent. There is nothing really in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to tackle this issue. We need whole-system reform. Our children cannot afford to wait.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship as ever, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing this debate and on her excellent speech.
It is obvious from everybody who has spoken how much distress the delay in EHCPs is causing across the system. What is equally striking is the postcode lottery. We know that 15 local authorities completed less than 10% of their new EHCPs within the 20-week time limit, while 27 local authorities completed over 90% within 20 weeks. That is a stark difference, which I have not seen properly explained anywhere. I hope that as part of the work the Minister is doing in the Department there is some analysis of why the differences are so big. They cannot be explained away just by volume.
Obviously covid has had a huge influence, but the problems we are discussing are not new. In 2009, in the final report of his inquiry, Brian Lamb called for a “radical overhaul” of the SEND system. He cited a culture of low expectation and a system that failed to deliver what children needed.
The coalition Government, who have been referred to by a couple of Members, brought forward the Children and Families Act in 2014, which tried to address some of the shortcomings. It included changes that I think most Members would agree with, such as bringing together the education and health system, trying to make it more child-focused and getting parents to have more of a role in decision making. It was intended that needs would be identified earlier, but Ofsted’s SEND inspection found that many local authorities struggled to implement the changes properly, which led to the huge postcode lottery we have seen. Layered on that has been the explosion of numbers post covid. Many children with complex needs did not attend school during covid and missed the support at school, Ofsted found, which has led to some of the distressing cases we have heard about today.
In government we increased the high needs budget by more than 60% from 2019 to 2024, but we are still seeing these huge issues. There is something that I would be interested to know from the Minister. The previous Government pledged the improvement plan for SEND. I completely understand that the Minister has delayed this to have a look at it further, but can I ask about the timetable for bringing forward an alternative and what she plans to do with that?
The hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) talked about the school support staff pay negotiating body. One of the concerns I have about its reinstatement, and the reason we have opposed it, is that it will affect SEND provision. The Confederation of School Trusts said:
“School trusts do not all operate in the same way, and we must ensure that schools”
of
“all types…can benefit from the flexibility to deploy support staff…that most benefits pupils. The reforms so desperately needed to our special educational needs system rely on this, for example.”
Laurence Turner
Will the hon. Member acknowledge that the CST said it is the right time to take school support staff pay out from under the local authority umbrella, and that its concern was that a ceiling would be set on school support staff pay? It has been clarified in the Employment Rights Bill Committee that that is not the case; the policy is about establishing a floor, not a ceiling.
Laura Trott
I acknowledge absolutely that pay was part of that, but it was also about terms and conditions and flexibility, which I do not think we have seen adequately addressed to date. I am grateful for the engagement on these issues from the hon. Member and the Minister. It is really important that we get this right, because we will need extra flexibility as we go through with the reforms that the Government will, I hope, be bringing forward.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford discussed the Minister’s approach to mainstream education and the recognition that mainstream education is not right for every child. While it is always right and proper, if parents want to send their child to a mainstream school, to give them the opportunity to do that and there should be the facilities there for that to take place, parents should also have the option of a special school if that is what they prefer. We have heard a lot about mainstream schooling; I completely understand that and I support it where it is the parents’ wish. But can the Minister confirm that the Government support special school places and will increase their number if that is the parents’ wish? Some groups are concerned about being forced in one direction rather than the other, but I think choice needs to be at the heart of this system, so I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that today.
I have questions about the statutory override, which were raised by the Lib Dem Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). I would be grateful if the Minister responded on that as well. I am conscious of time—
Laura Trott
I was about to wrap up because I am conscious of time and I want to ensure that the hon. Member for Chelmsford has time to speak at the end of the debate, so I will close my remarks there.
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing this important debate and commend all hon. Members for their powerful contributions. They are great in number and their time was short, but their voices were very much heard, and they have been listened to. They have done their constituents, who I know are facing significant challenges on this issue, justice today.
Improving the special educational needs and disabilities system across the country is a priority for this Government. That includes improving the experience of the education, health and care plan process for children and young people and their families. We are clear that the SEND system requires reform, and we are working with families, schools, local authorities and partners to deliver improvements so that children and their families can access the support they need. There are no quick fixes; some of the issues are very deep-rooted in our system, but we absolutely agree that change is needed urgently. As a Government who are absolutely committed to breaking down barriers to opportunities for all children and young people—indeed, all people—we believe the way to achieve that is by ensuring that children and young people get the right support to succeed in their education. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) asked whether I agreed that these children and young people should lead happy, fulfilling lives. Absolutely I do.
More than 1.6 million pupils in England have special educational needs, and as one report after another tells us, the SEND system is not providing the support that they and their families need. Although high needs funding for children and young people with complex special educational needs and disabilities continues to rise, confidence in the SEND system remains very low. Tribunal rates are increasing, as are waiting times for the support that children and young people desperately need and deserve. Worst of all, outcomes for children with special educational needs are suffering. Just one in four pupils achieve expected standards at the end of primary school—that is out of all children—and children who have special educational needs are falling behind their peers, struggling to reach expected levels in fundamental reading, writing and maths skills.
We are committed to changing the system. Families are, we know, battling against it at the moment to get support for their children. We are determined to restore parents’ trust that their child will get the support they need to thrive and flourish. regardless of their additional needs or disabilities. We—the Government and I—understand this cannot wait. We will act urgently to improve inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools, while also—to answer the question from the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott)—ensuring that special schools can cater to those with the most complex needs.
Effective early identification and intervention are, I absolutely agree, key to reducing the impact that a special educational need or disability may have in the long term. This Government know that, and it is why last July we announced the extension of funded support for 11,100 schools registered on the Nuffield early language intervention programme, helping pupils who need extra support with their speech and language development to find their voice. We are also investing in the system—£1 billion in the special educational needs and disabilities system, and £740 million for councils to create more specialist places in mainstream schools—and our curriculum and assessment review is looking at the barriers that hold children back from having the best chance in life.
We cannot do this alone, though. We will continue to work with the sector to ensure that our approach is fully planned and delivered together with parents, schools, councils and the expert staff who we know go above and beyond to support children. I repeat, there are no quick fixes here, but we are getting on with the job and remain committed and determined to deliver the change that children, young people and their families are crying out for.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
I appreciate the work that the Minister is doing to address this issue and that there are no quick fixes, but given the terrible cases we have heard today—I have constituent who had to wait two years for an assessment, which spanned the whole length of their GCSE courses—does she agree with those who point out that the funding allocated so far will, given council debts, hardly touch the sides in terms of the SEND capacity that is needed?
Catherine McKinnell
I will talk about how we are seeking to address this. I appreciate the extent of the challenge that the hon. Gentleman raises. The fundamental point here is that the additional funding being spent is not actually achieving the outcomes that children deserve. That is why we need to reform the system fundamentally, to improve both the process for families and children and the outcomes for children.
The number of education health and care plans has increased year on year since their introduction in 2014. As of January last year, nearly 600,000 children and young people had an EHCP. The plans were introduced as a way of minimising the bureaucracy and time-consuming nature of accessing vital support for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, to allow them the opportunities they deserve to achieve and thrive.
Over time, however, flaws and lack of capacity in the system to meet lower level needs has added to the strain on specialist services and had a detrimental impact on those who are trying to access support through the EHCP process. As many hon. Members described, that has led to late identification of need and intervention, low parental confidence in the ability of mainstream settings to meet need, inefficient allocation of resources in the system, and inconsistency in practice and provision based on geographical location. All of those problems have contributed to pushing up costs and creating an increasingly unsustainable system.
The latest data we hold shows that in 2023 just 50.3% of new EHCPs were issued within the 20-week statutory timeframe. As the hon. Member for Chelmsford set out, this problem is much worse in some areas, leaving children, young people and their families for weeks, months, and in some cases years, without appropriate and adequate support.
The Government want to ensure that EHC needs assessments are progressed promptly and plans issued quickly to provide children and young people with the support that they need so they can achieve positive outcomes. We are aware that local authorities have felt this increased demand for EHCPs and the subsequent demand for workforce capacity increases, and we recognise that more efficient and effective service delivery and communication with schools and families is pivotal to both rebuilding and reforming the system. Department officials are continuously monitoring and working alongside local authorities to support those who are having difficulty with timely processing of EHCPs. For those who struggle to process and issue EHCPs within the 20-week statutory timeframe and face challenges in making the improvements required to do so, the Department continues to put in place recovery plans with the aid of specialist SEND advisers where necessary.
The Government are absolutely aware of the challenges that families are facing in accessing support for children and young people through this long, difficult and adversarial EHCP process. Independently commissioned insights that we published last year show that extensive improvements to the system and using early intervention, which the hon. Member for Chelmsford mentioned, as well as better resourcing of mainstream schools would have a significant impact on children and young people with SEND who are in need of support. The insights showed that those changes could see more children and young people having their needs met without the need for an EHCP, and within a mainstream setting rather than a specialist placement. As well as that, we have listened to parents, local authority colleagues and partners across education and health and social care. We are considering carefully how to address and improve the experience of the EHCP process and reflecting on what could or should be done to make it more consistent nationally.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford rightly says that early intervention is a priority, and we absolutely agree. Children’s earliest years make the biggest difference to their life chances. We recognise the importance of high-quality early years education and care, which can lead to much better outcomes for all children. Having access to a formal childcare setting allows these needs to be identified at the earliest opportunity. It means that appropriate support and intervention can be put in place so that children with special educational needs and disabilities can thrive.
We have introduced additional resources for early years educators to support children with SEND, including a free online training module and SEND assessment guidance and resources, and we are reviewing the SEND funding arrangements to make sure that they are suitable for supporting children with SEND. This week we published the updated operational guidance alongside detailed case studies of good local practice to provide more detail to support local authorities and promote greater consistency.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford highlighted the broad specialist workforce that is needed across education, health and care. We know that far too many children have been waiting for speech and language therapy. To support the demand, we are working in partnership with NHS England and funding the early language and support for every child programme, trialling new and better ways to identify and support children with speech and language and communication needs. The programme is being delivered through nine regional pathfinder partnerships through our SEND and AP change programme. We know that continuing to build the pipeline of language and speech therapists is essential, so we have introduced a speech and language degree apprenticeship. It is now in its third year of delivery and offers alternative pathways to the traditional route.
Finally, although most education, health and care plans are concluded within a tribunal hearing, I have heard concerns from hon. Members about the process. We want all children and young people with SEND or an AP to get the support they need when they need it, which is why we are strengthening the accountability in mainstream settings to make sure they are inclusive. We are working with Ofsted and supporting the mainstream workforce to increase their expertise. We will also increase mainstream capacity by encouraging schools to set up their own SEND provision units, and we are supporting teachers with training so that every teacher is a special educational needs and disabilities teacher. Again, there are no quick fixes, but we are getting on with the job on multiple fronts.
I thank the hon. Member for Chelmsford again for securing this important debate, and I thank all who contributed today. Reforming the system and supporting children and young people with special educational needs to achieve and thrive and regain the confidence and trust of families are the goals we all share. My final word goes to all those working across education, health and care. In the interests of our children and young people with special educational needs, I thank them for all they do. Together we can deliver for our children and young people, including those with SEND.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
I call Marie Goldman to respond briefly to this epic debate.
Marie Goldman
Thank you, Dr Huq. I am not sure I thanked you for your chairmanship earlier, so I thank you now. I also thank all hon. Members who took part in this important debate and contributed, in some circumstances, harrowing stories. I do not have time to go through them all. I will simply say this.
I first heard about this subject and the terrible state that special educational needs provision was in at around this time last year. A parent raised it with me and told me what was going on. When I started digging into it, I learned that parents just did not feel heard; they felt that nobody was listening to them. Any parent and anybody involved in education who has been battling this issue can see in the debate here today that we are listening now. We will keep holding the Government’s feet to the fire and making sure that they make progress. I very much hope they do—indeed, I have faith that they do indeed want to make progress. I thank Members again for taking part. I hope we make progress very soon.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for education, health and care plans.
New Hospital Programme
(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
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
I will call Dr Kieran Mullan to move the motion, and then I will call the Minister to respond. As is the convention with these 30-minute wonders, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the New Hospital Programme.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq, for a debate that is very timely in the light of the statement of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care this week. My remarks will focus on three hospitals that serve my constituency as part of the East Sussex healthcare NHS trust: Eastbourne district general hospital and Conquest hospital, which are situated outside my constituency but are major secondary care providers for my constituents, and Bexhill community hospital.
As part of the new hospital programme announced by the previous Government, Eastbourne district general hospital is due to be entirely rebuilt, and Conquest hospital is set to be reorganised and the structure improved to ensure that it is fit for the future. Alongside creating additional in-patient wards and improved parking facilities, the plans include expanding the emergency departments at Eastbourne and Conquest, improving access to cardiology and ophthalmology services, and redeveloping out-patient theatres, endoscopy and diagnostic services.
Plans to upgrade Bexhill community hospital are also included in the programme, equipping it to deliver more services locally. Currently, only 53% of space in the hospital is allocated to clinical space. Once that work is complete, that will increase to 70%. To reflect increasing demand for care, the plans will also increase the number of hospital beds by 13%, the number of single rooms as a proportion of hospital space from 18% to 70%, and the number of out-patient consulting rooms by 28%.
Having worked in the NHS as a doctor in A&E for a number of years before becoming an MP, I know the difficulties that can arise from working in buildings that are in need of improvement. The physical infrastructure of the building is outside the control of frontline staff, so they often have to do whatever it takes to make it work, but it would be better if they did not have to. I think the Minister would agree that despite those circumstances, our healthcare staff work tirelessly, and we owe it to them to deliver better infrastructure.
Whatever the new Government may say, progress on the new hospital programme was being made under the previous Government, despite the challenges presented by the pandemic and the inflationary pressures on construction costs as a result of the war in Ukraine. The programme was incredibly ambitious but remained a significant commitment to investment in hospital infrastructure.
During the 2024 general election, the Labour party committed to delivering the new hospital programme. Candidates up and down the country made pledges to deliver on the programme, but this week, the Health Secretary broke that pledge at the Dispatch Box by moving the goalposts, as a result of which many constituents in Bexhill and Battle will not see the benefits of the programme until 2039 at the earliest.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I declare my interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital, and that a family member has shares in a medical company. My constituents are heartbroken by the Government’s decision to push the start date of the Royal Berks’s construction to 2037, which will disappoint patients and staff. The hon. Member must recognise the role that his party played in creating that situation, so does he agree that his party needs to reflect on its part in the delayed new hospital programme, and will he apologise for it?
Dr Mullan
It is a 30-minute debate, and I want to be generous in letting hon. Members make short points in support of their hospitals, but I do not want to allow it to degenerate into a highly political back and forth. As I was saying, the Government pledged to do it and they did not.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr Mohindra
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this timely debate. As he will know, Dean Russell, the former Member of Parliament for Watford, was a keen advocate for Watford general hospital. He continued to make sure that we progressed the project for that hospital, which has a real impact on my constituency of South West Hertfordshire. Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that Watford general is now not likely to get spades in the ground until 2032 at the earliest? Furthermore, some of the figures being bandied about are concerning. I know that the Minister has uploaded draft costs, but £1.5 billion to £2 billion seems a bit high for what was initially proposed.
Dr Mullan
I share that disappointment, which relates to some of the remarks that I will go on to make about how those costs will go up with the delays, because of the inflationary pressures globally.
To address the concerns about our role in the process, I remind the Minister that the Chancellor was specifically asked during the election campaign about commitments that were being made on tax and spend. She was also asked whether those commitments would have to change when Labour was in government, because of the fiscal challenges that she had not known about—
Dr Mullan
I will not give way yet.
Yet that is exactly what the Government have done again and again, breaking not only that pledge but a series of pledges they made during the election—that they would not say in government that they had been forced into a particular situation. That was the Chancellor’s specific pledge. It was clear from the Secretary of State’s statement this week that the Government intend to continue making the issue a political football.
I will reiterate the important context behind the challenges that we are seeing in NHS capital backlogs. When we came into Government in 2010, £1 in every £4 being spent by the Government was borrowed, which was clearly unsustainable. If the Labour party thinks that its current economic inheritance presents challenges for public spending, let me remind it of what we inherited. Unemployment was higher; inflation was higher; the deficit, or the black hole as Labour Members like to call it, was higher; and economic growth was lower. Even in that context, however, we prioritised NHS spending.
Helena Dollimore
I thank the hon. Member, my constituency neighbour, for giving way and I congratulate him on securing this debate. We both care deeply about our three local hospitals and I, too, pay tribute to the work of our amazing NHS staff. Recently, I was at one of those local hospitals with a family member and I will be there again next week.
Does the hon. Member agree, however, that when Labour came into office, it was confronted with the fact that the Conservative Government had not budgeted for the new hospital that they had promised for our community, and that the money for it had run out in April? If the Conservative Government had been serious about committing to the new hospital programme, they should have budgeted for it. The new Labour Government have provided that funding and put in place a realistic and honest framework for our communities that sets out when we will get that work done.
Dr Mullan
Governments make choices. I have just laid out the economic situation that we inherited, which was worse than the one Labour has inherited, and yet we prioritised NHS spending. Nobody forced Labour to give above-inflation pay increases to a number of public sector workers and enormous pay increases to train drivers, or to make a significant but unwise investment in the green investment plan.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Order. We have had the word “you” a few times, which refers to me as the Chair.
Dr Mullan
There is not time for a continual back-and-forth in a 30-minute debate, so I will make some more progress.
When it comes to comparing the record of the NHS, the performance of the NHS under Labour in Wales, across many of the metrics that Labour Members have criticised us for, is actually worse than the record of the NHS elsewhere. That is because across England, Scotland and Wales—this is why I hope we can come to some agreement—we not only had the pandemic but face an increasing demographic challenge.
The SNP, Labour and the Conservatives, in the three areas in which we respectively have responsibility for health, are seeing considerable challenges that all of us are struggling to manage, as the Labour party will now struggle to manage them. As was the case when Labour was last in office, capital spending is often deprioritised when budgets are challenged, and decisions are made that might make sense in the short term but that also create long-term pressures.
The issue that we are debating is nothing new. Members from both sides of the House agree that our hospitals need modernisation, with 42% of the NHS estate having been built before 1985 and 14% of the estate pre-dating the NHS.
Perran Moon
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I appreciate that he does not want this debate to be political, but so far it has been all about politics. If we want to have a debate about the state of the NHS and how we transform it, it must be a level debate.
In Cornwall, we have one general hospital, but we are very fortunate that it is in the first phase of the programme because it is a women and children’s unit, which we have a desperate need for. It was originally promised by the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, more than 10 years ago, but nothing came to fruition. We have been waiting a long, long time for it.
I fully accept that government is about choices. We have had to deal with—whatever we want to say; however we want to position it—a number of different challenges since we came into government—
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Order. The Clerk is frowning at me, because this is a bit long for an intervention.
Perran Moon
Does the hon. Member agree that we now have a coherent programme—however long it is for—to implement those changes?
Dr Mullan
That remains to be seen; we will have to see what the Office for Budget Responsibility says in March about the planned public expenditure limits.
To be clear about taking interventions, I am very happy to debate things, but this is a 30-minute debate in which the primary focus is on the person who secured the debate. The Minister will get a chance to make those repeated points, so I will not let anyone else make another intervention. I was happy to let people make interventions, because I am keen for you all to champion your local hospitals, but if you are not willing to play ball with me—
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Order. Avoid the word “you”—that is one to steer clear of.
Dr Mullan
I apologise. If Members are not willing to go along with that courtesy, I am afraid that I will not continue to take interventions. I have tried to be fair and decent.
I hope that the Minister will at least be shorter on rhetoric and longer on the details of what will actually happen than the Secretary of State was. That brings me back to my local hospital and what happens next. Shortly after the election, I attended a briefing with East Sussex healthcare trust, which I am proud to say has made incredible improvements over the past 10 years. Despite being in what it described as a challenging financial position, it has reversed its special measures and improved standards across the board.
The hospitals under the trust are crucial parts of our local healthcare services in East Sussex and have served the community for decades. Each year, they carry out over 160,000 emergency attendances, 56,000 planned surgeries and 438,000 out-patient appointments. It is also important to remember that those hospitals are not just healthcare providers but job creators, employing around 8,700 people locally.
However, East Sussex healthcare trust was clear that the remedial works due under the new hospital programme could not be delivered soon enough. When the programme was announced in 2019, the trust estimated that the total backlog rectification cost throughout all its hospitals was over £300 million. Its critical infrastructure risk was the 10th highest in England, and was estimated to represent around £64 million of the £300 million total required to resolve the backlog. If left untouched, it is estimated that that figure will rise to £220 million over 10 years.
Given the disappointing decision to delay the major infrastructure investment that would have addressed the situation, what is the plan now? How will the Government now ensure that those sites can continue to function effectively? I am grateful to the Minister for her time in our previous interactions, but I ask her to explain in detail how the Government are going to manage those issues. The trust is now working at pace to try to develop a better understanding of the impact of the decision and the possible mitigations. What support is being put in place by the Department and NHS England to assist hospitals in that work?
Tackling the colossal backlog of repairs is not enough to equip such hospitals for the 21st century. The way that we deliver care has drastically changed since they were built. A new hospital is not just a new building; it is more than just bricks and mortar. It is about rethinking traditional and outdated models of care to reflect the changing needs of patients. Hospitals in East Sussex have been assessed as having a digital maturity level of zero. That must be addressed if the Government’s ambition of a digital revolution is to be realised. The layout of the hospitals is simply not designed for modern healthcare, with far too few single rooms to meet demand, which leaves hospitals poorly equipped to effectively control infection and unable to offer patients privacy and dignity when they need it most.
Those issues are more pronounced when we enter the winter months, with the UK Health Security Agency reporting a sharp increase in the number of patients admitted to hospital for flu and other respiratory diseases. As the Health Secretary mentioned last week, there are 5,100 people in hospital with flu, which is more than three times the number at this point last year. That is only compounded by the UK’s ageing population, which is often described correctly as a demographic time bomb, as in the next 25 years the number of people older than 85 will double to 2.6 million. In East Sussex alone, the population is expected to increase by 14%, with significant growth in the over-70s demographic. As that comes to pass, healthcare needs will become more complex and the demand for services will continue to grow.
I have been working with a number of GP practices in my constituency to help bring to fruition their plans to move to larger, more modern premises. As such, I am encouraged by the Government’s £889 million of extra funding for general practice. From that work, I know that a significant barrier to those projects being delivered is the rising cost of construction. I was informed by Rother district council that construction costs on its joint projects have increased by approximately 40% since 2020.
Those issues underscore how critical the rebuilds are to East Sussex healthcare trust, as well as others across the country, to deliver the best healthcare outcomes for patients and future-proof our NHS. Although financial prudence is essential, the Health Secretary’s delays only escalate construction costs and deepen the strain on our healthcare system. Investment now will save money and lives in the long term. Instead, the Labour Government have delayed plans—admittedly ambitious plans—and kicked the can down the road. The decision to delay schemes in East Sussex will have consequences for patient care, NHS staff and public trust.
Without urgent interim funding to address those issues, patient safety and care standards will be at risk. I call on the Minister to secure dedicated resources to tackle the new challenges in maintenance and capital spending created by the Government’s decision, and ensure that hospitals can continue to serve the community safely and effectively while we wait for the new promised facilities to materialise. Delay must not mean deterioration, and I urge the Government to act now to protect both patients and NHS staff.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) on securing a debate on this important matter. I commend his timing in getting this debate two days after an announcement that nobody else knew about. If he were a Labour MP, there would be howls of “Fix!”
There has been a lot of back and forth, but I want to confirm that we pledged to support this programme, and we are supporting it. That is what Monday was about—let us be in no doubt about that. I was part of the largest capital programme in the NHS when I served as a non-executive director under the last Labour Government; this will be the next largest capital programme, delivered under this Labour Government.
As Lord Darzi noted in his investigation, the hospitals that we rely on are deteriorating after the NHS suffered years of under-investment. This Government inherited a programme to deliver new hospitals that was unfunded beyond March 2025 and was repeatedly delayed, with no credible delivery plan.
Chris Vince
I thank the Minister for the Secretary of State’s statement on Monday, in which £1.5 billion of Government funding was dedicated to Princess Alexandra hospital. At my local hospital in Harlow, it is not just an issue of funding: in fact, the land was not purchased and the business plan was not completed. The idea that the hospital would be completed by 2030 was a pipe dream, was it not?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend; I am happy to take interventions, but I need to finish by half-past 4, so I am conscious of time. He is absolutely right, and I will come on to his point.
We need to be very clear and honest with people about what was ready and about the different stages of these programmes, which we are very keen to do. Staff and patients deserve better. That is why the Secretary of State asked officials to review the programme and put it on a firm footing with sustainable funding so that all the projects can be delivered.
I thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle for his service to the NHS and his experience. I agree that it is appalling for staff. We all understand that he and I disagree in our political analysis, but he made some really well-informed points about models of care and future models of care, all of which we need to take into account in the delivery of this programme and other parts of the capital programme—and we will.
As the Secretary of State announced to the House on Monday, we now have a realistic plan to deliver the programme. I am pleased that we can be honest with people as we start a new chapter setting out a new commitment to deliver these hospitals, which are so important to all our constituents, that is realistic and backed with funding. We have worked closely with the Treasury to secure five-year waves of investment, backed by £15 billion of investment over consecutive waves, averaging £3 billion a year. This will ensure a balanced portfolio of schemes at different development stages being delivered now and into the future.
The new delivery plan sets out the order and the waves of investment in which each new hospital will be constructed. Hospitals included in a wave will begin construction, while forthcoming schemes will be undertaking pre-construction work to prepare planning permission and secure business cases. With this approach, we can ensure that schemes are ready to be built as soon as possible. A list of the schemes in each wave has been published on gov.uk and in the plan for implementation.
For reference, I will briefly outline the timeline for delivery. [Interruption.] Actually, I think we have seen all the waves, and the hon. Gentleman wants us to move on to Bexhill and East Sussex.
Mr Mohindra
For Watford general hospital, we have a window between 2032 and 2034. Given the certainty that the Minister is trying to give to the programme and to the rest of the country, what assurances and assumptions has she made for that two-year window? How can she assure me and my constituents that there will be no further delays?
Karin Smyth
I will pick up that point. Wave 3, which is what the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle has secured this debate on, includes schemes that were always part of a post-2030 plan. We now have the confirmed dates. The East Sussex new hospital scheme for East Sussex healthcare trust includes, as the hon. Gentleman says, new buildings and refurbishments at Eastbourne district general hospital, Conquest hospital and Bexhill community hospital. The scheme is in wave 3 of the delivery plan, and construction will commence between 2037 and 2039. We understand that this is disappointing news to some people who were expecting and were told that their hospital would be built earlier, but we can assure them that there is now a credible and funded plan for delivery—no more false promises. Our priority now is to get on and deliver these new hospitals for the benefit of the staff and patients who so vitally need them.
We understand the importance of these schemes to local communities and the need to invest in health infrastructure. We will continue to engage with trusts—including Watford, which the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) mentioned—over the next few years to establish whether there are any other activities that can be progressed during the spending review. We will be in discussions with all those trusts to understand mitigations in the meantime. That was the source of many questions that came up in the many meetings that I held with hon. Members yesterday. I understand that all these hospitals are critical—they would not be on the list if there were not a major problem with them—so we need to talk to the trusts about how we manage the process in the meantime.
I acknowledge that this will be a difficult time for the core teams and all the people who have been working on these schemes, many of which will be stood down. Their expertise and knowledge is extraordinarily valuable. I know that the programme teams will make efforts to ensure that expertise is retained where possible and used to develop the wider programme.
The trust is currently developing its strategic outline case, as per the business case process set out in His Majesty’s Treasury’s Green Book. Following the review and approval of the SOC, the next step will be the development, review and agreement of the outline and full business case. I understand that many areas, including Bexhill, have plans for housing to accommodate a growing population. My Department will work closely with integrated care boards and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that those communities have the health provision that they need.
Beyond establishing a credible programme, we are taking steps to restore people’s trust through honesty and transparency. We will be setting out further information for each scheme shortly, to ensure a more open way of working and collaborative programme delivery.
Yesterday, I held meetings with Members of Parliament from all waves of the process to give them the opportunity to ask more detailed questions about their individual schemes, and to give them the clarity that their constituents deserve. Letters have also been issued to the trusts. That was a very successful way of working; I certainly learned a lot about the individual schemes. Members of Parliament of all parties came to talk about their schemes. I gave a commitment that I would continue to talk to colleagues about them. I absolutely offer the same to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. I will work with Members’ trusts to understand the detail on the ground.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I warmly welcome the news, on which I congratulate the Minister, that the women and children’s hospital at Treliske and the emergency care hospital at Derriford are in wave 1. However, some of my North Cornwall constituents rely on the crumbling North Devon district hospital, which is potentially 15 years from a rebuild. We are talking about mitigations, so please will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can expand care at the community hospitals in Bodmin, Launceston and Bude, which are all at least one hour from their closest district hospitals?
Karin Smyth
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We had a good discussion yesterday about North Devon; I understand the rurality of that location, as it is fairly close to my Bristol constituency. Obviously, however we manage it, there are a lot of schemes represented by a lot of MPs. I am open to suggestions about how we go forward. I hope hon. Members feel that we have tried to give as much information as we can to them and the trusts in the announcement and the meetings yesterday. That is the spirit in which we will continue.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I welcome the spirit of openness and transparency that the new leadership of the programme has demonstrated. Previously, and frustratingly, residents in Hillingdon were—to be frank—led up the garden path. We were left with all but an IOU note for £750 million for a new hospital. The revenue funding for the new hospital ran out this year. We were pleased to see it renewed, and to be in wave 1; a significant capital investment of more than £1 billion has been committed to.
This is complicated: it is hard to deliver projects at this scale. With the best will in the world, if another £20 billion were to appear, despite the Conservative party opposing any methods that would raise money, the construction sector would struggle to build all these hospitals at once. Is it not the case that it is challenging to deliver this project at scale? Will the spirit of openness and transparency continue?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for his continued campaigning on behalf of the residents of Hillingdon; I used to be one of them. Talking to people is really important, and we have learned a lot from it. In case I have not outlined this enough, let me be clear that all our constituents who are on the programme are in severe need. The programme has looked at clinical need and deliverability. We understand how difficult these choices are, so I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
Helena Dollimore
I welcome the Labour Government’s confirmation of funding, which will help the Conquest hospital in Hastings, part of the East Sussex Healthcare trust, and other hospitals that my constituents use. It comes alongside the Chancellor’s announcement of a big package of support in the Budget, with record investment in our NHS to provide more appointments to clear the backlog left by the Conservatives.
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, which highlights the point that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle raised about other capital plans and programmes to help his constituents and others over the coming years.
In conclusion, I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue.
Karin Smyth
If the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, whose timing is superb, wants to make an extra point, I will give him the courtesy of a chance to come back in.
Dr Mullan
In the last hour, I have had a communication from the trust explaining that, with the delay, the extra cost may be in the hundreds of millions. I would be grateful to take up the Minister’s offer of some time, as well as to talk to MPs who use those services, to see how we can help the trust to access that funding.
Karin Smyth
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We learned a lot yesterday from the expert team from the new hospital programme; I thank them for their incredible work in getting to this point. Those colleagues who could make the meetings yesterday found that the team’s knowledge about every single programme was phenomenal. I have yet to ask the team a question about any scheme to which they do not know the answer—I give hon. Members that confident assurance. The team includes colleagues from both NHS England and the Department.
When I went to an assurance meeting a few weeks ago, I learned that the relationship between the central control of the programme and the trusts, how we get the schemes delivered for everyone’s constituents, and the value of parliamentarians talking to me—everyone has stopped me in the corridors to raise these issues—are all very valuable. That is a good function of parliamentarians. That is the spirit in which we want to continue.
Our commitment is to deliver these hospitals, including the Eastbourne district general, Conquest hospital and Bexhill community hospital schemes, and I am pleased to say that we have an affordable, deliverable plan to do so. It will be difficult, but I look forward to working with the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle and other colleagues.
Mr Mohindra
It is very gracious of the Minister to allow me to intervene again. In the interests of full transparency, can she assure us that if the development of the new hospitals gets delayed, all MPs will be informed, not just those in the relevant constituency? Work on Watford general is meant to begin between 2032 and 2034. Will the Government communicate any further delays as quickly as possible? That will certainly be critical to our constituents.
Karin Smyth
We absolutely will. This is one of the advantages of the waves: we recognise, and everybody knows, that there are sometimes unavoidable delays to schemes, perhaps to do with the sites, but the advantage of the pre-construction work and our knowledge of the sites is that most of that should be built into the programme and the timing. But life happens.
One of the central issues for the programme is capacity in the construction arena, as well as across the country, in terms of developing primary estate to get these things done. The advantage of the waves is that they give us flexibility if things move, as they inevitably will—that is life. We very much want to keep up relationships with local trusts and inform them. That will be difficult, as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) says, but that is the spirit in which we want to continue. I give him and other colleagues that absolute commitment.
Question put and agreed to.
Certificate of Common Sponsorship
(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
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of Government support for a certificate of common sponsorship.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. Before I start, I pay tribute to Unison South West, which has been at the forefront of this campaign. It has a number of care workers and members in the Gallery to listen to the debate.
The stark reality for migrant workers in the UK is that they are under-protected by our employment rights framework and victimised by our immigration rules. Migrant social care workers are particularly vulnerable to this kind of ill treatment because of the hostile environment in which they find themselves. Any worker who challenges bad practices by their employer puts their ability to live and work in the UK at great risk. This is a real danger in a sector with high levels of staff turnover. It is fragmented and privatised, characterised by many small employers running on tight profit margins—some of the profits are extracted from the companies for shareholder dividends. This important debate therefore draws attention to the power that employers are given by our visa system.
As the visa sponsor, employers have ultimate power over the lives of workers. Unscrupulous employers have greater powers over migrant care workers, because their work visa is tied to their employment status. If they lose their job, they will lose the right to work and live in the UK. The only way to avoid that currently is if they can find another job with an eligible social care employer within 60 days. As migrant workers, they are not eligible for any kind of support if they are dismissed. Many employers are well aware of the fear and vulnerability that these workers experience and do not hesitate to use threats to secure their compliance.
The sponsorship relationship with the employer is particularly harmful in the social care sector. As many Members will know, the care sector is one of the most precarious sectors in the UK. Firms regularly go under or lose their council contracts. The consequence is that staff find themselves without work and in financial hardship. For migrant care workers, the situation is even worse. Workers are fearful of raising concerns about employment practices, because they know that the same employers can remove their visa sponsorship. Unscrupulous employers can use the threat of removal to a care worker’s home country to victimise migrant workers who whistleblow or complain about their treatment.
Workers do not only risk deportation by speaking up or challenging an employer. Many face total financial ruin in their home country, because they have sold all that they have to come here, and illegal recruitment fees demanded by predatory recruitment agencies are rife in the sector. According to the Work Rights Centre, one in three people on the health and care worker visa said that they had to pay a large recruitment fee to secure their sponsorship. The value of fees averaged £11,000. The latest report from the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority indicates that the care sector is the most reported sector for labour exploitation, making up 60% of all reports. The most common vulnerability to exploitation indicated by potential victims of forced labour is being tied to a visa under the existing sponsorship system.
The Care Quality Commission has noted that workers are being exploited through the immigration system. Research last year by the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre found that the current visa system creates hyper-insecurity, which increases workers’ vulnerability to exploitation. Workers routinely suffer low wages, high recruitment fees, inappropriate salary deductions and the threat of deportation.
One care worker, who wishes to remain nameless, said:
“We are not treated with dignity at all. Last month I was paid just £1,300 with no explanation as to why my wages had been reduced. Most carers are scared to take their leave for fear of losing shifts and when you get sick, the company deducts money from your salary”.
One of my constituents in Poole, Nicola, explained that many sponsors have failed to meet their promises of providing adequate hours, which leaves workers in precarious situations. This not only undermines their rights, but often subjects them to poor working conditions and substandard housing.
Some of the stories these workers tell are truly heartbreaking and highlight clear violations of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. For example, many migrant healthcare workers are expected to sign contracts containing draconian clauses which often include a requirement to pay back recruitment and training costs if they leave their posts within a few years. Workers have effectively been blackmailed into staying because their employers have threatened them with a large debt should they leave. Migrant care staff have also been invoiced for administration costs. One employer billed staff £65 an hour for meeting and greeting a new employee at the airport when they arrived in the UK. Another worrying trend is workers being charged fees that the Home Office explicitly forbid employers to pass on. These include the immigration skills charge that the Government require employers to pay when they agree to sponsor a worker from overseas.
Government interventions to address these issues have failed thus far. In 2023, the then Government announced that care providers could only sponsor migrant workers if they were undertaking activities regulated by the CQC, but this failed to recognise that many registered companies were already exploiting their workers. In 2024, a rematching programme to help workers find another sponsored role when things went wrong was symbolic of acting after the problem had arisen, rather than seeking to change the structure of the system.
Although welcome, stricter licensing requirements and greater sanctions do not address the fundamental power imbalance at the heart of the employee sponsorship system. That is why I hope the Government will agree to a review of immigration policies that increase the vulnerability of migrant workers to exploitation and modern slavery. Vital to that is a re-examination of the visa sponsorship relationship with the employer in the social care sector, moving towards a sector-wide sponsorship scheme run by an independent body with a health and social care focus. That would enable overseas staff to leave bad employers and find work with better ones.
Sector-wide sponsorship would also mean that workers and employers did not incur new costs every time a worker moved jobs. That would alleviate the pressure on the worker and reduce the impetus from some employers to enforce repayment clauses. Any visa scheme reform will stand or fall on whether it enables overseas workers to live their lives free of exploitation. This requires a fundamental shift in our immigration rules, so that the hostile environment is replaced with a rights-based framework and migrant workers are treated with dignity and respect.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the appalling situations faced by migrant labour in the social care system, as highlighted by UNISON, emphasise the need for urgent structural reform of the system, to create a national care service that resolves workforce insecurity, alongside the many other problems arising from our social care crisis?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The need for urgent social care reform—and to bring it back into public ownership—is vital, and I will continue to press the Government on this.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I can see that the hon. Member is on his last paragraph. I apologise to him, and to you, Dr Huq—I am chairing a meeting next door, so I will have to leave. I intervene because he mentioned companies going out of business. In my constituency, when Southern Cross went out of business, a range of Filipino workers were left bereft, isolated, and with no income, and had to return home because of the visa situation. The Government’s Employment Rights Bill, which is coming before the House, proposes a fair pay agreement in the social care sector—which will be the first element of the reintroduction of sectoral collective pay bargaining—and proposes a fair work agency. That agency could take on the role of monitoring this sector and administer an overall sectoral visa process that could be fairer and regulated.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. We need to consider how to address this problem in a practical way, and that might be one option.
Introducing a common certificate of sponsorship is not only the right thing to do; it is absolutely crucial to raising standards in the care sector. Overseas workers play a vital role in keeping the sector running. They deserve better protections and treatment, and I hope that the Government will therefore see the merit of introducing a certificate of common sponsorship.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members to stand. We will then work out how much time each Member gets.
Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this debate.
Two sets of people are being abused and exploited. The first set are workers in the care sector. I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said about the extent of abuse in the sector, and I have seen it myself in my employment law practice. However, I have also always been aware that there was a need for more advice in the sector than we could ever provide, for exactly the reason that he raised: people are too scared to come forward.
The other set of people for whom this situation is deeply unjust are my constituents who receive care, who are spending their life savings on care, and who would be absolutely horrified to discover the circumstances in which many of the people who give that care are living. The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority has talked about this as a massive growth area of concern—I have spoken to the Minister about that previously, in this exact room, so I will not go into precisely the same points again.
The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority could potentially have a licensing scheme for care workers but, bluntly, it licensing schemes in other sectors do not seem to be eliminating abuse, so a certificate of common sponsorship is the way to get better rights and behaviours within the sector.
At the moment, some councils are putting out tenders for care at payment rates of around £17 an hour. Care representative organisations tell me that the actual cost of providing care with staff paid in a legally compliant way is £22 an hour. That does not include any management costs whatsoever; it is just the cost of the member of staff being provided. We have, at minimum, a £5 an hour gap between legally compliant care workers and what local councils are offering, although the gap is more than that because companies will, of course, want to make some degree of profit—that is not, per se, illegitimate—and will naturally need to charge for some management costs. A gap that big is enriching non-compliant employers in the sector. Compliant employers are withdrawing from the market because they cannot manage to compete, or provide services, for the amounts of money available.
There is an urgent need for a wider reform of the care sector, and pay within the sector. We are, of course, all looking forward to sectoral bargaining, to better protect workers and make it clearer to people what their rights are. However, unless workers have the capacity to enforce those rights, and unless they can move between employers as the rest of us can, they will continue to be exploited.
We already have a significant problem in the sector. The problem is getting worse and will continue to get worse but this is, I hope, one of a number of measures that could really improve working conditions for people in this country.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I am delighted to serve under your chairship again, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this important debate. Having worked with him on the issue, I know we share a commitment to securing a fair solution for the workers affected by these rules.
As the hon. Member outlined, the situation for people on health and care worker visas is uniquely difficult. The way that visa works puts employees into an incredibly and intolerably vulnerable position. If they lose their job, they lose their right to live and work in the UK, unless they find an eligible alternative employer within 60 days. A survey conducted by the Work Rights Centre found that only 5% of those who tried were successful within that timeframe.
The situation can be even more difficult when, as Unison reports, employers withhold references for employees trying to change jobs. We can see it is really difficult for those workers to change employers. What does that mean? It means that employers hold significant power over their employees’ right to live and work here. Their lives are effectively under the control of the employers. That can be disastrous, as it has been found that many employers wield that power to make unfair demands on their workers.
There have been reports of unreasonable demands made under the either implicit or sometimes explicit threat of revoking sponsorship. Employers do not have the right to deport people, yet that is what they are threatening to do. The Royal College of Nursing told us about a member who was asked to work on days she was not contracted to, tried to refuse and was told in reply by the employer, “We sponsor you.” That was a clear threat intended to intimidate her into compliance with work outside the contract. That is echoed by a domiciliary care worker from India who told Unison that every conversation they had with managers felt threatening and often ended with the word “visa”.
The RCN has also reported threatening tactics being used to get employees to sign new more restrictive contracts, including—shockingly—being given just 30 minutes to sign before having their sponsorship revoked. Care worker Divya told Citizens Advice that she had not been paid in two months, while her British colleagues had been paid as normal. She was falling behind on bills. Having contacted her employer once about it, she was understandably scared to follow up, in fear she would be dismissed. She said:
“I feel like we’re being treated as slaves.”
There are other horrific examples, such as being given unsuitable and overpriced housing, or finding out that they do not even have the work that was promised when they arrived. Citizens Advice reports that a quarter of the migrant care workers it spoke to were given no work when they arrived in the UK. One in eight contracts were changed on arrival. It is blatantly clear that that is completely unacceptable.
The Government have acknowledged the harm of those rogue employers, and have taken action around increasing sanctions for the breach of rules. However, as the hon. Member for Poole pointed out, those measures do not do enough to address the toxic power imbalance that arises when so much of an employee’s life is in the hands of a single employer. In short, they do not prevent this injustice. That is the crux of the issue and must be addressed.
A certificate of common sponsorship would change that. It would mean that an employee’s sponsorship would not be chained to a single employer and it would break that exclusive link that is so often exploited. I strongly urge the Government to consider that as a solution. We have already had helpful suggestions for how it might work. Then we can empower migrant care workers to demand the fair conditions they rightly deserve.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) on securing this crucial debate. Migrant workers are vital to the UK’s economy and society. They make up over a fifth of our workforce and support essential industries such as hospitality and social care. Just last week, I had the privilege of meeting representatives from Focus on Labour Exploitation, the Latin American Women’s Rights Service, the Southeast and East Asian Women’s Association and the Refugee Workers Cultural Association. They voiced serious concerns about the current visa rules that tie many migrant workers to a single employer, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation.
The existing legislation not only creates grey areas that allow employers to pay unliveable wages, deny sick pay and encourage abuse in the workplace, but it also strips employees of the agency to challenge those conditions. Many are trapped in a vicious cycle; they are scared to speak out due to fear of arrest, immigration detention or deportation, with no means to move to a safer employer. I fully support our Government’s commitment to reducing visa and immigration abuse, and empowering workers to report exploitation safely plays a crucial role in that.
The introduction of a certificate of common sponsorship would enable migrant workers to change employers freely without facing the burden of additional immigration fees, the risk of being unemployed within the 60-day period or jeopardising their visa status. That would empower workers, increase accountability and raise standards for migrant workers, as employers would risk losing their workforce if they failed to treat workers fairly. Such measures will redress the power imbalance between workers and sponsors, giving workers the flexibility to escape exploitative situations and access their rights without fear.
What conversations have Home Office officials had with those at the Department for Work and Pensions on the effects of data sharing and protections against employers using workers’ insecure immigration status to threaten and silence them in exploitative situations? The UK’s reliance on migrant workers cannot be overstated and all workers’ contributions must be valued and protected.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for setting the scene so very well. The No. 1 reason why I am here is to support him, and the No. 2 reason is that I want to consider the benefits of the legislative change that he has proposed. Through the Minister, we will see whether that legislative change can be achieved. If we can do that, we can move this forward.
Many firms in my constituency of Strangford have seasonal workers and must complete much paperwork. They go through various loopholes to secure their workers when they simply cannot source labour at home. There is a very clear purpose to that, which can be beneficial for us all. Firms cannot apply for these certificates annually in advance and rather have to wait three months, which is difficult logistically; I believe that an extension to the certificate of sponsorship could and should be considered. I look forward wishfully to the Minister’s consideration of what the hon. Gentleman has asked for, and I think this has been a very positive debate.
Seasonal workers are needed quickly, and there should be an easier and more streamlined way for them to access sponsorship, to be gainfully employed and to be able to move through employment. That is why I supported the hon. Member in his call for reform of the tier 2 visa system and the introduction of a certificate of common sponsorship. That is needed greatly within my constituency of Strangford and other rural constituencies. We need seasonal help and an easier and more cost-effective system to navigate. For many, it is bureaucratic—red taped—and we must ensure that that is not the case.
The proposed change would allow migrant healthcare workers, for example, to switch employers within the sector without putting their visa status at risk. That would provide greater job security and better protection from exploitation, which all Members who have spoken have referred to. I am sure that the Minister truly desires that, and I await with great interest the Minister’s comments on how we can improve and streamline this process for even more people. I also look forward to the contributions of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart).
The fact is that these people are not coming to claim benefits but to work. Sometimes we should focus on the clear and positive contributions that they can make, often in industries where we cannot find and supply our own workers. I know a number of agrifood businesses that spend a great deal of their resources on filling out the applications.
To be clear, I believe in the visa system—I understand it, I know why it is there and I support it as it is—but I also believe in checks and balances. There should be the ability to offer protection to workers in sectors that are crying out for help. That is why I am happy to support the hon. Member for Poole. It would be a simple and direct change, and one that could make all the difference. I highlight the fact, and make a plea to the Minister, that we still have to get the fishing crew visa situation sorted out. That, too, must be done.
Specifically, I have a plea for the Minister. Over the years, in all my time here—I have been 14 years here as an MP—I have supported our visa system, which has worked. Unfortunately, the previous Government—I am not being disrespectful, just honest—put the threshold up to such a level that those who applied for visas, and the fishing boats who would employ those people, were unable to meet it. If the Minister is happy to do this, and I hope she will be, will she would meet me and some of the fishing organisations to discuss how we can better have a threshold that the fishing boat owners can meet and that gives a living and good wage to the people who come across? The Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation is keen to find a way forward. Will the Minister agree to a meeting with the fishing sector and me to discuss such matters?
To close, I know that the Minister has a desire to facilitate those who wish to come to work and to add to our economy and community—they do so, and they are positive in their contribution. I believe that this suggestion is one that could safely be taken up to allow sponsors and indeed workers a cost-effective and streamlined approach.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing a debate on this issue. We both attended Unison’s lobby of Parliament last year, and met migrant health and social care workers on tier 2 visas. Some of the employment practices they had been subjected to were appalling. I completely understand their push for a certificate of common sponsorship.
As highlighted by other Members, existing rules that tie a worker to a single employer create a relationship of dependency and a highly unequal power dynamic. Many health and social care workers on sponsorship visas are afraid to express concerns about their employment and living conditions for fear of losing their employer’s sponsorship and being returned to their home country. Often, such workers are in a financially precarious situation, which increases their dependency. Some have been charged by their employer for their job induction, travel or training costs; some have their families with them, too, and in some cases workers receive a salary below the minimum wage to make up the cost of their flights or their training.
A concern repeatedly raised with me by healthcare workers on sponsorship visas in my constituency relates to shift patterns and hours. One constituent described starting work at 5 am and returning home at 10 pm, only to have worked for less than five hours due to the nature of his shifts, which he found financially and emotionally draining. Women might be sitting all day at bus stops and on benches in Cornish villages between their shifts, because their shift pattern has been so difficult to accommodate. Another constituent described employers threatening their staff about taking days off, and the expectation that migrant workers would always have to work bank holidays such as Christmas day. Unison has reported workers doing 19-hour shifts with no breaks, and the council in my area has revoked contracts with some providers for those reasons.
Even in circumstances where workers are not facing poor employment or living conditions, care is still one of the most precarious sectors in the UK, including in Cornwall, where firms regularly go under or have their licences revoked. Healthcare workers who came to the UK on sponsorship visas then only have 60 days to find another job with an eligible social care employer, or they have to leave the country. That short timescale creates stress, uncertainty and financial hardship, which one of my constituents experienced when their sponsoring company’s licence was revoked. Some workers in my constituency have gone on to work for the NHS, but having the visas transferred has been incredibly difficult and stressful, even with such a big employer.
A certificate of common sponsorship that is sector-wide, perhaps including health and social care and the NHS, rather than being linked to a single employer, would go a long way to addressing the issues we have all mentioned. It would prevent employers using the threat to withdraw sponsorship as a means of keeping migrant workers in poor living and working conditions, and it would improve job security and financial stability for those workers. That would help retain the desperately needed skilled professionals in the care sector.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this debate and for laying out some of the problems with the current system very clearly.
The Liberal Democrats are clear in our commitment to reforming the UK’s work visa system. We believe in creating a system that supports our country and economy while ensuring that everyone is treated with dignity and respect. The system should be fairer and more humane, and it should allow us to attract and retain the workers we need.
A critical problem with the current system is the exploitation of migrant workers, who are often trapped in vulnerable working conditions that are particularly prevalent in the social care sector. The Liberal Democrats have a comprehensive plan to address that exploitation. We would establish a single enforcement body to combat modern slavery and worker exploitation, a measure the previous Government long promised, but failed to deliver. The body would ensure that all workers, regardless of their terms of employment, are protected from abuse and are treated fairly.
Undoubtedly, the problem has been exacerbated by policies such as the ban on bringing dependants for people who come here on health and care worker visas. This is a cruel measure placed on those working to save lives, and it should be reversed.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I was slightly surprised by what the hon. Lady just said. Can she just repeat, so I understand correctly, that the Liberal Democrat policy is to reinstate the ability for people coming on the health and social care visa to bring dependants, knowing that that on average each person on that visa brought more than one dependant and the ratio was more than 1:1 throughout its operation?
Lisa Smart
It is a delight to welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention on such an important issue. We would not continue with the current visa structure and I will go on to explain what we would do. We believe, as a number of people do, that the system put in place by the previous Government is cruel. It is cruel for workers to allegedly be welcomed here, but not with their dependants, whether those are children or other dependants. We feel that we should be welcoming to families who want to play an important role in our society, such as by doing the job of a health and care worker—so yes, we would change the policy fundamentally: for a thriving, integrated society we should welcome families, not just workers, on these visas.
We should not forget the extraordinary sacrifices that NHS nurses, doctors and care staff have made and continue to make. I see it for myself at Stepping Hill hospital in Hazel Grove, at our nursing homes and care homes, such as Cherry Tree House in Romiley, and with those domiciliary care workers who go into the homes of our most vulnerable neighbours to give them the care that they need. Those workers face immense pressure in the face of record waiting times and difficult, draining roles. The Liberal Democrats have consistently called for better support for those vital workers, including those who come from overseas.
We would exempt NHS and care staff from the annual £1,000 immigration skills charge to recognise the invaluable contributions they bring. We should be valuing and cherishing our health and care workers. The Government should, as I have said, reverse the ban on visa holders bringing dependants with them. The policy needlessly separates families and discourages talented individuals from coming to the UK.
If the previous Government had valued care workers as the skilled professionals that they are, they would not have needed to rely so heavily on overseas recruitment. That is why the Lib Dems propose the introduction of a carer’s minimum wage, which would make it easier to recruit and retain domestic workers in this vital sector.
While the introduction of a certificate of common sponsorship may address some issues, we believe the root of the problem lies in our flawed visa system. We Lib Dems are clear: we can and we should have a fair and compassionate visa system that protects workers from overseas—but that cannot be achieved by tinkering around the edges.
Ultimately, the UK needs a flexible, merit-based system for work visas, allowing the Government to work closely with each sector to ensure that those skilled workers will fill the skills gaps in the UK economy. That includes abandoning the arbitrary salary threshold for skilled worker visas dreamed up by the previous Government, which not only drives skilled workers away, but deepens existing workforce shortages, especially in the health and social care sectors. A merit-based system would recognise the unique needs of different industries and the vital contributions made by workers at all levels of the economy. For example, many roles in social care and the NHS are essential, but do not meet the current salary thresholds, leaving critical positions unfilled.
By focusing on skills rather than arbitrary financial benchmarks, we can build a system that not only attracts talent, but encourages long-term retention, allowing workers to build lives and contribute meaningfully to our, and their, local communities. The Liberal Democrats share the goal of creating a visa system that prevents exploitation and fills workforce gaps, but that needs to be done through comprehensive reforms rather than simple, limited measures. A truly effective system must be compassionate, adaptable and designed to meet the needs of workers as well as of our economy. By focusing on systematic change, we can build a visa system that not only protects workers from exploitation, but ensures that critical workforce gaps are filled in a sustainable way.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this important debate.
We are all deeply grateful to our doctors, nurses and care workers. They do rewarding jobs, but their roles can be difficult and gruelling, too. It is true that many people in that workforce are not British but have come to this country to do that work. We must thank them for helping to keep us and our families healthy and cared for. However, it is our role in Westminster to look at the whole picture, informed—but not led—by individual cases, and there is a wider question to address.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) has said, the public have consistently asked successive Governments to lower migration and successive Governments did not deliver. Migration has been far too high for decades, and remains so. That is relevant today, because the volumes of people on the health and social care visa are eye-watering. Since 2021, more people have come to this country under the health and social care route than live in the city of Manchester. Why is that? Because those jobs are tough, yes—but fundamentally because those jobs are underpaid.
The Migration Advisory Committee says,
“the underlying cause of these workforce difficulties is due to the underfunding of the social care sector…immigration could not solve these workforce issues alone.”
This situation is economically self-defeating. There is no question that money the Government save in the short term by underpaying salaries in health and social care is dwarfed in the medium and long term by the costs to the state. After five years, a person who has come here on a health and social care visa can apply for indefinite leave to remain. If they get it—95% of ILR applicants are successful—they will qualify for welfare, social housing, NHS care, everything. All that costs money, far more money than those on these sorts of salaries will ever pay in tax and or than they will save the state with their artificially low wages. This cannot go on.
As the hon. Members for Poole, for Congleton (Mrs Russell), for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), and for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) have noted, those individuals are at risk of exploitation. That is a result of the poor pay and conditions across the sector, which have been allowed to endure through bringing in workers from abroad who are willing to accept them as the price of coming here. A certificate of common sponsorship will simply not solve this fundamental problem.
The next related issue with the visa is the degree to which it is abused. The MAC describes “misuse” of the visa as
“a significant problem and greater than in other immigration routes”.
All these issues raise massive concerns about the safety of patients and vulnerable people that the system is charged with caring for. It is awful that that system built up under a Conservative Government.
The change of rules to limit dependants is insufficient to fix the whole problem, but was a substantial step in the right direction. Numbers in the most recent year fell by two thirds. The rules around the health and social care visa need to be tightened further, not loosened through a certificate of common sponsorship, and actually enforced. That is for the good of not only those healthcare workers themselves, but—as should be the primary concern of hon. Members here—for the good of their patients and of this country.
Can the Minister please confirm that that reform is not under consideration? Can she please set out the discussions she is having with her Treasury and Health Department counterparts about the problem of underpaid jobs in health and social care? Can she please tell us how many migrants on care worker visas the Home Office expects to apply for ILR when eligible? Can she tell us, based on demographic level of income and number of dependants, what the Government expect this to cost?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this very important debate and thank those who have spoken from the Back Benches, including my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Mrs Russell), for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), and for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer). Before I make any further comments, I assure the hon. Member for Strangford that I am very happy to meet him, as always, and indeed I will be visiting Scotland to talk about a number of the issues he has raised today.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), made very similar comments to her speech in the last debate that we were in. I think we can all agree that the immigration system needs to be fair, controlled and managed—much better managed that the chaos that we inherited. Many issues in the design of the health and care visa system contribute to the problems we see today. It is important that that is understood and acknowledged in this debate.
I want to make a broad point: although I will hopefully address a number of the issues raised today, perhaps with some more positive input than may have been understood from some of the recent changes we have made, we understand that our net migration does need to come down from the record highs that we saw under the last Government. We have supported some of the rule changes brought in, including the stopping of dependants, which hon. Members will know.
In that spirit, it is important to say that the Government recognise the vital contribution that care professionals from overseas make to our social care sector. We do share my hon. Friend the Member for Poole’s concerns about the treatment of international workers in the care sector. A number of the issues they face are also faced by others from within the UK who are working in the same sector, and I will highlight some of the work we are doing to enact reforms that will be in the interests of all in this very important sector for our country.
My hon. Friend secured this debate in support of a proposal by Unison, as he outlined. I thank Unison for the considerable research and work it does in this area. I look forward to meeting the organisation to discuss not just these issues and its proposal, but its wider insights on issues facing workers. I hope that in this debate I can address some of the concerns raised and set out both what we are already doing, which I think goes quite a long way to addressing those concerns, and why addressing those concerns continues to be a high priority for this Government.
Hon. Members will be aware that in 2020 the previous Government introduced the health and care visa, which recognises the crucial contribution made by our international health and care workers. Those visas involve significantly reduced visa fees, as well as a quicker processing time and a dedicated Home Office team to process applications. Since February 2020, UK employers have been able to use this route to recruit people from overseas to work as carers. Under the previous Government, the number of carers recruited grew beyond expectations, and it is for that reason as well that this Government have maintained the measures the previous Government introduced in the spring of 2024.
The changes brought in by these new visas were stood up at pace by the previous Government to address what had become acute shortages in the adult social care sector. The issues the sector was facing had not been addressed and became a crisis—not unlike other workforce challenges—and they were then worsened by the covid-19 pandemic. The safeguards that should have been put in place when setting up these visas were not as effective as they could have been, and we have seen a range of abusive and exploitative practices in the sector. These have ranged from employers not having the work to fulfil workers’ contracts to abhorrent practices such as the housing issues that have been talked about, unfair shifts, pay and documents being withheld, and modern slavery. Hon. Members have also spoken about a lack of dignity, and a fear of taking holiday or sick leave or of speaking up when issues are faced. These are serious concerns and must be addressed.
That is why, in the autumn, I met colleagues in the Department of Health. At that meeting, I discussed these issues and the progress of actions that have already been taken, looking at where we might see longer-term plans for the care sector. As has been referenced in today’s debate, the recently introduced Employment Rights Bill establishes a framework for fair pay agreements, through which an agreement for the adult social care sector can be negotiated and reached in partnership by employers, worker representatives and others. That is yet another example of the Government taking steps and actions to address the serious issues that have been outlined. The Minister for Care and I will be discussing these issues further with our counterpart at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, recognising local government’s stake in these issues, to understand how our Departments can come together and work more collaboratively.
Although the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole focuses on health and care workers, it is worth mentioning that these issues seem to be particularly prevalent in lower-paying sectors such as care. In other areas of the health sector, the sponsorship system seems to be working well, with little need for significant Home Office intervention. However, I want to set out the steps we are taking to assist affected workers and the action that is already being implemented to tackle rogue employers.
First, we have seen that jobs in the care sector often do not have enough hours to support the workers who have been recruited to come to the UK. It is in no one’s interest to grant care worker visas when there is no guaranteed care work for visa holders to come to; that does not support care needs or our constituents, and it can also leave visa holders unable to support themselves in the UK without access to public funds. UK Visas and Immigration is applying the genuine vacancy test with a clearer understanding of the care sector’s recruitment processes and practices, to make sure that sponsors prove that the job is required and that they have enough work to ensure that the person will be doing the proposed job and paid the required salary. That is vital, given that international recruits on those contracts do not have recourse to public funds.
In the case of care workers who have come to this country in good faith to support these sectors and our constituents, but who have been left without a licensed sponsor, the Department for Health and Social Care has been working closely with the Home Office to design a process that will support those displaced care workers into new roles within the adult social care sector. Government officials, alongside 15 regional hubs in England made up of local authorities and directors of adult social services, are working together to support displaced workers into new roles. These regional partnerships have received £16 million this financial year to support them to prevent and respond to unethical practices in the sector. That includes providing funding support to help international recruits understand their rights. It also includes establishing operational processes with regional partnerships to support individuals to switch employers and remain working in the care sector in which they have been impacted when, for example, their sponsor’s licence has been revoked. We need to build on the progress that has already been made.
It is important to note that, as part of that process, workers in adult social care roles receive a bespoke letter direct from the Home Office that notifies them if their sponsor’s licence has been revoked. It also gives them the directions and contacts, so that they can get in contact with their regional partnership hub if they want to secure new employment and new sponsorship. The letter is sent before the visa cancellation process starts and is designed to give workers in adult social care the time to access assistance. I am keen to see the process made quicker, and I will work with ministerial colleagues to ensure that that is the case and that the process is as effective as it can be.
Where a worker believes that they are being exploited, but their sponsor is not yet subject to Home Office compliance action, the Government encourage them to come forward to regional hubs. Although the service is primarily for care workers whose employer’s sponsor licence has been revoked, we would expect support to be offered to other care workers who approach those hubs. I understand that some workers will be fearful, but I would encourage them and send them this message: they should come forward to report their experiences and secure help. For care workers specifically, the Home Office will waive priority service fees for applications supported by regional hubs.
Those who have come to the UK legitimately to support our care sector should be given the best opportunity to do so and be treated with fairness and respect. That is why the Government are also stepping up action against rogue employers. The Government have made clear our intention to crack down on those employers who are abusing the immigration system, and we will prevent them from sponsoring overseas workers. That will benefit all workers across our points-based system.
Let me turn specifically to the issue of employers passing on sponsorship costs to their workers, which has been raised by a number of hon. Members and is an outrageous practice. It has always been the intention that those benefiting from the recruitment of overseas workers should bear the costs of that sponsorship, and the Government believe that to be typical of most good employers. However, there are a small number of employers who have sought to load their sponsorship costs on to lower-paid international workers, and that must be stopped.
I am pleased to confirm that the Home Office has implemented policy changes to address that practice by skilled worker sponsors, including in the health and care sector. Those sponsors are now prevented from passing on the costs of acquiring a sponsor licence or of assigning the certificate of sponsorship, as well as any administrative and legal costs associated with having and using a licence. It is our intention to go further and implement that more broadly across all sponsored work routes.
As we set out before Christmas, the Government intend to go further and ban any employer who flouts employment laws from engaging with the immigration system. Visa and employment laws will be brought into closer alignment. Our sponsorship system will also reflect measures being driven and delivered by our Employment Rights Bill, which is currently going through Parliament. The Home Office will ensure that new protections set out in the Bill and the work of the flagship fair work agency are integrated into the sponsorship framework, strengthening the existing measures designed to prevent the mistreatment and exploitation of sponsored workers.
Although a key objective of the sponsorship system is to ensure that international workers are protected against modern slavery and other labour abuses, the Government recognise that the requirement to be sponsored and the worker’s reliance on their sponsor can, in some circumstances, make it more difficult for sponsored workers to change their employer. Those who wish to seek alternative employment can do so if they have a job offer from a Home Office-approved sponsor and make a new application. They are able to do that at any time, and do not need to wait until their sponsor is no longer able to employ them. Individuals have different options, depending on their circumstances, and can seek advice from an accredited immigration adviser.
If a sponsored care worker has lost their job because the sponsor’s licence has been revoked, they should, again, contact their regional support hub for assistance, as people who have been the victim of exploitation. The most important thing is that these individuals are supported to use the process and are able to make an application, which will enable them to regularise their stay. Anything short of that risks leaving them in a more vulnerable position, and we want to do everything we can to ensure that that is prevented.
Finally, we are deeply concerned by reports of unethical practices relating to international recruits in the care sector. That is why we are taking decisive steps to address the issue, and why UK Visas and Immigration continues to investigate and take action alongside partners where evidence of abuse is found. It is engaging with the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority and other relevant agencies to hold employers to account, and working with the Department for Health and Social Care to support impacted workers.
In conclusion, we continue to look at the best approaches for the immigration system, but it is important to note that the sponsorship compliance regime has exposed widespread abuse and stripped hundreds of rogue employers of their ability to recruit internationally. The system is therefore key to ensuring that future workers receive the pay and conditions promised when they applied for their visa. Although we recognise the issues raised today, there is also much more work to do urgently to improve the system. We are utterly committed to doing that and to working with colleagues across the House to make those changes and improvements a reality.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I thank all Members for their contributions to today’s debate, which was very positive. I also welcome the Minister’s contribution, and acknowledge both her understanding of the exploitation taking place in the sector today and her willingness to address that through existing and future measures.
On regional support hubs, however, the evidence we have heard—that only 5% of people losing their sponsorship are able to gain another role within the 60-day period—is proof enough that the system is not yet working adequately. I acknowledge that there are efforts to be made, but that does not address the problem that migrant workers face. They are in vulnerable positions and precarious employment, and when that is threatened and taken away, it is very difficult to find another sponsor. I would like the Minister to take that on board further.
Finally, my view is that strong trade unions are the key to exercising rights at work. Migrants should be represented in a union in their workplace. We also need a sympathetic legal underpinning that helps individuals and workers generally to exercise those rights. I am hoping that the Employment Rights Bill and other proposed legislation will do that. I am hopeful, ultimately, that the Government will see the economic and social benefit of introducing a certificate of common sponsorship.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential merits of Government support for a certificate of common sponsorship.
Written Correction
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Correction
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
At COP29, under a Labour Government, the UK reclaimed its position as a global leader on climate action. We recognise now that our security and prosperity hinge on addressing the crisis. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the progress made on climate finance, while acknowledging that there is much more to do to keep us on track on that road map and to keep 1.5° alive?
Mr Lammy
It was important that our Prime Minister was the only G7 Prime Minister to attend COP. My hon. Friend will recall that, last year, the Prime Minister at the time did not attend. It is hugely important that we reach the £300 billion for climate finance, which will help the global south get to clean energy. We hope that our global clean power alliance will be able to work with them, as they now have the money to do it.
[Official Report, 26 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 627.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy):
Mr Lammy
It was important that our Prime Minister was the only G7 Prime Minister to attend COP. My hon. Friend will recall that, last year, the Prime Minister at the time did not attend the UN General Assembly’s Climate Week. It is hugely important that we reach the £300 billion for climate finance, which will help the global south get to clean energy. We hope that our global clean power alliance will be able to work with them, as they now have the money to do it.
Written Statements
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Competition and Markets Authority: Appointment of Chair
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
This Government have a clear mission to drive economic growth and aim for the highest sustained growth in the G7. The Prime Minister has been clear that he expects regulators to play their part in delivering these ambitions.
The Government are today announcing the appointment of Doug Gurr as the chair of the Competition and Markets Authority on an interim basis. This follows the resignation of Marcus Bokkerink, which has been accepted by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade. Doug will join the CMA board, working alongside Sarah Cardell in her role as CEO.
The Government are grateful to Marcus for his leadership of the CMA over the last two and a half years and wish to place on the record our thanks for his efforts, achieving the ambitions he set at the start of his tenure and more. All regulators, including the CMA, have a key role to play in driving growth, and this transition will enable a fresh strategic vision at the heart of our competition authority. Doug brings with him experience as an entrepreneur and in the technology and groceries sectors, as well as non-executive leadership, including in artificial intelligence—skills and experience that will be critical as the CMA takes on the challenges of the modern economy. The Government are confident that with fresh leadership on the board, as well as the existing strong leadership and the welcome commitments made by the CMA to supporting economic growth, the organisation will be well positioned to play its part in our collective mission to grow the UK economy.
[HCWS380]
Fire Safety of Domestic Upholstered Furniture
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I am notifying Parliament today of the publication of a policy paper providing an update on progress in reviewing the fire safety of domestic upholstered furniture.
The policy paper sets out important changes we are making now to amend the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 (the FFRs), and our plans moving forward.
The regulations were introduced as a safety measure to respond to the increasing number of furniture fire-related deaths from the 1960s to the 1980s. The FFRs have significantly contributed to the reduction in the number of fire deaths since their introduction, but it is important to update the regulations to keep pace with product innovation. Evidence has also emerged over a number of years about the risks associated with the chemical flame retardants used to pass flammability tests.
The paper sets out the Government’s intentions for the implementation of a new regulatory approach, highlights areas of broad stakeholder consensus and provides an update on the outstanding challenges. We will work with businesses, trade associations and other key stakeholders this year to finalise key elements of the policy.
Ahead of that work, the Government will act now to remove a number of baby products from scope of the FFRs. The products being removed are not exposed to the same risks of accidental ignition, by cigarettes or similar ignition sources, as the items of furniture that will remain in scope. This change enables us to reduce the risk of exposure to chemical flame retardants to babies and young children at a significant stage in their development, where the fire risk is lower than the chemical exposure risk. The fire safety of these products will still be regulated, by the general product safety regulations.
We will also remove the requirement to attach a display label, reducing labelling costs to businesses without impacting on consumer safety and increase the time limit for enforcement authorities to institute legal proceedings from six to twelve months.
Alongside the policy paper, we will also publish a summary of responses to the consultation “Smarter Regulation: The new approach to the fire safety of domestic upholstered furniture”, held last year by the previous Government.
I will place copies of the policy paper in the Libraries of both Houses, and it will be published on gov.uk.
[HCWS379]
Charter for Budget Responsibility
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
Today I have laid before Parliament the charter for budget responsibility. The charter sets out the new fiscal framework announced at autumn Budget 2024.
The new fiscal rules will put the public finances on a sustainable path and prioritise investment to support long-term growth. The charter also strengthens fiscal stability and transparency via a series of reforms including enhancing the role of the OBR in scrutinising the Government’s fiscal policy.
In accordance with the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, the charter was first published in draft alongside the Budget on 30 October as it includes modified guidance to the Office for Budget Responsibility. No further changes have been made to the charter since it was published in draft.
A debate and votes in the House of Commons on the charter and the level of the welfare cap, will be scheduled in due course.
[HCWS381]
Future of the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
The Government are extending the listed places of worship grant scheme until 31 March 2026, the end of this spending review period. This will continue to enable religious organisations to claim grants covering eligible VAT costs paid towards repairs and renovations.
Nearly £350 million has been awarded under the scheme since 2010, supporting listed churches, synagogues, mosques and temples across the UK. The scheme receives around 7,000 applications a year, of which more than 70% are for £5,000 or less.
Against a tough financial background and bearing in mind a wide range of competing priorities for expenditure within DCMS, we have made the difficult decision to implement an annual limit of £25,000 on the amount individual places of worship can claim in the coming year, and to limit the fund to £23 million. We believe that this will continue the widest distribution of the scheme’s benefits within the available means. Based on previous scheme data we expect 94% of claims to be unaffected by this change.
Places of worship are a key part of our built heritage, central to local communities’ wellbeing, pride in place and identity. In addition to the benefits to their congregations, listed places of worship often also provide facilities for the wider community including foodbanks, community halls and music venues and rehearsal spaces. I am pleased that despite the challenging fiscal context we are able to continue the scheme for a further year.
[HCWS382]
Post-legislative Scrutiny of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
The Government have today submitted a memorandum to the Home Affairs Committee regarding post-legislative scrutiny of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019.
The Home Office has carried out the post-legislative scrutiny, working with key Government and operational stakeholders. The memorandum includes an assessment of how the Act has worked in practice and sets out its findings in a Command Paper to the Committee.
The memorandum has been laid before the House as a Command Paper (CP 1249) and published on gov.uk. Copies will also be available from the Vote Office.
[HCWS377]
Local Government Best Value
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
All hon. Members will recognise the importance of having well-functioning local councils that provide essential statutory services that local residents rely upon. To ensure this, we need to get the basics right, resetting the framework to ensure the sector is fit, legal and decent. Government will continue to work directly with a small number of councils in difficulty, and this should be done in a way that is not punitive and is based on genuine partnership to secure improvements.
Today, I would like to update the House on the steps we are taking to improve governance and local accountability in the London borough of Tower Hamlets. On 12 November, I informed the House that I was satisfied, having considered the inspection report of Tower Hamlets council by lead inspector Kim Bromley-Derry CBE DL and assistant inspectors Suki Binjal, Sir John Jenkins and Philip Simpkins, that the council is failing to comply with its best value duty. They found insufficient evidence that the organisation is open and transparent, and values the constructive criticism required to drive improvement. I proposed a statutory support package to secure the council’s compliance with that duty, and gave the council until 25 November to make any representations it wished on the inspection report and my proposal for intervention.
I have now carefully considered the representations the council has made. I have also considered afresh the inspection report and have had appropriate regard to other representations that I have received about my proposed intervention. While I am grateful for the constructive engagement I have had with the council, who have accepted the inspection report’s findings and are committed to working in partnership with Government to deliver the change needed for local people, I remain satisfied that the council is failing to comply with its best value duty in relation to continuous improvement, governance, leadership, culture and partnerships. I have therefore concluded that it is both necessary and expedient for me to exercise intervention powers in the Local Government Act 1999 as I have proposed, with some minor amendments. Accordingly, I have today given the council the necessary directions under section 15(5) of the 1999 Act to implement the proposed statutory support package.
That support package, to be in place until 31 March 2028, is centred on putting in place a team of ministerial envoys to work comprehensively within the council, acting as advisors, mentors and monitors, to oversee its improvement work. I have nominated Kim Bromley-Derry CBE DL as ministerial envoy, and Pam Parkes and Shokat Lal as assistant envoys—all experienced and talented professionals who understand that transparency and accountability are vital to the functioning of local democracy. Enlarging the team to include two assistant envoys rather than one will bring greater diversity of thought to the team and ensure that their approach to the challenges and best practice for local authorities is current. The envoys will report on the council’s progress against its improvement agenda after the first four months, and then regularly as we agree is appropriate.
In summary, the directions I have issued today require the council to:
Work with the ministerial envoys to reconfigure the council’s existing transformation advisory board and draw on existing and additional members to appoint independent and external leads for leadership, governance, culture and partnerships.
Undertake recruitment of a permanent appointment to lead the improvement work in the council.
Prepare and agree with the board a fully costed continuous improvement plan, and report regularly and in public to the board on its delivery.
Co-operate with the ministerial envoys and board leads to prepare and implement comprehensive programmes of cultural change and political mentoring, and report regularly and in public to the board on its delivery.
Have regard to, and respond promptly and in public to, any recommendations from the board with respect to the continuous improvement plan and its implementation.
Work with the Local Government Association to agree a follow-up review visit to the 2023 corporate peer challenge.
Report to the Secretary of State on the delivery of these directions, with these reports having been considered by full council, at six-monthly intervals, or at such intervals as the Secretary of State may direct.
I have also directed the council to co-operate with the ministerial envoys, and to allow them all reasonable access to their premises, documents, employees or members in support of their work. The council is also required to pay the envoys’ reasonable expenses and such fees as I determine.
This support package acknowledges the political mandate the mayor holds, while recognising the need to tackle deeply rooted and persistent issues. It is designed to strengthen and expand the improvement work that the council has already begun, and demonstrates how this Government are committed to resetting the relationship between local and central Government through genuine collaboration and engagement.
This action is not undertaken lightly, and I remain committed to working in partnership with the London borough of Tower Hamlets to provide whatever support is needed to ensure its compliance with the best value duty. I hope that with focus and oversight, the necessary improvements will come at pace, but I have not ruled out the possibility of further action in the future, in the interests of Tower Hamlets residents, should this prove necessary.
I will deposit in the House Library copies of the documents I have referred to, which are also being published on gov.uk today. I will update the House in due course.
[HCWS378]
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
I would like to inform the House that today the Government are taking steps to deliver on their manifesto commitment to safeguard taxpayers’ money through the introduction of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill.
This Bill brings forward reforms to help identify, prevent and deter public sector fraud and error, and enable the better recovery of debt owed to the taxpayer. This Bill is expected to deliver benefits of £1.5 billion over the next five years, as scored by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility.
Fraud against the public sector is a significant and constantly evolving challenge which requires a robust and resolute response. This Government will not tolerate fraud or waste anywhere in public services.
I previously informed the House on 8 October 2024 of the Government’s plans to bring forward legislation that will extend and modernise the powers of the Department for Work and Pensions to stop fraud in its tracks, recover money lost to fraud and, crucially, help protect claimants who may already be on the edge financially from racking up debt. These powers will be tough on criminals, fair for claimants and provide confidence to the taxpayer that money spent is reaching those who need it, and not those who seek to exploit the system.
Fraud and error in the social security system currently costs the taxpayer around £10 billion a year and, since the pandemic, a total of £35 billion of taxpayers’ money has been incorrectly paid to those not entitled. This Government are committed to preventing fraud and error from happening in the social security system and, where it cannot be prevented, we will identify those committing fraud and recover the debt owed. Just as we do not tolerate tax evasion, this Government will not tolerate fraud against the social security system.
The DWP measures in this Bill will:
Modernise DWP’s investigation powers to help prove or disprove suspected fraud more quickly. Some of the powers which DWP relies on to investigate fraud are over 20 years old—DWP needs to keep pace with offenders who exploit the social security system and improve our access to information. New independent oversight will review and report on the use of the new investigation powers.
Allow DWP to take greater control in our investigations into serious organised crimes through new powers of entry, search and seizure. New independent inspection and complaints procedures will be included to ensure the appropriate use of these powers.
Bring greater fairness to debt recovery by allowing DWP to recover debts from individuals who can pay money back but have avoided doing so. It will also enable DWP to apply to the court for a suspended driving disqualification order, to disqualify a debtor from holding a driving licence, where all other attempts at recovery have failed.
Through our eligibility verification measure, require banks and other financial institutions to examine their own data sets to highlight where someone may not be eligible for the benefits that are being paid. This will help us to identify incorrect payments and prevent debts accruing for claimants. DWP’s use of the powers will be overseen by an independent person whose report will be laid before Parliament. The powers will not give DWP access to any claimant’s bank accounts, or any information on how claimants spend their money. DWP will not share any personal information with banks or other financial institutions and a member of DWP staff will always be involved in any further investigations and decisions.
Update the penalties regime by extending the penalties we can apply for fraud to non-benefit payments—for example, grants—to ensure there is fairness in dealing with fraud across the social security system.
Introduce new and important safeguards on the face of the Bill, including reporting mechanisms and independent oversight to ensure the powers are used proportionately and effectively. As is the case now, any decision taken about someone’s benefit entitlement will always be made by a human being.
We will ensure that every pound of taxpayers’ money is spent with the same care with which working people spend their own money.
Today I can also confirm that this Bill will now go further to tackle fraud, error and debt across the public sector by also giving the Public Sector Fraud Authority within the Cabinet Office powers to investigate and address fraud against the public sector on behalf of other departments and public bodies. These powers are based on similar powers held by other Government Departments, specifically His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions. The public sector response to fraud and error has historically focused on the areas with the highest known losses—generally tax and social security. This remains a priority. However, this focus has meant that some Government Departments have limited powers and resources to act on fraud and error. As a result, outside of tax and social security at least £3 billion per year is being lost to fraud and error.
Fraud against the public sector remains unseen, and all too often, those who attack our public services for their own gain face limited consequences, but it is not a victimless crime. Public services suffer, and the taxpayer is the victim. These losses are unacceptable, and waste enormous sums of public money that could be put to good use to improve lives. It is essential that all parts of Government have access to the capabilities and tools required to tackle fraud, error and debt.
The PSFA—within the Cabinet Office—measures in this Bill will:
Give the Cabinet Office information sharing and information-gathering powers that will enable the PSFA to compel the production of information from information holders as part of a fraud investigation.
Allow the PSFA to take control of investigations into public sector fraud at the request of the affected public authority, reducing reliance on the police and ensuring that all parts of Government have access to the capabilities necessary to tackle fraud.
Improve the Government’s ability to recover losses, as a result of fraud or suspected fraud against public authorities, through new debt recovery and enforcement powers. This could be directly from an individual’s earnings or bank accounts to recover fraud-related debt identified through PSFA investigation, or from an application of a penalty on behalf of a public authority.
Introduce new clear, strong non-criminal sanctions to provide an alternative to prosecution to reduce the dependence on costly, time-consuming criminal routes. This will also serve as an important deterrent against fraud in the public sector.
Extend the time limit for covid frauds so that we have 12 years to take action, preventing the time period for claims against some fraudsters ending potentially as early as March 2026.
Introduce independent oversight to ensure the powers are used proportionately and effectively.
This Bill will provide confidence to taxpayers that the Government are taking every step to protect public services and taxpayers’ money by stopping those who exploit the system.
[HCWS383]
Grand Committee
Great British Energy Bill
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
Good afternoon, my Lords. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Amendment 111
Lord Offord of Garvel
“Impact assessment of offshore wind energy installations and generation(1) The Secretary of State must assess the impact on—(a) the environment, and(b) animal welfare standardsof offshore wind energy installations and generation which occur under Great British Energy’s functions.(2) If an assessment under subsection (4) determines that relevant offshore energy installation and generation—(a) is causing environmental damage, or(b) has significant animal welfare issues,then Great British Energy must cease facilitating, encouraging or participating in the relevant activity.”Member's explanatory statement
This would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact on the environment and animal welfare standards of the installation and generation of offshore wind energy technologies.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 111 and 112 in my name, and in support of Amendment 113, in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller.
Amendment 111 would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact on the environment and animal welfare standards of the installation and generation of offshore wind energy technologies. Amendment 112, also in my name, similarly requires an environmental impact assessment, but with the focus on the decommissioning of oil and gas structures.
The threat posed by the installation and generation of offshore wind farms and tidal energy is not new to the House. Many will be familiar with these concerns, as we on these Benches raised such issues in Committee in debates on the Crown Estate Bill, and discussed the purpose of electricity generation and the Crown Estate’s role in the stewardship of our seabed.
In considering the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Fuller, we must again address the Crown Estate’s strategic and unprecedented partnership with Great British Energy, which is estimated to result in up to 30 gigawatts of new offshore wind developments reaching seabed lease stage by 2030. We should expect to see considerable and accelerated growth in offshore renewable energy projects, with offshore wind contributing significantly to these efforts. The UK is the second largest offshore wind market in the world. Under the new Government, allocation round 6 has awarded 5.4 gigawatts of offshore energy contracts across fixed and floating offshore wind and tidal stream.
The speed and scale of these planned developments raises concerns about the impact on the marine ecosystem, as expressed by bodies such as Birdlife International. As stewards of our seabed and investors in and facilitators of offshore renewable energy projects, the Crown Estate and GB Energy have a duty to assess the impact of offshore energy installation and generation. GB Energy must restrict such installation and generation if it is found to cause the environment and its associated animals harm. Environmental concerns linked to the installation of offshore energy projects and the operation of these technologies include, but are not limited to, increased noise levels, the distortion in light pollution, and the potential impact on carbon storage and the biodiversity of the seabed and its composition.
In an overview of the ecological impacts of offshore wind on the marine environment, Birdlife International highlighted the impact of the installation and operation of offshore wind farms on marine animals. It found that the installation and generation of offshore wind technologies produces underwater noise, affecting the echo location behaviour of marine mammals. Porpoises, seals and marine birds have been shown to be displaced by wind farms, with some marine birds displaying consistent avoidance behaviour during breeding seasons. Noise pollution produced by piledriving has also been found to impact the behaviour of pelagic fish.
I have briefly outlined the impacts on our environment caused by offshore wind, yet other technologies also have the potential to cause significant harm. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Fuller for addressing the threat tidal energy poses to the fish which inhabit our seas. As he will no doubt discuss this impact in more detail, I will succinctly outline the problems associated with tidal energy generation, which is foreseen to increase rapidly in the coming years. Tidal turbines in open water could result in additional mortality caused by rotor blade collision. This is significant, as tidal waters serve as key feeding areas for fish, as well as passage corridors for migratory fish. Other risks include changes in underwater noise, electromagnetic fields and habitats, and displacement.
Finally, I hope the Minister will listen to the concerns highlighted in the amendments in this group and will confirm to the Committee that he recognises that Great British Energy is in a unique and critical position to assess and minimise the impact of offshore energy installations on our environment and the marine life which inhabits it.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 113. I have previously tabled amendments to the Bill on land, and now I return to the sea, which well fits someone whose territorial designation is Gorleston-on-Sea in the county of Norfolk.
These amendments require the Secretary of State to assess the impact on the environment and animal welfare standards of the installation and generation of tidal energy technologies and their associated cabling. When we consider tidal energy, I am not thinking just about the fish, important though they are—in the tidal races, the machines can mash their flesh—but about sea-birds and the rest of the marine flora and fauna. I am thinking about not just living creatures but the wider environmental effects that may happen slightly away from the installations of the machines themselves, in the associated cabling that links those machines to land—a topic I will return to.
I am not against harnessing this almost inexhaustible supply of energy. The energy is there; it is year-round, predictable and reliable. It deserves to be won and it should be won. But I am not starry-eyed about the practicality of building machines that can survive in the most hostile environment, pounded by the seas and eaten away by salt-water corrosion. I am involved in the liquid fertiliser business, so I know more than most how hard it is to reliably engineer things in these tough, salt-aggressive environments. It is hard to engineer reliability in these unforgiving places, but that does not mean we should not try.
We know that tidal generation is best located where the water flows fastest—where it is choked through the channels, so that the speed naturally increases—so the machines can operate most effectively. Last November, I visited Saint-Malo and saw for myself the world’s first tidal barrage power station, opened in 1966; it is nearly 60 years old. It was a really impressive spectacle. It is cheap energy, but it has not come without cost. Thomas Adcock, an associate professor in the department of engineering science at the University of Oxford, says that there has been a “major environmental impact” on the Rance estuary as a result of the tidal station. He said that
“this would make it very difficult to get permission to do such a barrage again”.
Researchers point to the adverse impacts on marine life of altering sedimentation patterns, as well as the impact on oxygen and nutrient levels in the water. I saw for myself that the fast-flowing water passing through the 24 turbines left nowhere for the fish to go. Sand-eels and plaice have disappeared, and the silting has reduced the number and variation of other fauna. Sand-eels are the subject of the very first post-Brexit EU fishing trade spat, and of course they are the preferred diet of British sea sea-birds, so this is an important matter. It is in the public interest that this all be taken into account, so that mitigations can be put in place.
My amendment would require GB Energy to take into account a number of factors and to continuously monitor them when assessing energy proposals. Examples include the cumulative impacts of the installations when considered alongside the predicted impacts of other projects in the area; transboundary impacts, whereby activities in other countries, such as commercial fishing, may be affected, as we have seen; and interrelationships whereby impacts on one receptor, such as noise, can have a knock-on effect on another and disturb species. Examples include sub-sea noise, which my noble friend mentioned, physical processes such sedimentation flow —we saw this in France—and the updated navigational risk assessment possibly deflecting vessels into the path of other sensitive zones.
For offshore tidal proposals, perhaps with tethered devices, we must have regard to the cables that will transfer the energy to the coast. Coming from Norfolk, I take particular interest in the Cromer shoal chalk beds marine conservation zone. It is one of 91 such protection zones established by the last Government, by an organisation lately chaired by my noble friend Lord Banner. The MCZ is a protected inshore site 200 metres off the north Norfolk coast, extending about 10 kilometres out to sea and covering 321 square kilometres. It protects our diverse species. It is predominantly sandy, but the chalk beds provide a stable surface for seaweeds and static animals to settle and grow, and they are home to the Cromer crab, one of the important exports of our county; it is an important source of economic activity too. So, even though marine energy machines may be some miles offshore, we need to consider the whole cable system as well, particularly if it passes through places like the Cromer MCZ on its way to the grid.
None of this is mentioned in the Bill, which is a slim Bill with fat consequences. The Secretary of State is not required to give directions to GBE to take these important environmental safeguards into account. My previous amendments observed that GB Energy is a company: there is to be a fiduciary board, and it is established under the Companies Act 2006 to promote its private self-interest. So, unless it is constrained, we should not be surprised if GB Energy acts in its private interests, not the country’s interests. If it follows purely commercial principles, why should it need to take the marine environment into account unless it is directed to? This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide such directions.
I expect the Minister to say, “This is all very well but it is not really necessary”. However, we must learn lessons from the water Bill, which flowed through this House as an example of what to do when you have a private company that is established for public purposes yet strays from the path. I do not want a repeat of that. Success does not look like having successive legislation later to cure the unintended consequences of GB Energy getting carried away because it acts in the private interest, not the public one.
Let us put protections in the Bill now. This amendment would provide a simple safeguard, along with those proposed by my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel, so that the Secretary of State is directed to ensure that sensible precautions are taken to protect our fisheries, sea-birds and other flora and fauna in the whole end-to-end tidal generation system, from the coast all the way to the grid. I am not trying to block tidal power and I am certainly not seeking to add cost or complexity—still less a set of directions or to provide excessive control. My concern is to make sure that this private body, established for public purpose, acts in the wider public interest—not just its self-interest—as to its environmental responsibility and sets an example to others.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Offord’s Amendments 111 and 112, to which I have added my name. It has become increasingly apparent, from many points of view, that impact assessments are necessary. In particular, in exercising its functions, GBE should be required to consider the environmental impact and the effect on sea-birds and marine life of its installation of offshore wind facilities, as well as of its decommissioning of oil and gas structures.
I also support my noble friend Lord Fuller’s Amendment 113, which seeks to place the same obligation on GBE with reference to tidal energy projects. I have looked for information on both the Sound of Islay project and the Bristol Channel project, both of which I was reasonably familiar with some years ago but about which I have heard nothing in recent years. I am heartened by my noble friend’s enthusiasm for the sector and look forward to hearing whether the Minister expects that GBE will be encouraged to make investments in it. As my noble friend Lord Fuller said, this is a slim Bill with fat consequences. We have to make sure that GBE will act in the public interest.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Offord and Lord Fuller for tabling the three amendments in this group, all of which I support. I want to address a few remarks to Amendment 111.
I had not realised that we are the second-largest renewable energy market in the world. Most of the equipment is made outside the UK; I hope this is something we will do better on in future. I do not think my noble friend referred to the position of porpoises and dolphins, which have been causing me great concern over the past few years for the same reasons that my noble friend Lord Offord gave. We took evidence on this from the RSPB and from the department of ocean systems—I think it was called that—at the University of Plymouth in 2020-21.
Two issues arose from that which I would like to put to the Minister. The first, from the RSPB, said that “substantial sums” are being made, which really should be
“reinvested back into the natural environment from which”
these sums are derived. Is that something the Government are keen to do? The reason I ask is simple: I asked for a moratorium at that time, when we were under a Conservative Administration, until we had established what the impact was on birds and other marine life, such as whales, porpoises and dolphins. Over the last five years, we have had a number of inexplicable bankings of whales in particular but also of dolphins and porpoises. It is up to the industry to fund this work, so that we better understand why this is happening. If, as my noble friend Lord Offord argued, there is interference with the sonar of marine life, that should be established before we build the next stage of these massive developments at sea.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I ought to report on Amendment 111 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Offord. The assessment of the effects of offshore wind farms on the environment, with particular reference to sea-birds, has been ongoing for some years now. That does not necessarily undermine the future of the amendment, but it indicates that it might not be necessary.
The UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology—the CEH—has been monitoring sea-birds in the North Sea since the 1970s. It largely studies birds on the Isle of May, just off the coast of Fife, but also sea-birds up and down the east coast of Britain. Over the past decade, these studies—largely funded by wind power operators, but also by the Scottish Government, the RSPB and others—have been extensively monitoring the effects of offshore wind farms on sea-birds. Admittedly, having to cope with and discount the simultaneous effect of bird flu has meant that this has proven a very complicated exercise recently but, with bird flu now on the wane, colonies of sea-birds seem to be flourishing in spite of the growth of offshore wind farms. The jury is still out, but the effect of these farms seems pretty low compared to that of bird flu and the new climate change-induced phenomenon of marine heatwaves. The latter winter current changes affect the growth and presence of sand eels, which are hugely important to the winter diet of many sea-birds.
The point is that the bottom tip of a marine turbine blade is 30 metres above sea level. That is pretty high and nearly all sea-birds fly below it. Kittiwakes are the notable exception but, even here, the CEH is helping the wind farm operators to examine how to minimise their losses. One solution is to paint one of the three blades black, which seems to have a beneficial effect. It is also helping to mitigate overall losses by building artificial nesting sites for kittiwakes on the Yorkshire cliffs, for example. The intention is that the overall kittiwake population should not be affected.
It is possible—and the jury, as I say, is still out on this—that offshore wind farms actually help sea-birds flourish. Most birds thrive relatively well during summer months, but they suffer and sometimes die from lack of food in winter months. While the recent cessation of sand-eel fishing by UK fishing boats has helped—they are now not allowed to fish for sand-eels—the Danes continue this practice in considerable quantities. However, neither the Danes’ nor other fishing boats tend to fish inside wind farms for fear of snagging their nets. Thus, wind farms have become a sanctuary for sand-eels and other fish and could therefore be having a beneficial effect on the overwintering of sea-birds. But, as I say, the jury is still out.
The environmental assessment of offshore wind farms is already happening, is based on data going back to the 1970s and seems to indicate so far that their environmental effects are not hugely harmful.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
I should like first to speak to my noble friend Lord Fuller’s Amendment 113, on tidal energy. I ask the Minister what the position is on the Severn because, in theory, the Severn bore has immense capacity to generate electricity, going upstream and downstream. It always strikes me that if we are looking for tidal energy, the Severn bore offers better opportunities than almost anything else. I am told that when people looked at this, they found big problems with flooding land further upstream, which would have led to enormous compensation claims from farmers and so forth. I should be grateful if the Minister filled us in on the Government’s thinking on the Severn, because it strikes me that if we could create tidal energy there, that would be very beneficial to the country as a whole.
Amendments 111 and 112 address environmental considerations. We have seen in the newspapers today that the Government are bringing forth a Bill that will say that in future, environmental considerations will not be taken into account in quite the same way in respect of building projects. Can the Minister update us on the Government’s thinking on that Bill, when it is likely to appear and what it is likely to say? We are all interested in this issue. Will it read directly across to energy projects, as it does for construction projects? We have heard from the Prime Minister about this wonderful tunnel they have been building on the HS2 line to preserve bats, which is costing £100 million. Then, we heard that it was not going to preserve the bats after all, and they were all going to die somehow. We want to be updated on the Government’s thinking on that. We get all these remarks from the Prime Minister, but they are significant in terms of the environmental concerns associated with construction projects. What I really want to know from the Minister is whether this is going to read straight across to energy projects in the same way and make it easier to get other construction projects going, such as housing. I should be grateful if he filled us in on that when he sums up.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an adviser to a company deeply involved in the energy transition, particularly in some of the switching station construction, which, obviously, is the land-based part of the vast increase in electricity from wind pylons that is planned—necessary, in fact, for us to begin to get anywhere near the clean electricity volumes we require for the modern economy.
We all heard President Trump making some ambitious statements yesterday. He was very strong on the fact that vast investment would be required in clean electricity—indeed, electricity of all kinds, in his case—to cope with the great new data systems that he has persuaded private industry to co-operate with the state in building. I think he said it would be $500 billion, or £300 billion; whatever the figure was, it was enormous, and the amount of electricity will be colossal. Running the data centres that will be required, which we are trying to build here as well, can drain entire systems of electricity. The demand is vast. This relatively small area, worth £8.4 billion—he calls it “peanuts”, and it seems nothing compared with these figures—will be part of this, and it will obviously have a very large footprint: a major environmental impact.
My noble friend Lord Hamilton spoke about tidal power and the Thames Barrier. To give a little history—I am sorry, but it is relevant to where we are now—he will remember, because I know he has a crystal-clear memory, that, 40 years ago when he was my Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department of Energy, the first folder on my desk on day 1 of moving into the job was a gigantic report on the Severn barrage. The conclusion was that it would not work and would have a huge environmental impact on nature and the surroundings, rather on the scale of the idea that has now been floated down at Hinkley—that some kind of marshland development should be promoted, which will also have an enormous impact and is causing a lot of protest. So, this is not a new question. We have been talking about barrages and tidal energy and its capacities, and the undoubted impact it can have in specific areas on a rather small scale, for at least 40 years, and we will no doubt be talking for the next 40 years.
In a specific situation it makes sense but, generally, as part of the huge electricity supply that we are now contemplating, as NESO told us only yesterday, we are now moving towards the base camp, to use its language—to this colossal increase in clean electricity by 2030. Just as we are at that point, we can now see that these small additions help, but they will not be part of the central solution.
My noble friend Lord Fuller raised a number of very interesting questions. He also made a general point which is relevant to this amendment as well as others: where are we on new thinking about public purposes harnessing private money? It is an old and obvious question. It is particularly obvious now, when the modern state has vast amounts invested and huge duties to fulfil. In fact, some of them are too vast for the state to cope with in its present form. It has no money, or, rather, it is underwater in debt, as the entire nation is—indeed, the entire world is—and it is hesitant to raise more by taxation and therefore has to look to the poor old consumer and the taxpayer for anything it can raise.
The private sector has the money. The sovereign wealth funds, pension funds and investment pools around the world have vast amounts of money and are looking for places to invest it, but they cannot find them. Somewhere in between those two—the Government having all the demands and the private sector having all the money—there has to be a reinvention of the co-operation between the state and the private sector, which the ideologists in our various parties will not like at all, but that is where we are going. We had a try with the private finance initiative, which was invented by the Conservative Party and taken up with some enthusiasm by Labour, now in government again, and then it ran into difficulties.
I believe that there used to be a unit in the Cabinet Office looking at this whole new area—I hope it is still there somewhere—of having new kinds of co-operation in the digital age between the Government, or the state, and private sources of money. I would quite like to know from the Minister whether that unit is still operating and, I hope, having some very new ideas, and not just in this area. The same problem arises in a vast range of areas.
As to the impact on the environment, which this amendment so rightly focuses on, something of this kind has got to be included in the Bill. It would be a dishonest Bill if it did not have something addressing these issues. I mentioned the switching stations; I am not quite sure how many new ones we will require between now and 2030. I think that two have just been started. I have a figure of 13 switching stations around the coast of this country. Whether they will be built in time, I very much doubt but, if they are, I would like to know what sort of impact they will have on the environment.
Earl Russell (LD)
I am sorry, but I am just a little confused which amendment the noble Lord is speaking to. This is obviously not Second Reading and we are not making general speeches. Could he help me with which amendment he is speaking to?
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
I had actually finished but I spoke repeatedly to the environment amendment. I mentioned it six or seven times. I am not sure what the noble Earl’s motive is. I thought that ought to be clear. Is it not clear?
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Can we just return to the Severn barrage? I agree that, 40 years ago, my noble friend was looking at this and that I was looking over his shoulder at the time. The concerns about putting in a barrage on the Severn were mainly about flooding a whole mass of land further upstream. This was in the days when farmers were expected to grow food. It is rather changed now; we expect our farmers to have immense environmental concerns and, in many cases, the whole grant system is skewed towards people having nature reserves on their farms rather than producing food. Surely, if a lot of this land got flooded that would be incredibly encouraging for people who want to encourage wading birds and all the rest of it. I am sure there would be enormous environmental benefits, rather than a downturn in the prosperity of the land which then got flooded by the barrage.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I briefly address Amendment 113 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller. I declare my interest in the ownership of salmon fishing rivers.
Proposals that I have seen in the past for energy generated from tidal turbines have tended to be located where currents are strongest. By definition, this is where sea movement is constricted by narrower channels —between islands, between islands and the mainland, in estuaries or on prominent headlands around which currents and tides race. These locations are precisely where the movements of migratory fish species such as salmon and sea trout, as well as saltwater species, will be concentrated. The wild Atlantic salmon is already an IUCN red list species and the greatest of care must be taken with any further risk to the survival of every individual fish, given that the species is so threatened.
For these reasons, I strongly support my noble friend’s amendment and those of my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel, which he and my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford have spoken to very convincingly. I urge the Minister to take these concerns seriously and consider incorporating environmental protections in this Bill.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, this first group of amendments has led to an interesting discussion that went somewhat wider than I expected.
Amendments 111 and 112 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Offord, and Amendment 113 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, would require the Secretary of State to assess the environmental and animal welfare impacts of Great British Energy projects. Amendments 111 and 112 relate to offshore wind energy projects and the decommissioning of offshore oil and gas structures, respectively, involving Great British Energy. Amendment 113 relates to Great British Energy’s offshore tidal energy projects. Under each of these amendments, if, following assessments, significant environmental damage or animal welfare issues are identified, Great British Energy must cease these activities.
The noble Lord, Lord Offord, started by referring to the partnership agreed between Great British Energy and the Crown Estate. He is right that we see great potential in this for our 2030 ambition for offshore wind at between 43 and 50 gigawatts. We also see potential in tidal stream. I relate that to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on the huge increase in future electricity demand and his suggestion that it would likely have an environmental impact, which Great British Energy would be promoting through its investment in various projects and in clearing the way for other projects.
I very much take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on the partnership needed between government and the private sector and private finance. I do not know whether that unit in the Cabinet Office still exists, but I am pretty certain that the Cabinet Office is extremely interested in leveraging private finance. This Bill is partly to enable that and to promote expertise in the private sector on behalf of the polices that the Government wish to enact on clean power and net zero.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, had some interesting insights on the environmental issues and presented a balanced and helpful report. I make it absolutely clear that the Government’s commitment to the environment is unwavering. We have the Environment Act targets of halting biodiversity decline by 2030 and safeguarding our marine protected areas. We believe that a healthy natural environment is critical to a strong economy and sustainable growth and development. We have a duty to uphold environmental protection and minimise any impact on biodiversity. This must and will extend to any project that Great British Energy is involved in.
I reassure the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that projects involving Great British Energy will be subject to rigorous planning and environmental regulations that consider impacts on the environment and habitats. The general theme of my argument is that it is not for GBE to do this; it will ensure that any project it is involved with follows the law and the guidance to protect our environment. It seems to me that the argument noble Lords have is with those environmental protections, which, by implication, they presumably think are not strong enough, rather than with Great British Energy.
Perhaps I can carry on that theme. As an example, projects will be subject to the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, under which the impact of these projects on the environment and habitats are considered as part of the development process. Additionally, as part of the nationally significant infrastructure regime, developers are required to provide environmental assessments as part of their application for development consent, which will be subject to detailed scrutiny through an examination held by the Planning Inspectorate. This will include scrutiny of the environmental impact assessment and a habitats regulations assessment, which would consider the likely impacts of a proposed development against a range of environmental receptors.
The planning process, at both national and local level, is underpinned by a number of other pieces of legislation that will apply to projects in which Great British Energy might have a role. They include: the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017; the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004; the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017; and the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. On offshore wind, I should say that we are working with Defra on the offshore wind environment improvement package to expedite offshore wind consenting while protecting the marine environment.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, in England we are committed to meeting our four legally binding targets for diversity: to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030; to reverse declines by at least 10% by 2042; to reduce the risk of national species extinction by 2042; and to restore or create more than 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat, also by 2042. We have launched a rapid review of the environmental improvement plan to ensure that it fully supports our mission to recover nature.
We also intend to establish industry-funded marine recovery funds into which applicants can pay to discharge their compensation obligations, underpinned by libraries of approved strategic compensation measures. We are engaging in discussions with the Scottish Government with a view to reaching an agreement on the establishment of, and the delegation of appropriate functions to operate and manage, a separate marine recovery fund for projects in Scotland. We think that the offshore wind environmental improvement package—the OWEIP —will, on the whole, accelerate and de-risk the consent of offshore wind projects while continuing to protect the marine environment.
Great British Energy will not play a role in the decommissioning of oil and gas structures. However, I should say that the UK’s decommissioning regulatory regime requires a robust assessment of the potential impact on safety, technical constraints and costs, ensuring no harm to human health or the environment. Decommissioning proposals are subject to thorough environmental assessment before a regulatory decision is made.
On the matter of tidal, I was interested in the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. He referred to the tough challenges involved. I well remember visiting the Pentland Firth when I was last in this job; Rolls-Royce was engaged then, I think. I readily accept that this is a very tough challenge. On the other hand, we are the world leader in tidal stream—half of the world’s operational capacity is situated in UK waters—and we want to go further. My understanding is that six tidal stream contracts, with a capacity of 28 megawatts, were secured in Scotland and Wales in the latest allocation round of the Government’s contracts for difference scheme.
I had responsibility for the River Severn project between 2008 and 2010. I chaired a number of community forums with people in the south-west who were keen to see progress in the Severn but, I have to say, I received the same advice as the noble Lord, Lord Howell: the environmental damage would be so considerable that it was not thought appropriate to go ahead. My understanding—I am not going to guess; I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton—is that the position is still the same, but I will find out some more and let him know, because he clearly has a keen interest in this matter.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, in concluding this group, I thank all noble Lords who have made thoughtful contributions on it. We are dealing with the impact of GB Energy and its activities on our environment.
In my concluding remarks, I will briefly mention Amendment 118, in the name of my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, which was discussed previously and is closely tied to the same issues raised in this group. That amendment would create a statutory duty for GB Energy to behave in a way that looks to promote nature recovery. The British Ecological Society has found that nature-based solutions can help to resolve the problems of climate change by reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration. The alarming truth is that England is widely considered to be one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, following historic and ongoing declines.
We must also note a point raised in the debate this afternoon: it is not just the deployment of wind farms or tidal technologies that causes environmental damage. If GB Energy is also set to decommission, as we have discussed, or to repurpose oil and gas structures, it must assess and mitigate the risk of this practice on the environment. As my noble friend Lord Fuller so rightly explained, GB Energy is a public company; it is only right that it acts in the public interest. I do not see why the Minister would disagree, but I thank him for his detailed response. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
“Investment in subsidised renewable energy projects Great British Energy must not invest in any project that relies wholly or in part on subsidies from the UK Government.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent GB Energy from investing in projects which rely on UK Government subsidies.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the concern that we have here is all to do with financing projects, and the worry that the Great British Energy fund will be used to bolster the financing of some highly speculative energy projects that the private sector is not prepared to back. Those are the ones that will be moving in the Government’s direction and they will be very speculative. They may well not make money; they may be almost doomed to lose money when they start.
There is a great concern here that, when the Treasury is raking around to get contributions for a highly speculative scheme, it will be looking for Great British Energy to put some money into the pot in addition to taxpayers’ money. One thinks here about the development of batteries or energy storage—which is all very controversial—and the whole business of storing CO2 emissions and pumping that into existing oil wells. I am not sure that the technology for that has been completely satisfied. It all seems to be rather speculative as to whether it will ever happen.
That is the worry that many people have about this Bill. There is a very lively private sector that is happily picking all the low-hanging fruit when it comes to profitable ventures in the energy field. If we are not careful, Great British Energy will be left with everything else that is far from profitable, is extremely speculative and may well lose taxpayers’ money in the process. We want some reassurance from the Minister that this will not happen. Otherwise, it really will be an abuse of taxpayers’ money if Great British Energy just gets involved in all the things that the private sector is not prepared to back.
There are so many different areas that are very speculative when it comes to energy. We had a great debate about hydrogen in the past, for instance. My noble friend Lord Roborough and I do not in fact agree that there is a future for hydrogen. We do not seem to have had any great elucidation from the Minister on this; I do not know whether the Government think that hydrogen is a good idea or a bad one. Either way, it is a typical example of a very speculative form of alternative energy that could cost a fortune to develop and lose people an awful lot of money if it did not work out at the end of the day.
The point of my amendment is that I am very concerned that the Great British Energy fund will be used for these very speculative ventures and I am not sure that that is really what the taxpayer is looking for. I had an issue with what my noble friend Lady Bloomfield said about all the profit that would be made by Great British Energy. I am not sure that it will be making any profit; I think it is much more likely that it will make thundering great losses and all the billions of pounds that are put into it will merely disappear with very little to show for it in the future.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 130 in my name. I begin by noting my interests as set out in the register; I have a new interest as a director of Net Zero Watch.
Amendment 130 would postpone the entry into force of much of this Act until the Secretary of State publishes a comprehensive report setting out the full costs of the renewable energy industry. My noble friend Lord Hamilton has just set out the logic of having such a clause that delays the entry into force of certain provisions. From my point of view, the logic is that certain things need to be made clear before Great British Energy can effectively start its work.
It is in this area—the cost of renewables, the subsidies, the taxpayer support, the higher prices—that this problem of establishing the basis on which GBE is proceeding seems the strongest because it would be going into this without any reliable costings in this area and with a real sense that what is known about the costs of renewables is not being disclosed entirely frankly for full and honest debate. When we try to have a debate on this subject, we are often shot down by a statement that, whatever the costs, the costs of climate change are higher. But again, that is never set out. I was lucky enough yesterday to be able to ask the Secretary of State when the last cost-benefit analysis had been done on this subject, and he said it was in 2021. That was before the Ukraine war, which is used as the justification for the rush to renewables.
The NESO report was produced last autumn. It shows that both the pathways to decarbonisation of the energy grid in 2030 are more expensive than doing nothing. That is even clearer if you eliminate the vastly inflated carbon price included in those costings. My right honourable friend the shadow Secretary for Energy Claire Coutinho said last week that internal work within the department on the full system costs of renewables, which she commissioned when she was Energy Secretary, had been stopped. That work would have given us the data that would have enabled the report that my amendment requires.
To conclude on this point, I refer to a blog by Sir Dieter Helm, a well-known expert in this area and not someone with whom I agree on the fundamentals of climate change. He says in this blog, written last week, on the prospect of renewables costs falling:
“It would be wonderful if it was true, but sadly it isn’t anytime soon”.
He goes on to say the UK and the EU are
“telling fairy tales that ‘it’s all going to be cheaper’ here”.
He is one of the biggest experts in this area. We need honesty and GBE needs clarity about the reality on which it is proceeding with its work. That is why I have tabled my amendment, and why we need a proper report and clarity. GBE needs a reliable starting point so that its actions can be tested against reality and we can be sure that it is acting properly in the public interest. I hope the Minister looks at the issue with that in mind, and perhaps gives this amendment sympathetic consideration.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom’s Amendment 118B, with which I obviously agree, as I do on most things—apart from the widespread competitiveness of green hydrogen. I also draw the Committee’s attention to my interests in solar and wind energy project development.
This amendment appears entirely logical in preventing GB Energy investing in any project whose economics depend wholly or in part on government support. This would prevent any impression that the Government may be self-dealing or that there could be any bias in project support from the Government. Without the amendment, there is a risk of a chilling effect on private sector projects that may wish to compete with projects backed by GB Energy, if there is a perception that the Government will always prefer GB Energy projects. There is also a risk that the Government will face the moral hazard of temptation to prop up failing GB Energy projects and investments. For these reasons, this is a highly desirable amendment.
I am also interested in the Minister’s replies to my noble friend Lord Frost on the whole system cost of renewables—particularly if the Minister were able to give this Committee some insight into the carbon costs that his department are using. If he cannot do so now, perhaps he can do so in writing. If the Minister does not agree with the wisdom of my noble friend’s amendment, what transparency can he offer into the amount of government support that may be falling into the hands of GB Energy’s projects?
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I have one question, prompted by my noble friend’s proposed amendment, about a major solar-based renewable project that was mentioned in White Papers under the previous Government; I think the former Secretary of State under the Conservative Government called it a project of central significance to the whole transition and net-zero aspiration.
It was in Morocco. They were planning, with financial support—a subsidy—from the Moroccan and British Governments, a colossal solar-based system to transmit electricity under the Bay of Biscay via a special new kind of transmission cord now being developed in Scotland. It would have delivered a final amount of 3.6 gigawatts of electric power into the British system. Going forward, that would remain a considerable contribution to our clean electricity of the future. Is the project still part of the scene under the new Government? If it is, will GB Energy have any role in it, because it is a very important factor in our overall energy needs?
Lord Petitgas (Con)
My Lords, I will make a link between Amendments 118, 118A and 130.
On Amendment 130, it will be interesting to see whether we get the results, but my impression is that, in this country, there is not a single net-zero or renewable project that is not subsidised by the Government in some way. In fact, that is one reason why there has been so much private capital: with the electricity price being run off the marginal cost of gas turbines and the marginal cost of renewable energy—particularly from wind farms—being zero, in effect, there is no way not to make money in that business.
This raises a question around the subsidisation of the whole system, including whether GBE should pile in further when it is already subsidised. It also raises the question of whether we need GBE, because we already have private capital in the system. In fact, we probably have more wind energy than anybody else in the G7. We have said this before. There is a lot of private capital coming into this industry.
The real question is less about GBE and more about what level of subsidisation we are prepared to put in. This may explain why we have the highest energy costs in the G7—double those of the US. This morning, my noble friend Lord Howell talked about Stargate and the announcement made by the US. We will find it very difficult to compete—let alone not having the money, our energy costs are double those of the US—if we want to run LLMs and supercomputers.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I thank and express my support for my noble friends Lord Frost and Lord Hamilton of Epsom, whose amendments address the matter of subsidised renewable energy technology. Considering that GB Energy is already supported by £8.3 billion, I see no viable reason why it should invest in renewable energy projects that are already substantially supported by government subsidies and funded by the British consumer, as my noble friend Lord Petitgas highlighted. Surely it is essential that the renewable energy industry in the UK is not reliant on government handouts for ever. We must look to create an environment that promotes competition and innovation and mitigates the likelihood of inefficiency.
At present, the Government subsidise low-carbon electricity initiatives through contracts for difference, where they guarantee developers a fixed price for the electricity that they generate. This is funded via a levy on consumer bills and, at the end of last year, the Government were considering holding the largest auction yet in 2025 despite recent scrutiny over consumer energy bills. The British consumer is already burdened by the cost of turning off wind turbines to avoid overloading the power grid; this costs the UK £1 billion a year, with that predicted to rise to more than £3.5 billion in the next decade. Why should the taxpayer be burdened numerous times?
According to the OBR, environmental levies are around £12 billion. This amounts to £400 per household in the UK. Yet the cost of offshore wind is less than current market prices and those agreed in auction rounds. If renewables are supposedly cheaper, I query why we are paying these subsidies in the first place. The truth is that the Government’s clean energy by 2030 agenda will require substantial levels of borrowing, which will be spent on subsidising renewable energy technologies. This rushed target will only cost the consumer more. It will not cover energy bills by the £300 a year promised during the election campaign.
Amendment 130 in the name of my noble friend Lord Frost would prevent the Bill being passed until the Secretary of State publishes a report calculating the costs to consumers and taxpayers of the UK renewable energy industry. The amendment raises the issue of transparency. If we are to pass a Bill that is so financially consequential, we must have sight of the Government’s current spending on renewable technologies.
Amendment 118B from my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom would prevent GB Energy investing in a project
“that relies wholly or in part on”
government subsidies. Amendment 129 would prevent the Act being passed until
“the Secretary of State publishes a report on the appropriateness of further Government subsidy for offshore wind developments”.
These three amendments neatly touch on the concerns that I have raised. I ask the Minister to thoroughly consider the worries expressed by my noble friends.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which reflects previous debates in Committee. It started with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, being worried that GBE will invest badly, not make money and invest in speculative projects, which he thought the Treasury might encourage it to do. My experience of the Treasury is that that is not how it works out in practice. Our challenge is encouraging the Treasury to make investment decisions, and the scrutiny with which it approaches this matter can be described as vigorous.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Does the Minister anticipate that the Treasury will have a veto on anything that Great British Energy invests in?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
No, I do not imagine the Treasury will have a veto, but I think it will keep a careful eye on the work of GBE. I have already mentioned in previous debates the number of controls that will be in place.
Noble Lords argue this many ways around, but we are trying to reach a middle ground where we get the benefits of a company with people on the board who are very experienced in this area making hard-headed commercial decisions, because we want GBE to be successful and to make a profit. On the other hand, it is also a public sector body accountable to the Secretary of State and therefore subject to the normal public sector controls. The skill of the GBE board will be to find a way through this, and that is why we wish to give it as much operational independence as possible.
At the risk of repeating myself on the cost issue, in its whole-system analysis undertaken for the previous Government, my department concluded that a renewables-led system, complemented by flexible technologies to ensure that supply and demand are balanced, alongside technology such as nuclear, would form the cheapest foundation for a future decarbonised power grid. Since that analysis was published, a range of external commentators, such as Energy Systems Catapult and the Climate Change Committee, have published analysis which reaches similar conclusions.
Noble Lords have quoted Dieter Helm and other commentators but I believe that there is a general consensus on the broad make-up of the most cost-effective future systems, although there will be some disagreement over potential technologies in future. For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, raised hydrogen, and, in our short debate on small modular reactors in the House this afternoon, there was a question about value for money in their development. I readily accept that; however, we think that the general mix is the most cost-effective way to go forward.
Amendment 118B seeks to add after Clause 7 a new clause that would prevent GBE investing in any project that relies wholly or in part on government subsidies. I am not in favour of that. First, GBE is operationally independent, so commercial investment decisions need to be made separately from government decisions on subsidy provision. Secondly, GBE will be focused on driving clean energy deployment through its functions. The Government provide different subsidies in different ways across the energy market, so limiting GBE’s activities to areas where there are no government subsidies would unnecessarily constrain the company.
Coming back to a point from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, the advice we have had from the Climate Change Committee is that CCUS would enable us to have the lowest-cost pathway to net zero. It described it as
“a necessity, not an option”
for maintaining our climate commitments.
The way in which GBE will interact with existing and new government policies and influence the energy system will clearly be determined on a case-by-case basis. We will clarify the relationship between existing schemes and GBE in due course. I assure the Committee that we are currently seeking advice on Great British Energy’s compliance with the Subsidy Control Act in both its establishment and operation.
Amendments 129 and 130 propose additions to Clause 8. In essence, they seek to delay the commencement of the Act until the Secretary of State publishes a report on the appropriateness of further government subsidy for offshore wind developments, as well as a comprehensive report detailing the full costs to consumers and taxpayers of the UK renewable energy industry. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I resist these amendments. We want to see Great British Energy get set up as quickly as possible and get on with the job. Frankly, I do not see it as necessary for those reports to be published.
On Amendment 129, as I said in our debate on the previous group, we are committed to increasing radically the deployment of offshore wind, which provides us with secure, domestically generated electricity. As I have already mentioned, we want 42 to 50 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030, up from 15 gigawatts today. The contracts for difference scheme is the Government’s main mechanism for supporting new renewable electricity generation projects. We continue to evolve that scheme to ensure that it is aligned with the Government’s wider objectives. In addition, the clean power action plan that we published last year reconfirmed our view, and that of NESO, that clean power can be delivered by 2030 without increasing costs to the consumer and with scope for lower bills.
Overall, I really think that GBE should now be allowed to get on with the job. I do not believe that putting in amendments that would prevent it investing in schemes that attract subsidies is the right way forward. The Government would certainly resist that.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, my concerns remain. This is such a thin Bill and commits the Government to so little—other than spending other people’s money in inordinate quantities—that one can see the potential for things going wrong very easily. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Earl Russell
“(2) This section and section 5 come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.(2A) Sections 1 to 4, 6 and 7 come into force on the day the statement required by section 5(1) is laid before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment means the Bill cannot come into force unless the statement of strategic priorities has been laid before Parliament.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I stand to open the very last group of amendments as part of the final day in Committee on the Bill. This group is on commencement and, in moving Amendment 122, I will also speak to Amendments 123 and 124. I will be very brief on my amendments in this group, as I feel that I have already spoken to them in the group on strategic priorities during day 2 in Committee, a debate that was so nobly led by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, who I note is in his place. We had a very good and useful conversation on the strategic priorities as part of that group.
Amendment 122 would require that the strategic priorities are laid before Parliament. I have also tabled Amendment 123, which would require that they be laid before and approved by Parliament, and Amendment 124, which is, as I said, more of a compromise on these issues. It says that the Act
“cannot come into force unless a document setting out the thematic headings of the statement of strategic priorities has been laid before Parliament”.
That last amendment is where I really want to be on these issues.
My sense is that there is a general concern across the House, and across parties, on the need for some further clarity on the strategic priorities, but I welcome the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, at Second Reading. He made a welcome statement that some work should be done to try to find a solution on this. I also recognise that the Minister is in a difficult position here and that there is a need to get on with the Bill. I recognise that these things are being negotiated with the devolved authorities.
My last amendment is really an attempt to try to find a solution to these issues, and my hope is very much that a solution can be found. I hope that the Minister can say something on that solution today and maybe, after further consideration prior to Report, give at least the heads of terms of the kind of things that will be in the strategic priorities. On that, I think we can progress. My worry is that it otherwise feels, from our point of view, a bit like we are signing a blank cheque on these matters. That being said, those are my amendments.
I turn to the three other amendments in this group. Amendment 125, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Offord of Garvel, is on the publication of a financial framework document and calls for that document to be published before the Act is passed. From my personal point of view, I would like to see some progress on the financial document and what it might contain. I am not certain that I would refuse to pass the Act if it were not published prior to then.
Amendment 126 is in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. This amendment says that the Act cannot come into force until its impact
“on the number of jobs in Aberdeen”
has been published. We do not feel that we would support that amendment. The development of offshore renewable energy will help to create jobs, and GB Energy will be headquartered in Aberdeen. The exact manner of how that happens is to be seen, but green energy and green jobs are good for our future and the Bill is good for our energy security.
We have had a few conversations about the cost of this Bill and GB Energy. I kindly remind the Conservatives that they spent over £40 billion subsidising energy bills as a result of the war in Ukraine. While that money was useful to those who were suffering in fuel poverty, in the longer term it did absolutely nothing to generate energy security for our country and our future. The biggest cost is doing nothing. To continue to do nothing is not an option that remains open to us, either in terms of preserving our future or of looking after bill payers. In the main, therefore, we welcome the Bill.
I turn, finally, to Amendment 127 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, which calls on the Secretary of State to publish a report on the cost and viability of the Government’s net-zero strategy. That is not necessary before the Bill is passed, but I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who is not in his place. It is important that the Government are clear on figures, and those figures should be updated. However, when we have these conversations on cost, they are, unfortunately, very one-sided. The cost is always on one side of the equals sign and not on the other. There is a huge cost in doing nothing. We have seen LA go up in flames, and there are huge predicted costs to the global economy and our future.
The Government, to my mind, must do more in continuing to look at reforming the electricity market mechanism. The Government’s projected direction of travel is for us to electrify, and it is important that we continue to look at the cost of electricity and that the Government continue to work on providing social tariffs and making sure that those in need can afford to heat their homes. With that, I beg to move.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, it is disappointing that no financial framework details were included in the Bill, as they should have been. Amendment 125, which will be spoken to by my noble friend Lord Offord, would ensure that the Bill cannot come into force until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament, together with a Motion for resolution in each House, a revised financial framework document. This would improve transparency and accountability, which are in short supply in this Bill, as has been noted by many noble Lords.
I have also added my name to Amendments 126 and 127 in this group, which would essentially require the Government to explain the impact of their proposals on the number of jobs in Aberdeen and would require a report on the cost and viability of their net-zero targets. I fear that the negative approach to the oil and gas industry based in Aberdeen will lead to more job losses than will be created by the location of GBE in that city. I am also not at all sure that the type of people being made redundant by oil and gas enterprises being forced to destroy economically beneficial businesses are the same type of people GBE will wish to recruit. It is clear that the Government’s decision to locate in Aberdeen was intended to mitigate the damage to that city’s economy, but I am not at all sure that that will be the case. I support my noble friend Lord Hamilton in calling the Government to account on these matters through tabling these two amendments.
As I said at Second Reading, we cannot rely on renewables to continue to decarbonise the grid, or even begin to replace our much larger industrial energy consumption, which is still dependent largely on oil and gas. My noble friend Lord Frost explained on 14 November, and again today, how serious a problem the intermittency of renewables is. It is essential that the Government think again before confirming the premature ending of oil and gas, at least until more serious attention has been paid to the possibilities that nuclear may offer. In this regard, we should be a little bit more like France.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I speak to the two amendments in my name. The first, Amendment 126, is about the jobs in Aberdeen. Unfortunately, this amendment gets involved only in the number of jobs that are created by Great British Energy in Aberdeen. As my noble friend Lord Trenchard has already referred to, it does not make any reference to the number of jobs that have already been destroyed by the Secretary of State for Energy in not granting any more licences in the North Sea, which will have—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
It is all very well the noble Lord saying that, but I remind him that a lot of jobs were lost on the UK continental shelf during his Government’s stewardship.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Yes, but the fact that a number have gone already because the industry is declining is not a compelling reason for destroying even more, in my view—but I hear what the Minister says.
Of course, this contrasts tremendously with the inaugural address from President Trump, saying, “Drill, baby, drill”. He is quite keen on expanding the oil industry in the United States, which is interesting because he slightly gives the impression that the United States has been rather laggardly in producing oil. I have some quite interesting statistics from the Library that indicate that, throughout the Biden years, despite all the green initiatives that were produced, the United States was actually the biggest producer of oil in the world. In 2020, it produced 11.3 million barrels a day, and in 2023 it produced 12.9 million barrels a day. Of that, it was using about 8 or 9 million barrels for its own consumption and exporting the rest. The idea being put out by the Trump regime that drilling for oil will somehow be a new venture is quite interesting; it has been going on, fit to bust, under the Biden Administration—you slightly wonder how that ties in with all the green credentials that he was boasting about, when they were producing these vast quantities of oil. They were way ahead of the Russians, who were the second-biggest producer of oil, at about 10 million barrels a day.
We are now in an interesting situation, as there seems to be a recognition by the Trump regime that we will go on needing hydrocarbons and oil way into the future. At the end of the day, the idea that we can somehow phase all this out in this country slightly defies credibility because, as we have discussed already, the reserves of oil are higher than they have ever been, and we will go on needing it for quite some time. It is rather extraordinary that we do not produce our own oil in the North Sea for our requirements. As it is, we will have to import it from other places, creating CO2 emissions and so forth on the way.
Earl Russell (LD)
I was listening to what the noble Lord was saying, and the truth is that North Sea oil is declining by 7% a year—which will not change—and that we have the third-best wind resources in the world. North Sea oil will never meet our energy needs and, if we do not find alternative forms of energy, we will be dependent on the international markets, which will mean huge variability, no security and huge cost to our bill payers. Surely the best thing to do is use the third-best renewable resources in the world that we have to back that up with a system that works.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
I find that an interesting comment because, at the end of the day, wind energy is totally dependent on the feed-in tariffs that end up on everybody’s electricity bills. That is one reason why we are paying such enormous sums of money for electricity at the moment. The idea that wind is somehow a cheap option does not seem to be quite working out.
The broad point is that anybody who looks at the energy demands of this country knows that we will go on needing oil for quite some time to come. It seems extraordinary that we then depend on imports of oil from around the world, with all the CO2 emissions that go with that, rather than producing our own. I can see no logic in that at all. The production of oil in the North Sea may be declining, but that does not mean that we should not, therefore, give licences to produce more oil from the North Sea if we actually need it in this country. That seems inexplicable when we are importing it from elsewhere.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I wish briefly to comment on and support the intent of Amendments 122, 123 and 124 tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, the basic problem with the Bill is that it includes absolutely nothing about what GBE will actually do. Yes, there are the objects in Clause 3 but, as we debated at some length previously, they set out only what GBE is allowed to do, not what it is intended to do.
What it is intended to do—its objectives, if you like —will be set out in the statement of strategic priorities in Clause 5. We have not seen those and it would appear that we will not see them for a while—certainly not before the Bill passes. As the Constitution Committee pointed out, that key document will not be subject to any parliamentary scrutiny—in fact, the Constitution Committee referred to it as “disguised legislation”—nor is there anything in the Bill to prevent GBE starting its activities before that statement has been published.
As I say, we have had several debates on this, so I will try not to repeat myself. There are a number of ways to do this: the new amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, may or may not be the right way and we have had other amendments previously. However we do it, it is critical that at least some substantive level of parliamentary scrutiny should be available on how GBE intends to spend its £8.3 billion before it starts to spend significant amounts of money.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for moving his amendment and all noble Lords who made contributions or comments. Perhaps I may take them thematically, starting with the importance of oversight. As regards the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, we on these Benches are in favour of the sentiment of Amendments 122 to 124.
As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, the strategic priorities for GB Energy are not included in the Bill. Indeed, we have not had sight of those most important principles; we simply do not have any concrete examples of what GB Energy as a company will be trying to achieve. I must therefore ask the Minister: how can we support the Government if we do not even know what the proposed investment vehicle will put taxpayers’ money into? This House and the other place must have sight of the strategic priorities of GB Energy so that we can assess its goals, what it intends to achieve, how these goals will be achieved, in what order they will be prioritised, and how much money will be spent on those goals and priorities.
I turn to Amendment 125 in my name, which ensures that the Bill cannot come into force until a financial framework document has been laid before Parliament. Much like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I am deeply concerned that we have not yet had sight of this most important information. I do not feel it is possible to move forward with the Bill, or GB Energy itself, until we have understood its financial structure. I therefore strongly urge the Government to produce a financial framework for GB Energy and let us examine it.
Amendment 126, in the names of my noble friends Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Lord Trenchard, requires the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the impact GB Energy will have on the number of jobs in Aberdeen. The Government are already putting at risk 200,000 jobs in the North Sea oil and gas sector in the UK but, of course, this will hit the city of Aberdeen particularly hard, as it is the centre of the UK domestic oil and gas industry. None of us would object to the Government looking to bring a more diverse range of sovereign energy sources online, but we should not be sacrificing hundreds of thousands of jobs or people’s livelihoods in the process.
The transition to green energy, if it is managed correctly and done in an orderly fashion—not on an artificially accelerated basis—has the opportunity to provide a swathe of new well-paid jobs. We must therefore hold the Government to their word that GB Energy will create 650,000 jobs, which is a big number and target. It is for this reason that the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact GB Energy will have on the number of jobs in Aberdeen. That will show noble Lords whether the Government are keeping their word, whether these jobs are created and will be of benefit to Aberdeen, and whether we have indeed seen the transition talked about.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 127 in the names of my noble friends Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Lord Trenchard. That amendment will ensure that the Bill cannot come into force until the Secretary of State has published a report on the cost and viability of the Government’s net-zero targets. We should transition away from the use of fossil fuels and reduce the volume of greenhouse gases we emit into the atmosphere, but it must be done in an economical and sustainable manner. I hope that the Minister has listened carefully to these concerns.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I do listen carefully to what noble Lords have said. Our final debate in Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, suggests, takes us back to some of the early debates and concerns that noble Lords have. I am particularly grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his support. The point he made is that the cost of doing nothing will, in the end, be much more expensive than the cost of net zero. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, that sticking to oil and gas is certainly not a free lunch, either. The noble Earl also pointed to the declining reserves in the UK continental shelf. This is a fact of life and why there were losses of jobs in Aberdeen under the previous Government. I will come back to the issue of Aberdeen in a moment.
Clearly, the effect of the amendments will be to defer the commencement of most provisions in the Bill until several requirements have been met. They include the laying before and approval by Parliament of a framework document and statement of strategic priorities, the publication of an outline statement of strategic priorities, the publication of an assessment on the expected impact of the Act on the number of jobs in Aberdeen and the publication of a report on the cost and viability of the Government’s net-zero targets. We have already discussed many of these matters in Committee and the Committee will be aware of the Government’s views and intents on this.
Our aim is to get this Bill on the statute book as soon as we can. It is also our clear intention that the statement of strategic priorities cannot be produced without the full involvement of Great British Energy in order to get its expertise, including that of the newly appointed non-executive directors, to inform the statement. This is why we do not believe that we can publish the statement of strategic priorities either during the passage of the Bill or before Royal Assent. Once parliamentary approval is given, we will ensure that we move as quickly as we possibly can to produce the statement.
On accountability, in the end, Ministers will agree with the statement that we are accountable to Parliament. I do not think your Lordships’ House is backward in holding Ministers to account for what they do. We have the Select Committee process, there are numerous opportunities for scrutiny of what we decide in relation to the statement and, of course, the statement is also subject to revision from time to time.
On the framework document, I suppose I can only repeat what I said before. We are committed to producing a framework document. It will, as framework documents do, cover the governance structure, the requirements for reporting and information sharing, and the financial responsibilities and controls. I have given this assurance from the Dispatch Box, so that is a government statement of what is going to happen. The framework document will be extensive and will follow the normal course of action. I hope that assures noble Lords that everything is being done in a proper way and with proper accountability, ensuring that Great British Energy is subject to the appropriate controls—as is only right for a body that is ultimately responsible to the Secretary of State for its activities.
We think that it is a very good thing that GBE will be based in Aberdeen; a significant proportion of GBE’s staff will certainly be based there. We think that Aberdeen will benefit from new jobs in the economy created because of GBE’s investment in renewable energy projects. I understand and very much accept the need to ensure, as we have talked about, a just transition for the people involved in the oil and gas sector. We want to do everything we can to enable offshore workers to lead the world in the industries of the future, which is why we are working very hard with businesses, employees and workers to manage our existing fields for the entirety of their lifetime and are putting in place programmes to support a transition. It is interesting that research from Robert Gordon University shows that 90% of oil and gas workers have medium to high transferable skills for offshore renewable jobs; knowing the skills that people who work in the North Sea bring to the jobs they do, that does not surprise me.
This is all I will say to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, in relation to President Trump’s decisions: it is interesting that, in his first term, the US actually saw quite a drive into renewable energy. It may be that we will still see the same direction under the new Administration in the end; that is for the US Government to decide. We as a Government are sticking to the Paris Agreement and to the need to get to net zero and clean power as soon as we possibly can.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
There are interesting comments in the press that, although President Trump is committed to increasing the amount of oil the United States produces, that is very much dependent on the price. The frackers of oil and gas in the United States will frack it if they can get a good price for it; if the price drops, they will hold back, so it does not follow that he will actually increase the oil production of the United States by saying, “Drill, baby, drill”.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, that is a very interesting comment indeed.
I turn to Amendment 127, the effect of which I resist because in the end, it is inconsistent with our intention to set up GBE as quickly as possible. I understand noble Lords’ concerns about information being available now, but we are keen to see GBE up and running. The statement of strategic priorities will ultimately be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We want GBE to play a full part in the discussions on it and the framework document will be extensive, following normal procedure.
On that basis, the Government are not willing to move in that area. However, I am looking at some of the issues around the statement of strategic priorities, particularly in relation to timing, and will perhaps give a sense of some of the pointers that will be raised in it. I will continue to have discussions with noble Lords on that between Committee and Report.
Earl Russell (LD)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I start by reflecting the Minister’s last sentence in his response to this group of amendments. I thank him and his officials for the open nature with which they have engaged and continue to engage with us. The prospect of further discussions on these issues prior to Report is very welcome from my point of view.
As I have said, I recognise the need to set up GB Energy at speed, and I recognise that it needs to exist to feed into the strategic priorities. I particularly welcome the Minister’s last sentence. As I said, my amendments in this group were about trying to find a compromise and a way forward. I also welcome his comments from the Dispatch Box on the framework document, guaranteeing that it will be produced and will be extensive and follow the proper course of action. Again, those are welcome documents, and I am sure that Members of this Committee will note them.
It is welcome that GB Energy will be headquartered in Aberdeen. It is my opinion that GB Energy will help to create good and stable green jobs. The Minister said that 90% of oil and gas offshore jobs have high levels of transferrable skills. I think we can all agree that we need a just and fair transition for the people who work in our oil and gas industry, and we all need to keep that in mind. The Committee will also note the Minister’s comments on Amendment 127. With that, I thank all noble Lords for taking part in what has been an interesting set of debates.
House of Lords
Political Parties: Donations from Abroad
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, as set out on 15 January by my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage, the Government committed in our manifest to protect democracy by strengthening the rules around donations to political parties. Foreign money has no place in our elections and the rules already provide clear safeguards against foreign interference. We are considering changes that will help further protect our system from such risks. Details of these proposals will be brought forward in due course.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will not be aware, but I wanted to donate to the Democratic campaign on the internet. I could not do so, not because I am living in this country but because I do not have an American passport. I think we have to tighten up our arrangements a bit. Foreign money is undermining our democracy, whether it is donations to particular parties or, more insidiously, to pressure group. There are reports in the papers that an environmental pressure group is going to be funded from the States in order to undermine our attitude to climate change. We need to act quickly.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend makes an excellent point about individuals who are not eligible to vote here. There are rules that govern individuals and organisations that campaign in elections but are not standing in political parties. While it is clear that foreign donations to political parties are not permitted, the Government recognise the risks posed by malign actors who seek to interfere with and undermine our democratic process. My final point is that the rules exist to give the public more confidence in the way third parties interact with the political system. They ensure that campaigning in a transparent manner will prevent any individual, company or organisation exerting undue influence on our elections.
Lord Fowler (CB)
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, but is there not a case for a review that goes rather wider than just political contributions from overseas? We have the issue, for example, of whether there should be a cap on all contributions made. Surely, above all, we need a system that is entirely honest and seen as such around the world. Compared with some of the things that are happening now, that would not be a bad example.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an excellent point. A cap on donations is not a current priority, but strengthening the rules around donations is. By law, it is the responsibility of political parties to take reasonable steps to verify the identity of a donor and whether they are permissible. We will take any necessary steps to ensure that those requirements are tightened and abided by.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister give an undertaking that his Government will follow the practice in the latter part of the last Labour Government, where Jack Straw, who had responsibility for these matters, was absolutely meticulous in ensuring that among the major established parties there was consensus on any changes that were undertaken?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
Any proposals that we bring forward are likely to require legislation, and although the Government have not included this in the timetable for this Session, we have promised to do it in our manifesto. I can assure all noble Lords that, once we have developed our proposals, we will inform Parliament and consult widely.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I am very happy to find that the Conservative Party has rediscovered the idea of consensus now that it is in opposition. I am not sure we want to ban all foreign donations, particularly those from pressure groups and think tanks, but transparency is essential. We need to know who is funding these bodies. Will the Government look again at the need for transparency in reporting where funds come from for all think tanks—left wing, right wing or whatever—that are involved in attempting to influence the political process?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I think it always good to have consensus across the House and in politics. On the noble Lord’s point about transparency, as stated, we are looking at strengthening the rules around donations. To do so, we will look at all the evidence and in due course we will set out our proposals.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I raised before the issue of permitted donors who live abroad being able to give to political parties. The last Government went ahead with that, despite opposition from this side. Similarly, they brought in ID for voting against our recommendations. I welcome the rather belated view that we should have a negotiation, and perhaps the Opposition would like to say that, this time, they will co-operate this time and not try to do something by themselves.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My noble friend makes an excellent point. She is correct that overseas voters have the right to participate in UK parliamentary elections, and this includes the right to donate to parties or candidates they support. However, foreign money is not permitted, and it is a criminal offence to facilitate an impermissible donation. Those rules apply to voters abroad as well.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, a Question was asked on this matter on the 15 January 2025, answered by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. Can the Minister provide the House with more detail on His Majesty’s Government’s review of all matters relating to electoral donations? In particular, can he confirm that it will address the matter of public bodies disclosing information to political parties, and tell the House when we can expect the review to conclude?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
The noble Baroness mentioned a similar Question that was previously asked. When it comes to foreign influence, additional controls are being implemented through the foreign influence registration scheme, which will require those being directed by a foreign power to carry out, or arrange for others to carry out, political influence activities to register with the scheme. I will take her concern forward and ensure that, when we have our wider consultation and bring forward proposals, which are not yet finalised, we will look at this in legislation and policy.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, aside from its historic support for terrorism, murder and mayhem, Sinn Féin/IRA is unique in the United Kingdom political system because it receives much of its funding from the Irish Republic and the United States. Over the past five years, Friends of Sinn Féin, the party’s fundraising arm in America, banked more than $2 million. Although laws in the Republic of Ireland prohibit money raised abroad to be sent there, Friends of Sinn Féin can legally send money to Northern Ireland. Can the Minister tell me when His Majesty’s Government intend to close this loophole, which would not be acceptable in any other part of the United Kingdom?
Lord Khan of Burnley
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will understand that I cannot comment on individual cases. I agree with him that political parties registered in Northern Ireland can accept donations from Irish sources, such as Irish companies that meet the conditions. Allowing Irish donations to the Northern Ireland parties recognises the special place of Ireland in the political life and culture of Northern Ireland and is consistent with the principles set out in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. However, Irish donations are subject to the same scrutiny by the Electoral Commission as donations from any other permissible donor.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, last Wednesday, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, said:
“Government take the threat posed by disinformation and foreign actors interfering in our democratic processes very seriously”.—[Official Report, 15/1/25; col. 1123.]
We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, about the amount of money which comes from America into Sinn Féin’s coffers, but that is not the only issue. Its social media accounts are run by a company in Serbia. Will the Minister look at that as well?
Lord Khan of Burnley
The noble Baroness makes an interesting point. My direct answer would be that we continue to work with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Defending Democracy Taskforce to mitigate the risk that disinformation and misinformation and AI-driven election interference pose to the UK’s democratic processes. On social media, there are already robust donations and third-party campaigner spending rules in place. The Government remain alert to any technological or other relevant changes in the electoral campaign landscape.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, for the last 25 years, political parties in this country have been legally obliged to declare the source and scale of all their donations above a very modest level. Why should the same rules not apply to political pressure groups trying to influence the political process?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, there are already robust spending and donations rules in place for third-party campaigners, which pressure groups would fall under. These are individuals or organisations that campaign in elections while not standing as political parties or candidates. Further rules exist in relation to transparency around those seeking to influence UK policy. The lobbying Act 2014 ensures there is transparency around meetings between Ministers and ministerial groups. The regulation of all-party parliamentary groups is a matter for Parliament.
Railway Electrification
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to implement a rolling programme of railway electrification, and if so to what timescale.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer to my railway interests as listed in the register.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
Updated plans are currently being developed by Network Rail for where and when electrification is required to deliver a fully decarbonised railway over the next 25 years. Those plans will consider the integration of both track and train through Great British Railways and the significant recent progress in battery technology. All investment decisions will be subject to current and future spending reviews and will be for the first time integrated with rolling stock decisions.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, at the railway industry reception in the House of Commons last week, my noble friend said—I think I am quoting him correctly—that in the context of Railway 200:
“We’ve got … to celebrate all of the history. But we’ve also got a chance to celebrate the future”.
Does he agree that his Answer to me just now is a way of celebrating that future, provided we can embark on a programme of investment in electrification, battery power and new technologies which allows the railway to grow and the freight business and the passenger business to take on new markets with new traffic? Does he further agree that that is the only way that we can meet the net-zero emission targets and make the railway completely carbon free?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Of course, I strongly agree with my noble friend that whatever I said last time was the right thing to say.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
More seriously, I agree with my noble friend that the point at which we celebrate 200 years of the first public passenger railway in the world is a very good moment both to contemplate the fact that the railway is already uniquely green and to look forward to full decarbonisation. The most exciting prospect has emerged since the last traction decarbonisation strategy of 2020: the significant development of battery technology, the significant introduction of bi-mode trains across Britain and very recently, by one of the most forward-looking freight companies, the introduction of a tri-mode freight locomotive, all of which enables electrification to be far more finely tuned to both cost and value for money yet produce at the end of it a fully decarbonised railway.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, shortly before the last election, the Conservative Party in its death throes gave a commitment to electrification of the line from Crewe to Holyhead. Do the present Government stand by that commitment?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
That commitment was one of many in a hurriedly put together document entitled Network North, which incidentally went as far south as Tavistock and went to Holyhead. The characteristic of that shoddy document is that virtually nothing in it was funded, nor indeed was much of it thought through. The last serious work on electrification of the north Wales main line was done by Network Rail in 2010 and that commitment—if it was a commitment—was put in that document with absolutely no reference to any business case nor current set of costs for delivering it.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, some years before their death throes, the last Conservative Government made a firm pledge to electrify the line between Swansea and Cardiff and then, because it was presumably unfunded, like hospitals, they shamefully abandoned it. Can my noble friend confirm that this line is at least now being considered and may well be back on track?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My reference earlier to integrating the electrification programme with rolling stock decisions reflects the fact that many trains on the British railway network are now capable of operating in either electric or diesel mode. That is a consequence of rolling stock purchases over the past 10 years. It enables some more choices to be made about the very expensive infrastructure cost of electrification versus electrification where it makes a real difference in both time and volume of rail traffic, and where trains that will run on electricity—when the electricity is there—will also serve parts of the network where it is not.
Some of the decisions which have been taken in rolling stock will last 35 years, like the rolling stock itself. That is true of the Great Western main line electrification, where those trains happily run on the wires as far as Cardiff and then travel by diesel not only to Swansea but further west to Carmarthen and to the south-west as well. A similar situation is true on the Midland main line, where bi-mode trains will be in operation. There is no point in investing in very expensive infrastructure if we can find another way of creating electrification for the vast majority of the network. The study being done by Network Rail, which will be completed and feed in to the department’s overall review of capital projects, will point out where that valuable public money ought to be best spent.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the electrification of the north Wales main line, that the Conservative party committed itself to in its manifesto, was to be funded from the savings made from HS2 and the Minister should not say that it was an unfunded commitment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
There is a report out today from Rail Partners which says that the costs of rail freight have been rising three times faster than the costs of carrying freight by road. Part of this is due to the rising cost of electricity. Has the Minister discussed with his colleagues in other departments the effect on the economic case for electrification of their pursuing policies that are giving us the highest cost and the most expensive electricity in Europe?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I will continue to claim that the Network North plan was unfunded, because it depended on money that had never been properly allocated in the future to HS2 phase 2. When this Government took office, there was no evidence of any financial plans to deliver virtually any part of that agenda. In respect of the cost of electricity, of course, it is dependent on the relative price of electricity compared with other forms of propulsion for rail, but in terms of electrification of the railway and its use for freight, other considerations are far stronger than the cost of electricity and where it is generated. I shall concentrate in answering this Question on the electrification of the railway, because that is the Question that was asked.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, rail services in the south-west are just not fit for purpose. A report last week recommended battery power for parts of the route on existing trains, recharging at new electric islands, to help transform the Exeter line for both passengers and freight. As the Government are about to take ownership of South Western Railway, will the Minister consider those proposals?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. The future of the service from Salisbury to Exeter on South Western Railway, which she refers to, is dependent on the fairly imminent life expiry of the existing rolling stock. We will consider, as part of the future of the publicly owned railway, what we do to replace it, bearing in mind that what is now available to replace that rolling stock is far more amenable to discontinuous electrification and battery or other forms of recharging.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, on the topic of celebration and timescale, does the Minister agree that in Oxford there is no celebration and no timescale? Oxford has been devastated and cut in half. When the Minister comes to Oxford on Friday to see the devastation, why will he not meet the people of Oxford rather than confine his meeting to a few selected, invited people?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness refers to the Botley Road bridge in Oxford, which has taken far longer to replace than it should and is a complex story. I am going to Oxford on Friday. The logistics of meeting people in Oxford are such that it necessarily has to be limited by the time available to do it, but I am very mindful of the case that she has made both this afternoon and earlier about the disruption caused by this bridge, which is partially caused by the development of East West Rail in Oxford. Together with the chief executive of Network Rail, we have some things to say to the population which I hope will be useful for them to hear.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister recollect that more than 40 years ago, Sir Peter Parker, the then chairman of British Rail, recommended a rolling programme of railway electrification on the grounds that it would assist to keep together those responsible for doing the work and, perhaps more importantly, be far cheaper in the long run than the piecemeal approach that we have adopted over the years since? As we have a long-term plan for road building and repairs, why cannot we have the same for the railway?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend raises a very good point. The intention of both the Secretary of State and me in respect of the review of capital projects in the department is to produce a list of projects which are the best for economic growth, jobs and housing, and then that can go into the Government’s 10-year infrastructure plan. It is important that the supply industry that develops electrification has a strong domestic market, because there is also a strong export market which it can fully serve only if domestic demand is relatively constant.
Small Modular Nuclear Reactors
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Spellar
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they expect to announce the orders for the first small modular nuclear reactors.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, Great British Nuclear is pushing forward with the SMR competition and is negotiating with a four down-selected companies. Once negotiations have concluded, the companies will be invited to submit final tenders, which Great British Nuclear will then evaluate, with final decisions to be taken in the spring.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. He will be aware that the Government’s response to the AI action plan this month refers to the opportunity
“to accelerate investment in … Small Modular Reactors”.
He will also be aware that Britain is at the forefront of developing this technology, which could make a significant contribution to our growth agenda right through the country. However, delays in decision-making by the last Government led to significant slippage in the programme. What is the Minister’s department doing? He gave the procedure that would be undertaken, but what is the department doing to get the SMR programme back on track?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I understand my noble friend’s impatience. It is an impatience that I share, because we can all see the potential of small modular reactors in the UK and the export potential of UK companies that are involved in developing SMRs. With fairness to Great British Nuclear, it is going through a tough process. We will have assurance with regard to the technologies and value-for-money issues. Spring is not far away. I understand the haste with which my noble friend wishes us to act in this area.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, the French Government have given this Government a great opportunity to stop any further growth of Sizewell C and use that money for small modular nuclear reactors. This is an out-of-date proposal. It will cost much more than we bargained for. It is a brave and sensible Government who would say, “We will stop that and move to new technology”.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, if a Government were suddenly to say to Sizewell C, “We’re not going ahead with it”, that would have a devastating impact on our nuclear industry. We are not going to do that. We are moving towards a final investment decision. I do not recognise some of the figures that have been quoted in the media recently. It is 80% replication of Hinkley Point C, but because of that, a lot of the risks have already been ironed out.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I am attracted in principle to the idea of small-scale nuclear reactors scattered across the country on small sites and not just in nuclear submarines. But I have attended a number of meetings with the industry and have no clarity on the economics of the technology and how they compare with alternative paths to net zero. Does the Minister think that the economics are clear yet? If not, will the Government set them out?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, there are two points to make. Our analysis is that, overall, a renewable-led system complemented by flexible technologies, alongside technologies such as nuclear, will form the cheapest foundation for our decarbonised power grid. The value for money for SMRs is a very good question. That is precisely why the work that Great British Nuclear is doing will be so important and why it then has to feed into more general discussions within government about the finance involved.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, as the SMR contracts have been delayed, has the proposed twentyfold increase in AI been included in the clean power plan? What are the Government’s proposals to deliver the energy required and meet our energy net-zero targets if SMRs will not be ready before 2032?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, obviously, we are all very excited by the potential of AI. My understanding is that current electricity demand from, for example, data centre growth—which is part of the package that the noble Earl is referring to—would in 2022 account for 4.05% of UK electricity consumption. NESO’s analysis of future energy scenarios reckons that data centres could increase annual electricity demand by between 27 and 62 terawatt hours by 2050, with estimates of total annual electricity demand ranging from 533 to 700 terawatts hours. Obviously, we are giving this a great deal of consideration.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. Existing civil nuclear power stations are protected by the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, which is, of course, wholly armed. What consideration has been given to who will protect and police modular nuclear reactors? Will it be the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, which would mean covering far more sites than it currently does, or will it be the other police forces? What discussions has the Minister had with his colleagues at the Home Office?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it is a little early to give a definitive view to my noble friend but clearly the role of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary is a very important one. I reassure him that in the 14-year gap since I was last responsible for that force, there have been huge improvements in the way in which the constabulary works. I keep this matter under very close oversight.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, it is welcome news that the Minister has indicated there will be a decision by Great British Nuclear on SMR technologies in the spring. However, we still await any guidance on advanced modular reactors, let alone details on how they can come to the market and generate much-needed clean energy here in the UK from the early 2030s. A number of privately funded developers—newcleo, X-energy, TerraPower and others—are ready to go and want GBN to have a parallel process alongside the SMR competition to help them realise their ambitions in the UK as soon as possible. Will the Minister please give a clear indication on when a plan for AMRs will be published? Will His Majesty’s Government support those that want to get on with things in the meantime, invest in the UK, boost economic growth, and create thousands of jobs through their supply chains?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her questions and we certainly take account of what she said. We all see the potential of AMRs. We have also seen that some of the major west coast companies in the US are interested in reaching agreements with project developers for AMRs to be sited near data centres in order to produce decarbonised energy. The noble Baroness’s Government produced an alternative routes to market consultation. We are currently considering the results of that and will make announcements in due course. I understand what she said about the role of GBN. These matters are all under earnest consideration at the moment.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, mentioned the AI opportunities action plan, including the plan to build data centres—among them, the largest UK data centre so far. These data centres, which have been designated by the Government as sovereign data centres, will require SMRs to power them. Rolls-Royce, in which the Government hold a golden share, has produced and maintained the nuclear power systems for the UK’s submarine fleet using similar —not the same but similar—technology for SMRs for the last 60 years. Will the Minister ask the Science Secretary and the Energy Secretary, who together will chair the AI energy council, to designate the SMRs that will supply the sovereign data centres, also as sovereign assets, and run a much shorter bidding process open to UK companies only?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I do not think I can give that commitment, although I recognise what the noble Lord says. I can certainly assure him that we are in close discussions across government departments about taking forward the implications of what was contained in the plan. I, of course, recognise the role that Rolls-Royce plays. I do not want to say anything further about that because it is currently in a competitive process in relation to SMRs that is being run by Great British Nuclear.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the proposal by a consortium of Sheffield industrialists for an SMR national manufacturing centre of excellence would create hundreds of highly skilled jobs in South Yorkshire and across the country, and would also open up the opportunity for British industry to compete internationally for the manufacture of SMRs with British components? Can he assure me that this is exactly the sort of proposal his department will consider supporting and is in line with the points made by my noble friend Lord Spellar?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness may know that I met our former colleague Richard Caborn and colleagues from Sheffield to discuss this. We have now asked UK Research and Innovation to review the detail and advise us. We will then consider the next steps. Clearly, this is a very interesting concept.
Israel and Palestine
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with international partners about establishing a fund to support infrastructure in Gaza and reconciliation between Israel and Palestine.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, this deal is a fragile process but one that the United Kingdom is ready to support. It is a first step. We must build confidence on all sides to help sustain the ceasefire, moving it from phase 1 through to phase 3, into a political process that sees lasting peace. We are already convening partners to build consensus for a post-conflict Gaza governance and security framework, and co-ordinated and effective support for recovery and reconstruction.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Minister for his Answer. Would he agree, as has been the case in other areas of conflict, that a vibrant, free and civil society is essential to building peace and reconciliation? In this respect, would it be possible for the Government to increase their funding to human rights groups in Palestine and Israel to underpin the organic growth of that much-needed civil society to try to achieve a shared future and reconciliation for all citizens of Israel and Gaza?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Through our aid programmes, we are supporting human rights organisations in Israel and Palestine on a range of issues. Their work is invaluable for providing us with relevant analysis, as well as for shaping our policy. We are clear that Palestinian leadership and civil society must be at the forefront of Gaza’s recovery. The United Kingdom is committed to promoting an inclusive approach to recovery and reconstruction, supporting the political process towards a two-state solution.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I am sure we are all delighted to see the ceasefire and the release of the three hostages, including the British national Emily Damari, earlier this week. I listened carefully to the Minister, and he is right that proper future governance in Gaza will be crucial if the current ceasefire is to be enduring. Perhaps he could say a bit more about what consideration the Government are giving to helping establish future governance and administration in the Gaza Strip, free, we hope, of the malign influence of Hamas.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. We are continuing to work with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the US and regional partners to build consensus on a post-conflict Gaza governance and security framework that supports the conditions, as he rightly said, for a permanent and sustainable peace. We have given the PA two posts to help support its work on this, and we will look towards doing even more as we move through the stages of the ceasefire agreement.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, has the Minister read the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, in this morning’s Times, where he points out that the time has come for the Palestinians to behave like all the millions or trillions of people displaced since the Second World War with the creation of new states? Does the Minister agree that the problem is UNRWA? The Arabs have to accept the existence of Israel and UNRWA must resettle refugees. It must get them settled in the countries in which they are living and make sure that they have full civil rights, so that their children grow up not to hate but to make a new life and take new opportunities in the countries where they are living, like all other refugees around the world.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I hear what the noble Baroness says, but, of course, many Palestinians are living in occupied territory. We want to ensure, through the peace process that has been agreed, that we work with all sides to bring them towards a consensus that will ensure the safety and security of Israel, as well as the safety and security of a Palestinian state. We must work towards that, and this agreement provides the basis to do so.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the people of Gaza need homes and shelter. The UN estimated last summer that clearing the 40 million tonnes of rubble in Gaza will take 15 years. Does the Minister agree that human reconstruction, especially for the children of Gaza—who are equivalent to the entire under-10 population of London and are homeless, without shelter or health or education facilities—should be our number one mission? The UK cannot do everything for the reconstruction, but it can ensure that some pop-up education and child trauma centres are erected now, so that if there is any kind of sustainable peace it ensures that children are at the heart of any kind of reconstruction and recovery.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I agree completely with the noble Lord. In fact, we have announced £112 million this financial year, including £41 million for UNRWA, which is supporting the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Palestinian refugees in the region. This support has meant that half a million people have received essential healthcare funding and medical support. More than 300,000 people have been treated. The noble Lord is also right to focus on children. Some 14,000 children now have access to education materials and welfare support because of UK intervention. However, this is only the beginning. It is a huge process that we must commit to, but if we can work with our partners across the globe, we can do that.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I commend the work that His Majesty’s Government are doing in seeking reconciliation and reconstruction in Gaza. Given that there might now be the possibility of temporary urgent medical evacuation, in particular for children who are in the most serious situations, will the Government consider bringing some children to the UK on the clear understanding that they will return to their homes in Gaza, whether those are temporary or, ultimately, permanent?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
It is vital that Israel ensures that there is sustained passage for patients who need treatment that is not available in Gaza during the first phase of this ceasefire. That means working with neighbours, because speed and distance are important factors in receiving treatment. However, I reassure my noble friend that officials across Whitehall are looking at all options to make sure that we are doing everything in our power to help and to explore all avenues to support those who are critically ill in Gaza. That is why we have also announced £1 million for the Egyptian Ministry of Health and Population, delivered through WHO Egypt, to support Palestinians who are medically evacuated from Gaza.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that Israel has, for its entire existence, sought a two-state solution and to live in peace alongside a Palestinian state? Unless and until the Palestinians themselves accept Israel’s very right to exist and stop indoctrinating their children that the only thing that matters is recovering, “from the river to the sea”, the land that they have claimed ownership of but which has been disputed for so long, it will be very difficult to see a sustainable path to peace for Israelis and Palestinians, especially with the ongoing international involvement in the indoctrination of children via UNRWA schools.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think noble Lords will appreciate that we have an opportunity to focus on the broader issues when we come to the Statement. The United Kingdom is ready to play a leading role with international and regional partners in the process towards that next stage of the two-state solution. It is predicated on tangible progress towards a Palestinian state, with Gaza and the West Bank united under one Government. The PA’s role in Gaza must therefore be front and centre. Planning needs to advance security for both Gazans and Israel, as the noble Baroness pointed out.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
The Prime Minister’s support and leadership on setting up an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace has been welcomed by those involved in civil society peacebuilding, brought together by the Alliance for Middle East Peace. There was talk of a conference to launch this fund in this country early in the new year. Can the Minister give us any details on when that conference might take place?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Sadly, I am not able to give details at this stage, but since the ceasefire agreement we have been assessing how we can build that stronger alliance across allies and, in particular, the Gulf states to ensure that we can focus on the issues. When I get more information, I will write to the noble Baroness.
Public Service (Ethics, Integrity and Independence) Bill [HL]
Electricity Capacity Mechanism (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 18 and 21 November 2024 be approved.
Relevant document: 10th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 20 January.
Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements etc.) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 4 December 2024 be approved.
Relevant document: 12th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 20 January.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, this instrument has already been debated in Grand Committee.
Community Engagement Principles and Extremism Definition
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in addition to reviewing the definition of extremist organisations and the community engagement strategy, we should also review the wider communication policy regarding acts of extreme violence and terror to maintain an open dialogue with the general public and prevent the spread of misinformation?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, let me first of all say that national security will always come first for this Government, and we will always treat the threat of extremism with the seriousness that it requires. The noble Lord makes an interesting point. I confirm to the House that the Government take the threat of extremism very seriously and will continue to work with partners to tackle extremism in all parts and forms. That is why the Home Secretary commissioned a rapid review of extremism in 2024. The Government will set out their approach to countering extremism in due course and will update Parliament accordingly. I am sure that many of the issues that the noble Lord raised will be part of that review.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, knowledge and understanding of communities is crucial in this regard. Councillors are elected to serve their communities and know them well. Does the Minister agree with that proposition? Does he also agree that plans to create large wards make that more challenging for councillors? Will the Government therefore keep ward sizes appropriate to their role in knowing and representing their communities, and will the Government provide additional support to councillors in that critical role?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, let me reassure the noble Baroness that, having been a councillor for 16 years in the wonderful district of Burnley, I understand the fantastic work that local councils do. I reaffirm the Deputy Prime Minister’s position that we want to work in equal partnership with the local authorities and we want to give them more power. I would not be able to comment on the size of the wards because that is the responsibility of the Minister, Jim McMahon, in the other place.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure the whole House will agree that this work could not be more important or timely. As a Muslim woman, can I ask the Minister what has been done to engage with women and girls’ voices? It feels like our voices are often ignored, and certain very noisy male groups dominate the conversation. Will the Minister acknowledge that it is often women and, sadly, girls, who are the victims of extremist violent behaviour?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend makes a series of excellent points. I totally agree about extremist behaviour and its disproportionate impact on women and girls. Let me reassure the noble Baroness that we are looking at ensuring that we have more female voices—not just female voices, but young female voices—in the faith space. Let me also let the House know that I have been up and down the country and have engaged not just with the major faiths but with every faith in our country. That has been a privilege, but I have learned that there need to be more female voices in the faith space.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, a decision under the previous Government about a particular Islamic organisation being characterised as extremist led to the defunding and collapse of the national Inter Faith Network. I wonder if the Minister agrees that the Inter Faith Network provided a vital role in co-ordinating interfaith work at a national level. We do great things at local level, but we need some national work as well. Will he urge His Majesty’s Government to commit to refunding the Inter Faith Network?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate, with whom I have worked closely in the interfaith area in the north-west of England. I totally agree about the work of the Inter Faith Network. It is important that there is a national forum. Although we will not be bringing back the Inter Faith Network as it was previously, we are looking to ensure that that work is brought back and we are exploring ideas. My department, the MHCLG, has just commissioned some research and a consultation on what form that will take in future, so that there is a national interfaith presence that the Government can regularly engage with.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, given the changes to the definitions of extremist organisations, can the Minister please reassure me and the House that the Provisional IRA remains defined as a terrorist and extremist organisation? Can he therefore take back to his colleagues in government the real fear that many of us have that members of the Provisional IRA, including Gerry Adams, will be compensated in some way by the British taxpayer?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I think it is just for me to say that I will take back the noble Lord’s concerns.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister consider that there are a lot of good lessons to be learned from Northern Ireland on community relations? Those relations have come on a great deal, and that is often about creating neutral spaces and reasons for communities to come together that are not related to being extreme or not getting on. It is about getting people on the fringes of those extremists to enjoy life together for other reasons—and that may be sport or art—on neutral ground. Often, when you target people to bring them together, those people naturally resist being brought together, so it is about doing it from ground level up, and doing it because people want to enjoy doing things together.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord made some interesting points. On the initial point about community relations, I reassure him that that is very important, and it is why counter-extremism has gone back into the Home Office. In my department, I am the Minister responsible for cohesion. We work with different communities to ensure, up and down the country, we hear those diverse voices, not just faith-based voices but from different communities, different diasporas and different parts of the country. So I reassure the noble Lord that this work is happening and we are working with our partners and across the country.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
Did the Minister see the result of a rather disturbing poll the other day that one in five people between the ages of 18 and 45 would rather have a strong leader than democracy? Democracy, of course, is about solving one’s political problems without violence. Does he agree that there is a failure at the moment in our country to encourage people in schools to really understand democracy and believe in it? It is not the only aspect of the matter, but we want children to come out of our schools believing in democracy and in doing these things without violence.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the noble and right reverend Lord makes a strong point about ensuring that we provide more education about and awareness of the importance of democracy. Democracy unfortunately is also being attacked by malign actors and foreign interference, as we have seen evidence of in recent weeks and even in previous elections. I reassure the noble and right reverend Lord that I am having those conversations with the Department for Education and the Minister responsible to ensure that we can look at focusing education and getting more understanding of democracy, so our citizens understand and appreciate the historical struggle for democracy and celebrate our system. Although there are challenges, it is a wonderful system and we need to ensure that people engage with it.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, just a small point first: countering extremism always has sat in the Home Office. I should know, as I was the first Minister for Countering Extremism in the Home Office. Linked to that, a lot of the extremism is imported from other parts of the world and it is important to stop it at source. Can the Minister assure this House that there will be an integrated approach to ensure that the foreign threat is also dealt with?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an excellent point about making sure that there is an integrated approach. I do not want to pre-empt the conclusion of the rapid sprint, which the Home Secretary has not completed yet, although there were some initial findings in December. The Deputy Prime Minister has made sure that community cohesion, community relations and working with communities come within MHCLG and the Home Office takes responsibility for counter-extremism. I know that was the situation when the noble Lord was in post, but when I came into post it was not the situation. Clarity has now been found. That work is important and the Home Secretary is leading on it.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, on a point of clarification, because Hansard is a journal of record, will my noble friend the Minister confirm, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, that Gerry Adams was never a member of the Provisional IRA—as he would himself say—but was a leader of the IRA which took, of course, a significant part in the Good Friday agreement? He was not in the Provos.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I say to my noble friend that I am not in a position to comment on that. I think it is a conversation that the noble Baroness needs to have with the noble Lord and settle it outside.
Middle East
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the announcement of the ceasefire, as I am sure noble Lords do. This is an extremely important moment for the Middle East. However, we must not overlook—I paraphrase the Minister from the earlier Question—the fragility of the current situation or the long and challenging road ahead. Can the Minister tell the House what actions His Majesty’s Government are taking to encourage the ceasefire to hold?
This pivotal juncture was tragically precipitated by the horrific Hamas terror attack of 7 October: the worst terror attack in Israel’s history and the most murderous pogrom against the Jewish people since the Holocaust. The atrocities committed on that day stand as a chilling reminder of the dangers of allowing such groups to operate unchecked. We are heartened to witness the return of the first hostages under this agreement, including British national Emily Damari. These brave individuals, who have endured unimaginable trauma, will now face the long journey of rebuilding their lives. I hope all noble Lords will join me in praying for their continued health and well-being.
As we reflect, we must also remember the victims of those appalling attacks: those who lost their lives, those murdered in captivity and those whose lives have been irrevocably altered. The cruelty of Hamas over the past 15 months underscores the necessity of holding such groups accountable. Every single hostage must be safely returned to their loved ones and the international community must continue pressing for their unconditional release. Can the Minister tell me what actions His Majesty’s Government are taking to support the safe return of all hostages?
I echo the Foreign Secretary’s acknowledgement of the essential roles played by Qatar, Egypt and the United States in facilitating this agreement. These efforts underscore the importance of diplomatic engagement, and the UK must continue to be an active partner in supporting the next steps to ensure that the ceasefire holds.
In other debates in your Lordships’ House, we have looked at humanitarian assistance. Could the Minister say what additional humanitarian assistance the Government are planning to provide to alleviate the suffering of civilians affected by the ongoing conflict, particular in Gaza? How will the logistics work? From what I have heard in this House before, part of the problem is the logistics of getting the aid to those who need it. I look forward to the Government’s response and their continued commitment to playing a constructive role in this critical moment for the Middle East.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl that this is an incredibly fragile situation, and I acknowledge the caution in the Foreign Secretary’s remarks and tone in the House of Commons last week. It is fundamentally a cessation of hostilities rather than a peace agreement, and there is still a very high level of uncertainty in many areas for the days and weeks ahead.
I also wish to put on record the work of the intelligence services of Qatar, the USA, Egypt and Israel. It was noted that, until fairly recently, Prime Minister Netanyahu refused diplomatic negotiations; it was all led by the intelligence services. However the agreement was made, we all hope that it will be sustainable.
I also share the noble Earl’s welcome for the fact that many families are now being reunited with the hostages. It is a tragedy that many families are waiting for the bodies of hostages, rather than live hostages. Hamas should never be forgiven for their actions.
There will be many in Israeli society who were shocked at the armed al-Qassam Brigades being very visible on the streets. Many had assumed that, as a result of the IDF’s actions, Hamas was removed, but it still looks as though it is very present. Does the Minister agree with the previous US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, in his assessment, which he made public, that Hamas has recruited the same number of fighters today as it has lost? What is the Government’s assessment of the current standing of Hamas, and how will that have an impact on any relationship with Fatah and the PLO in the Palestinian Authority?
On reconstruction, the needs are enormous. I will not repeat the question I asked the Minister in Oral Questions some minutes ago; I will just put on record that I agree with everything he said in response. I hope that the Government will find a way of ensuring that education for children in the region is at the top of our priorities. One of the consequences of conflict is that it is often the next generation that is more radicalised than the previous one. Given the scale of the conflict in Gaza, we all fully understand that, without interventions now in relation to child trauma, psychosocial support and education support, there will be potential threats and danger in the future.
On the situation in the West Bank, what is the Government’s assessment of the report of concessions that the Israeli Prime Minister gave to the remainder of the extreme right wing in his Cabinet? According to those reports, while there could be support for the agreement on Gaza, there are now to be far more IDF and Israeli actions in the West Bank—leading to full annexation, as one continuing Minister in the Israeli Government said. Will the Minister state that that is unacceptable to the UK Government? Will he put on record that we will not follow the new Trump Administration in removing the sanctions that were put in place on the settlers for the violence that they had carried out against innocent communities in their own home areas? Will the Government also take the opportunity to reject the fact that the United States has reinstated supply of the Israeli Government with 2,000-pound bombs, which can bring about only mass destruction of community areas?
On the longer term, does the Minister recognise that my noble friend Lady Northover’s Private Member’s Bill, which we will now debate on 14 March, is an opportunity for us to consider the validity of a two-state solution and the need for the recognition of a state of Palestine? If there is to be diplomatic work on both reconstruction and some form of political way forward, the viability of a Palestinian state needs to be in place.
Finally, I acknowledge that the Government have increased support for the Palestinian Authority, as the Foreign Secretary has indicated. However, our support is still way below the level before the 2018 aid cuts. What is the Government’s intent in respect of replenishing the humanitarian reserve so that we can provide extra support and restore fully the level of governance support to the Palestinian Authority that we provided before the previous Government cut ODA from 0.7%?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
I thank both noble Lords for their questions and contributions. As the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, repeated, this is a fragile situation. The deal is incredibly fragile, so we have to do everything possible to ensure that we can build confidence on all sides to help sustain the ceasefire and move it from phase 1 to phase 3 and into a lasting peace. It is important to turn this deal into a political process that leads us to the two-state solution. That is the only way to ensure, in the longer term, peace and security for both Palestinians and Israelis.
I join the noble Earl in welcoming the release of the three hostages in Gaza, including, of course, British national Emily Damari. I too place on record our thanks to Qatar, Egypt and the US for their support in bringing these individuals’ and their families’ horrific ordeal to an end. Our thoughts are also with those still waiting to be reunited with their loved ones, including the families of United Kingdom-linked hostages Eli Sharabi, Oded Lifshitz and Avinatan Or—three people who should be reunited with their families.
I shall focus on how we build the future and stability. For the deal to work, parties need to co-operate to make sure that the ceasefire lasts and moves towards a lasting peace. Planning for governance, security and reconstruction must be predicated on progress towards a Palestinian state, with Gaza and the West Bank united under one Government, and the Palestinian Authority must play a key role. The security arrangements must protect both Israelis and Palestinians and, as we heard in the previous Question, allow the safe distribution of aid. We will continue to work with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the US and regional partners, including Arab and Gulf states, to build consensus for a post-conflict Gaza governance and security framework that supports the conditions for a more lasting and secure peace. Stability in the West Bank is crucial to ensure that the fragile ceasefire in Gaza can last. All sides should work to ensure a lowering of tension in the West Bank at this time.
On Palestinian statehood and support for Palestinian reform, as the noble Lord said, the Foreign Secretary has spoken with President Abbas and the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, Mohammad Mustafa, and offered the United Kingdom’s support as his Government implement much-needed reforms. An effective PA is vital for lasting peace and progress towards a two-state solution. Our long-standing position has been that we will recognise the Palestinian state at a time that is most conducive to that process—not the end but as part of that process. We remain absolutely committed to that.
As I say, this ceasefire provides an opportunity to get aid in—and we have heard that just under 1,000 trucks got in in one day last week. We need to ensure that that continues. I shall not repeat what I said in response to the Oral Question. We have given the funding and, as the noble Lord said, we need to focus on medical and educational support. Obviously, the longer-term rebuilding of Gaza needs a much bigger investment. In addition to the £112 million, we have matched up to £10 million of public donations—we should not forget that. The United Kingdom public have been absolutely concerned, and they have matched their concern with money through the Disasters Emergency Committee Middle East humanitarian appeal, which has provided life-saving aid, including medical supplies, shelter and clean water, to people in the West Bank.
We have to ensure that the process delivers that longer-term building of confidence and dialogue. I was concerned when I read in the Guardian this morning about increased levels of violence in the West Bank. As the noble Lord pointed out, we have moved to sanction those responsible for violence in the West Bank and announced designations against eight extremist Israeli settlers and nine entities known to have supported, incited and promoted violence against Palestinian communities. We will not hesitate to take further action if it is needed. The UK is deeply concerned by IDF military operations in the occupied West Bank.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, one of the tragedies of Gaza has been that aid has been looted by the corrupt, murderous gangsters of Hamas, and that money and materials that should have been used to build hospitals, schools and housing have been used instead to pay for weapons and to build tunnels from which to attack Israel. What are the Government going to do to prevent aid that they give in future being stolen and abused like this?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I tried to answer that in the Oral Question. This is an obligation on the Palestinian Authority. We have been supporting the Palestinian Authority security services through training. We have also urged the Israeli Government and the IDF to protect the distribution of humanitarian aid to ensure that it reaches those people who need it. We are absolutely determined to work with all parties to ensure the effective distribution of humanitarian aid—it is vital that it gets to the people who need it most.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
Following the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, I shall focus briefly on what is happening in the West Bank, which is a potential conflagration. We know that Hamas is represented there, and it can become only more embittered if settler attacks on Palestinian villages continue. It was good to hear the Minister say that the British Government are going to maintain sanctions against settlers who attack those villages. As we know, President Trump has said that he is no longer going to keep up those sanctions. Will the Minister encourage the Government to make it perfectly clear, publicly, that we are going to continue to maintain those sanctions?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I must admit I thought I had made it clear that we will maintain those sanctions. We are extremely concerned at the increased level of violence, and we have conveyed this to the Israeli Government. The ceasefire is fragile, and we need to build confidence. The noble and right reverend Lord is absolutely right that such confidence relates not only to Gaza but to all the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We are committed to ensuring that this fragile ceasefire and peace process moves towards a more sustainable, long-lasting peace, which requires a two-state solution. That is what we are committed to, and so are the United States Government. We need to focus on that; where we have common support, we need to ensure that we work together. President Trump has been working with the Saudis to ensure that they can come into the process of the Abraham accords. The Saudis want to see a two-state solution, and that is what we are all working towards.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Does the Minister agree that if, at the end of the initial period, Israel renews the war in Gaza, as is called for by some right-wing Members of the Government, such action, without clear, obvious and compelling justification, will do immense damage to the international standing of Israel and to its moral reputation?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am not going to speculate on what might happen. The point I would make is one that was made by the noble Earl, Lord Courtown. We are in a fragile situation. We have a ceasefire, which we have been demanding for many months, and now that we have it we need to ensure that, during this fragile process, we build confidence for the future. That means taking a step-by-step approach, with all parties, and not looking backwards at the horrors of the past but to the future, with hope for prosperity.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the United Society Partners in the Gospel, one of the oldest Anglican global mission agencies. One of our key partners is the al-Ahli hospital in northern Gaza, a hospital that the people of that area rely on pretty well entirely now for any healthcare they can get. Most of the hospital has been destroyed—both the library and the historic church are now in use as wards. What assurances can the Minister give us about how we can get aid into the hospital, so that the people of northern Gaza, no matter how long the ceasefire lasts —I hope it will become permanent, but for the time being—will be able to get the medical help they need? Over 1,000 emergency patients are being admitted every day.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I agree with the right reverend Prelate. As I said in response to the Oral Question, we are very much focused on getting medical aid and support in, particularly to northern Gaza. I mentioned the £5.5 million in funding for UK-Med to run field hospitals in Gaza. We focus on all the areas where there is most need, but I agree with the right reverend Prelate that we need to do more to ensure that those who need medical treatment get it speedily.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we all hope for a permanent ceasefire; that is the wish of everybody in this House. At the end of the Statement, thoughts turn to reconstruction and the need for the international community to deliver the funds for that reconstruction. Given that it has been recently reported by Forbes that Hamas is the second-richest terrorist organisation in the world, can this Government not find a way to capture some of that money, so that we can put it towards reconstruction in Gaza?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
One thing is clear: there is no role for Hamas in the future. That means that we have to work with all parties, particularly those in the region. I mentioned before that we continue to work with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the United States and regional partners, including Arab and Gulf states, to build a consensus for a post-conflict Gaza governance and security framework that supports the conditions for a permanent and sustainable peace. We are prepared to convene partners and to help lead efforts to ensure that there is international and regional support for security, governance, recovery and reconstruction. It is vital that the whole of the region pulls together, and I am pretty confident that we will be able to do that. I hear what the noble Baroness says about Hamas; there can be no role for an organisation that has committed such horrific crimes.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
Given that the Minister has rightly said that there can be no role for Hamas, has he seen the well-sourced reports from independent news agencies—such as the one from Reuters today—showing that, as we speak, it is Hamas thugs who are controlling the distribution of international humanitarian aid in north Gaza, as well as controlling the movement of the long-suffering Gazans themselves? How can Gaza be reconstructed and peace be secured while, in practice, Hamas appears to still be in control?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The important thing is that we are working with the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority to focus on the security issues the noble Lord points to. That is why we are supporting the Palestinian Authority in its security mechanisms. The Israeli Government also have a duty to ensure that there is proper distribution of that aid, to northern Gaza in particular. It is pretty obvious that the situation is quite fragile, as was seen by the evidence of the release of hostages, but we are absolutely committed. The solution lies in ensuring that the Palestinian Authority has the ability to conduct its security operations.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the tone and substance from the Minister and both Front Benches, which reflects the unity of purpose in your Lordships’ House. While I agree with much of what has been said, we must engage directly on the importance of the “day after”, because it is here and now. That means grasping the plans which already exist and building on the framework of the Abraham accords and the three Arab states, including Egypt and Jordan, which are at peace with Israel. We have initiatives, such as the Arab peace initiative and more recently the plan put forward by former Prime Minister Olmert and former Foreign Minister of the PA, Nasser al-Kidwa. These plans exist; they are incremental and structured. Surely we can ensure that the UK Government play their part in the process which is needed now and which runs in parallel with the long-term objective of ensuring that a two-state solution is delivered.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right; there are these plans and discussions, which we need, and the United Kingdom is happy to convene whatever meetings we possibly can. Working with the United States, the Israeli Government, the Palestinian Authority and in particular the Gulf and Arab states together is the way forward to ensuring that there is sustainable peace that delivers security for the people of Israel and Palestine. That is what we are all seeking and the noble Lord is right that we need to bring together all these initiatives that show real commitment to peace.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, we are pleased to be at the stage of peacebuilding. Does the Minister agree that it is important that local women are involved at every level and at every peace table? It is local women who know what is required. They know how the buildings need to be rebuilt, they know about schools and they know that they do not want children to be taught in tents. They want to have proper, safe schools built and the opportunities, if possible, for further education, not necessarily in Gaza but close by when it comes to universities and other forms of education.
There is also the question of health. If we do not have proper hospitals brought into areas, there is no hope for maternal health and for cancer patients and other patients. So, we ought to agree now with everybody that women have to be at every peace table, because without that we are not going to get real peace. We have seen what happened in Northern Ireland. It is still the women of Northern Ireland who are keeping the peace going. So, I would like the Minister to give an undertaking on this and to come back on where those of us who are involved in this House can be of assistance.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. We have both been engaged in focusing on the women, peace, and security agenda, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, has been so committed to, and I am glad to see her in her place. What I tried to convey in my response to the Oral Question was the role in terms of reconstruction of civil society and, as my noble friend points out, women can be an absolutely critical part of that reconstruction and peacebuilding. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised the question of focusing on children and education in particular, but women also have a critical role in delivering that peace process. That is why we are working with the PA as well to ensure that women are involved and engaged, as she says.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
My Lords, the country in the Middle East that had the worst 2024 was Iran. At the beginning of 2025 there are indications that Tehran wants to return to the negotiating table. When Mr Trump was the 45th President of the United States, he took the US out of the JCPOA. Now that he is the 47th President, will His Majesty’s Government urge Washington to re-engage with the JCPOA from a position of greater strength?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I hear what the noble Lord says, but we have to recognise that we condemned Iranian attacks on Israel. We have seen what Iran is capable of doing and how responsible it is for malign activity, most recently on 14 October. We have been focusing on calling on Iran and its allies to refrain from further attacks to de-escalate the situation and to support the opportunity for an agreed ceasefire.
Now that we have that ceasefire, we can work with our regional allies to ensure that there is a process that can deliver a more sustainable peace for the whole region. The mechanism for doing that has to be open to further dialogue. We cannot be prescriptive in the way that the noble Lord hopes to be. We know that mechanism delivered a much safer world in terms of nuclear proliferation, so we need to engage and focus with our allies in looking at the possible mechanisms to achieve that.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend knows that, over quite a lot of years—probably coming up to two decades—the international teacher trade union movement has worked extensively with teachers in Palestine, offering training and curriculum development. I include the Nordic countries, France and certainly Britain. I have been into Palestinian schools and looked extensively at the curriculum and I can assure my noble friend—and hope that he will agree—that UNRWA does not engage in indoctrination.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Like my noble friend, I had the opportunity to visit the Occupied Territories and I certainly visited schools. I looked at many of the facilities that UNRWA provided, and they are an essential mechanism for delivering that humanitarian aid. My noble friend makes a very important point, which again raises the issue of the role of civil society. Like the initiatives she mentioned in terms of teachers, there is a role for all kinds of civil society. We have heard about faith groups—I would mention trade unions. I had a long association with the Palestinian trade union federation. I think we can do more to encourage civil society from all quarters to support that reconstruction. So, I agree with my noble friend: there are great opportunities for the future here.
Lord Walney (CB)
I know the Minister is not going to dismiss the substantial evidence that has built up over the years of extremist poison being injected into the minds of young Palestinians through the school system. But, whatever the past, does he agree that it is very hard to see a more tolerant future if this were still to occur? Will he commit the UK to make clear to the Palestinian Authority that any further support for it will be contingent on there being no extremism within the education system?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Building confidence and trust is not an easy thing to do over the long period of conflict that we have seen, and that is true of every area of conflict. We need to ensure that we define what peace means and what are the benefits and dividends of it, because there are great opportunities in Palestine and in Israel to develop economic progress in a way we have not seen before, and that peace can deliver. That is what we need to focus on. Looking back to old definitions, particularly the terms of terrorism, can hold back the building confidence process. I have spoken to many Israeli organisations working for peace in Israel and they are focused on ensuring that they look to the future, that we do not look at the past, and that we certainly build trust among young people.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister clarify whether the Foreign Secretary has met US special envoy Steve Witkoff yet? Can he also clarify what he said about the two-state solution, because surely this is the only way forward in the future to find a realistic peace? Would he also agree that this will work only if the State of Israel does actually now desist from the settlement programme on the West Bank?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
We have made our position clear, as has the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad. We have been consistent about settlements in the Occupied Territories, we have been consistent in terms of the duties on Israel and we have condemned any extension of settlements. We have made absolutely clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said, that the previous Government and this Government are committed to that process, and we have made clear to the Israelis the consequence of undermining the possibility of a secure Palestinian state.
The Foreign Secretary has visited Israel and the region on three occasions since taking office. Every time he has visited, he has visited the Occupied Territories. I am pretty certain he has met the envoy, but I cannot give the noble Lord that assurance—I am not absolutely certain—but he has been heavily engaged in this process. As I said at the beginning, we have been making very serious calls about the ceasefire, we now have it, it is fragile and we need to be committed to ensure it is sustainable.
Mental Health Bill [HL]
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe
“(iii) seeks to minimise the patient’s distress and promote psychological wellbeing and recovery from any childhood trauma;”
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, as well as moving Amendment 46, I will speak also to Amendments 47, 53, 54 and 95 in this group. These amendments have one central aim in common, which is that of maximising the therapeutic benefit of being cared for in a secure mental health unit. That aim should be common to all mental health patients, young or not so young, but it is largely the concerns of younger mental health patients which have prompted these amendments.
Blooming Change is a small independent charity whose membership is comprised of children and young people who have experienced detention in mental health in-patient units in England as children. It is at their urging that I have tabled Amendments 46 and 47. I have done so after hearing some first-hand accounts of incidents in which children in mental health settings have been treated in a fashion that is the very opposite of therapeutic, by which I mean treated with a lack of understanding, with an obvious vindictiveness, sometimes, and sometimes even with outright cruelty.
It is perhaps hard to imagine this happening when we know how professional and caring most staff in mental health units are, but I am absolutely persuaded that it does happen, and not just rarely. Medical interventions such as nasogastric feeding or sedation are threatened and used as punishments. Patients who have raised concerns with their parents have been silenced by their parents being told by staff that they should take no notice of the concerns, because the child was either unwell or lying.
One young person reported as follows: “Young people on section were essentially incarcerated, yet still not able to voice views or share how they felt or generally engage with their treatment. This would lead to overuse of medical interventions or the threat of this, leading to young people living in fear and not having a way to raise concerns. Many of these things had a long-lasting impact on me. Had this coercion not occurred and medicalisation not been used as punishment, I would have been able to access treatment and recover, instead of the treatment compounding my illness and in many ways contributing to me being stuck in the cycle”.
Blooming Change has pointed out the significance of childhood trauma as a factor underlying a large number of mental health admissions involving young people and the challenging behaviour that they then exhibit. The problem is that, all too often, the link between childhood trauma and the way that a patient behaves is not recognised or understood. As a result, someone with autism or a severely troubled and traumatised young people person going into meltdown —as was well described, incidentally, by my noble friend Lady Browning during our first day in Committee —is simply viewed as wilfully disruptive or downright disobedient, with punishments doled out in response.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, my Amendments 50 and 51 are both about the importance of non-drug-based interventions. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, this group is all about maximising therapeutic benefit. I am very supportive of all the amendments in this group and my amendments are complementary to those just introduced very powerfully by the noble Earl.
I am the first to admit that I am not a clinician, and it is, of course, vital that individual decisions about treatment are made by qualified clinicians. But I am firmly of the view that, in the right circumstances and where clinically appropriate, non-drug-based interventions can be highly beneficial.
New Section 56A establishes a clinical checklist. An approved clinician will be required to go through this checklist when making treatment decisions to ensure that any given treatment is appropriate. Amendment 50 would make it clear that non-drug-based interventions are included in the alternative forms of medical treatment available, which must be identified and evaluated as part of the checklist. In short, it will establish beyond doubt that clinicians must consider and evaluate the use of non-drug-based interventions when they make decisions about treatment.
Non-drug-based interventions can cover many things, such as psychological and talking therapies, counselling, occupational therapies, art and creative therapies, physical exercise, physical activities—the list goes on. It is vital that evidence-based non-drug-based interventions are thought about, identified and considered equally when treatment decisions are made.
As I said in our discussions on Monday—this point was also just made in the introduction to this group—autistic people and people with a learning disability are too often overmedicated in hospital settings. Again, although medication may be appropriate in many places, people cannot and should not be left on their wards with little to no other meaningful therapeutic input other than that medication.
People must be seen as human beings in the round when these treatment decisions are made. That should be reflected in the type of treatment offered, including non-drug-based interventions, such as talking therapies, which are adapted to the individual and have a real prospect of offering therapeutic benefit, either in place of or in addition to medication. I readily acknowledge that treatment can involve either. That judgment is for a clinician to make.
I was very encouraged that the Joint Committee on the Bill recognised in its report the importance of non-drug-based treatment and recommended that the code of practice makes clear that appropriate treatment includes non-drug-based treatment. However, to ensure the Bill aligns with the principle of therapeutic benefit, it is important that this emphasis on non-drug-based interventions is reflected in the Bill.
It is well known that the transition from children’s services to adult services can be particularly difficult when it comes to overmedication and failing to adequately deliver non-drug-based interventions. This has included cases where young autistic people on children’s wards have been provided with some level of speech and language therapy, arts and crafts, and general help with establishing a routine. However, when the transition is made to post-18 adult services, the quality of care can drop off markedly, with no non-drug-based therapeutic treatment delivered, leading to a decline in well-being. In many ways, as has already been said, this is little different from being held in a cell.
Having a wide range of these interventions means that in-patients can have greater choice and control over their care—another key principle of the Bill. The use of non-drug-based therapies in hospital is important, not only to provide a therapeutically beneficial environment during detention but to ensure some essential continuity of support after discharge.
My Amendment 51 differs from Amendment 50 in that it would apply only to autistic people and those with a learning disability detained under Part III. It would ensure that the clinical checklist is followed when treatment decisions are made when making those decisions includes specific consideration of whether non-drug-based interventions are more appropriate in place of, or in addition to, medication.
As we have already discussed, one of the most significant changes in this Bill is the change to the detention criteria in Part II, Section 3. This means that autistic people or people with a learning disability cannot be detained under Section 3 unless they had a co-existing psychiatric disorder. However, this is not being applied to Part III patients—that is, those detained through the criminal justice system. This means that autistic people and people with a learning disability can continue to be detained for “treatment” in mental health hospitals under Part III, even if they do not have co-existing psychiatric disorders. One of the concerns about the Bill, as we have heard, is that a consequence of poor implementation could mean that more autistic people and people with a learning disability are diverted into the criminal justice pathway to get round, frankly, the new detention criteria for Section 3.
It could well be the case that Part II patients who are autistic or have a learning disability will exhibit behaviours that challenge, for which certain psychotropic medications can be prescribed. These medications can include anti-depressants, anti-seizure or anti-psychotic medications, sedatives or stimulants. NHS England’s website states:
“People with a learning disability are thought to be 16 times more likely and autistic people 7 times more likely to be prescribed an antipsychotic than the general population”,
despite existing guidance that people should be given psychotropic medication for only the right reasons, in the lowest dose and for the shortest time.
I simply conclude by saying that the focus on non-drug-based interventions in these amendments is not about saying that medication should not be used. Indeed, it can be highly beneficial in many cases. It is about ensuring that other factors that contribute to therapeutic benefit are always considered and put on an equal footing.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 148, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hollins. I also support all the amendments in this group. Indeed, on the ones introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I very much support the stories that we have heard and which he spoke about at Second Reading. I also note the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, about non-drug therapies, which relate very much to what I will talk about.
I will make one general point: a generational change in the whole field of mental health is happening globally, with a shift towards more social interventions and preventions. This wider context needs to be recognised a bit more in the Bill. Amendment 148, which is about withdrawal from dependency-building drugs, is part of that context. I also agree very much with the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, just made that drugs are needed, and with the powerful points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in the last day in Committee on the real pressures and problems that people within the NHS and beyond face in working with some of the people they end up having to work with, and on the conditions that they are working in. This emphasis on social interventions, therefore, is not at the expense of other aspects of mental health.
Some of these interventions do harm. I will come on to the point about withdrawing from drugs. On reducing prescribing and supporting withdrawal, I do not understand why this Government, through the Bill or otherwise, are not making changes that could help to reduce costs and improve services, which would take pressure off all services and, indeed, improve people’s economic position by enabling them to be fit to work.
Lord Mawson (CB)
I support Amendment 148 from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. I have just arrived back from a three-day event with Professor Brian Cox in Northern Ireland, where we had been bringing together the NHS, schools, the business community and the public sector around a whole programme on innovation and how we think about the future with regard to these matters, taking the principles that we originally developed at the Bromley by Bow Centre in the East End of London, now nationally across the country.
If I look like I am in recovery, it is because I am—I have literally just landed trying to get back here. I apologise that I could not take part in the Second Reading, because being a working Peer, sometimes it is not very easy to fit all this into the diary. One does one’s best.
I am very aware of the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is raising. Indeed, I tabled a number of Written Questions this week about this very matter. I support the amendments because we have a very serious problem out there. My GP colleagues are telling me, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has said, that one in five adults in England is on antidepressants; it is one in four in Scotland. This is a really serious problem.
As a country, we need to return to a discussion and a conversation, as the Health Secretary—I hope, in the spring—prepares to help us rethink the future of the NHS. We need to return to the question that we asked 40 years ago in the East End of London, the fundamental question: “What is health?” What we see happening here is serious for hundreds of thousands of people and is driving a culture. We also need to start to worry about what is happening within the machinery of the NHS and the state, as it drives these sorts of cultures.
Finally, as I put down in one of my Written Questions, we need to be asking, practically, “How much is it costing the taxpayer to drive these kinds of cultures?” It is serious, but the problem is also an opportunity, if interest is raised in the work of those of us who have been doing stuff on the front line for many years with our GP colleagues. I see the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, there: we have rebuilt a street together, with a £40 million school, a £60 million health centre, 600 homes and now a primary school, exploring this, in what when we began was a dysfunctional housing estate.
There is a real opportunity out there, but we now need to get real about antidepressants.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have some points I would like to probe in this group.
I especially welcome Amendment 95 and the proposed new clause:
“Ascertaining and learning from patients’ experiences of hospital treatment”.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, made very powerful and moving points; we could really take those on board. I have some reservations, however: we live in a complaints culture. I am concerned that this important notion of learning from patients’ experiences does not become a way of stigmatising hospital staff and psychiatrists, with people queueing up to point the finger. There are many people I know who have experiences of hospital who will, at a particular time, tell you it was a terrible experience, and then, at another time, acknowledge that it saved their life. It depends on what phase they are in, in relation to their illness, in some ways—it is about their perspective. So I both welcome it and challenge it.
I am very keen, as we all are, that treatments are taken seriously, whether administered in hospital or in the community. As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, note in Amendment 148—for me, the most important amendment in this group—we need to be alert to when, for example, the use of psychiatric medication as a treatment creates a problem of dependency. We all know that this is a growing problem. We must consider that.
On the tenor of Amendments 50 and 51 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler and Lady Bennett, on non-drug-based forms of medical treatment, I am less convinced by the emphasis here. I am worried about simply giving a wholly positive view of psychological and therapeutic treatments, because it perhaps misses some of the changes in today’s culture that lead to the overprescription of, for example, antidepressants.
When I was working in community mental health many moons ago, the fashion among progressives in the therapeutic community was often anti-psychiatry, anti-hospital and most definitely anti-pharmacological interventions, with a huge hostility to the pharmaceutical industry. I did not always go along with it, but that was the kind of mood. Peculiarly, I would argue that, today, it is therapeutic experts, counsellors and psychological practitioners who, by becoming diagnostically trigger-happy in labelling people as ill, are creating a huge demand both for third-party interventions, as I have discussed in previous speeches, and for treatment. That often leads to a clamouring, especially among younger people, for pills to help them to cope with the travails of life, and it has been egged on in some ways by therapeutic practitioners.
I had my attention drawn to this when, at the Academy of Ideas, I organised a debate on young people, mental health and those kinds of issues. The audience was largely young people, who said that the problem was that psychiatrists, GPs and doctors would not listen to them and would not believe that they were mentally ill. They demanded treatment and were quite aggressive. It was young people saying, “Where are my tablets?”, and I thought, “Oh, life’s changed slightly”. The psychiatrists in the room were trying to hold the line and gently suggest that maybe they were not ill, but that led to an even more hysterical reaction: “How dare you say I’m not ill?” They went on to explain how they had had a chat with their school counsellor, and they were sure they were ill, and they wanted the tablets.
If we can take a popular example that I appreciate might get me into the heart of an argument that I do not want to be in regarding the slippage between autism and mental illness, I am going to talk about ADHD. ADHD is the fashionable disorder of the day. Huge numbers of students and school pupils are demanding that their neurodevelopmental disorder is recognised and catered for. In my view, it is often diagnosed promiscuously and that is leading to huge demands that are detrimental to education and likely to make councils go bankrupt and schools collapse—but that is for a different debate and a different Bill. ADHD is also leading to a demand for tablets.
I go along with those who were warning about overdiagnosis. The Times reports that 278,000 people in England are on central nervous system stimulus to treat ADHD, and there was an 18% hike in prescriptions for ADHD drugs between April 2023 and March 2024. In the US, the figures are startling, and we should be wary of them, with 7 million American children who are said to have ADHD. As the New York Times has said, there is a danger that we are using stimulants to suppress
“all spontaneous behaviour in normal children”
by pumping them with Ritalin and other calming drugs and sedating normal children. In a broad sense, that is a worry.
Talking of treatments, I think the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, made the point that a social problem is being created of people feeling that if they are ill, they cannot go to work and of over-giving them drugs. All sorts of problems go along with that. Is it not tragic that so many people want to have these drugs, either for themselves or for their children, in order to feel that they can cope, when they are really not that ill or not ill at all, but they have the label? I am wary of inappropriate treatments, but perhaps the problem needs to be looked at differently, as stemming from inflated and expansive diagnostic criteria often deployed from within the therapeutic community rather than psychiatry.
We should not be naive in thinking that non-drug-based therapeutic interventions are virtuous per se. Counselling, for example, has extended its reach into British society so much that it is now a rare family that has no experience of the phenomenon. I am sure that we all know that going to a therapist or counsellor is, to say the least, a mixed bag when, ironically, they end up saying that you need to have third-party intervention or medical intervention. It is bad for the nation’s health.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will be brief, but in following the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, I have to note that I do not believe that a complaints culture is a problem in the contexts covered by this Bill. There is, perhaps, a lack of listening to patients and those affected, and a lack of action rather than a problem with listening to complaints. In that context, I commend the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who cited extensive testimony from Blooming Change. One thing that struck me when looking back over the previous days of Committee was that it would have been good to hear, perhaps even more than we did, direct testimony and the voices of those who are experts by experience. The phrase “nothing about us without us” really stuck in my mind and it is important that we keep that in mind throughout Committee. Again in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I think it is important not to seek to downplay the mental health crisis that we are seeing across our society. There is a huge shortage of services meeting people’s very clear and acute needs, and acute needs are what we are largely covering in this Bill.
I attached my name to Amendments 50 and 51 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, which address non-drug-based interventions. In essence, I agree with everything the noble Baroness said; I just want to stress her points. When we talk about non-drug-based therapies, we are tempted to think we mean talking therapies and psychological therapies. Those are tremendously important, but this is where we also need to take the broader public health context. I mentioned on an earlier group digital treatments such as Avatar for those who hear voices. They are the kind of new, different ways of looking at things that people may not have been trained in, and it is important that they are considered. I also talked a fair bit about the gut-brain axis and dietary interventions such as green prescribing, in which we have seen great advances across the medical fields in recent years—exposure to green spaces and the chance to get exercise in green spaces. That makes me think that we need to think about facilities and how we make sure there is provision within them, which, in some ways, this amendment would help to cover.
As a noble Lord said earlier, we are talking about making sure we are treating the whole person and not a condition with a drug. I thought the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, was very important, as is his amendment. I am not sure whether it needs to be in the Bill, but it would be interesting to have the Minister’s comments on making sure that consideration of withdrawal symptoms is part of prescribing practice. That is absolutely key and central. I note a report from the universities of Berlin and Cologne out last year which showed that the second-most prescribed antidepressant in the UK, venlafaxine, also has the second-highest rate of problem withdrawal symptoms. We need to make sure that is carefully considered pre-stage—before we get to the withdrawal stage, are we going to create that problem? I do not know whether it could be incorporated in the amendment, but it is something to think about anyway.
The other amendment—slightly oddly—in this group in my name is Amendment 154, which again, as on a previous group, I put down at the request of the Law Society. It is about mental health tribunal pilots for challenges against treatment decisions. To some degree, we have already discussed this in the earlier group, but I would be interested in whether the Minister has any comment on the amendment. I think that it is fairly self-explanatory, so I will not go through it further.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 54A and 54B in my name, which are on a very narrow part of the treatment plan for individuals. Before I do that, let me say that I support the amendments in this group, particularly the general thrust of what been said; that is, that the automatic medical model must no longer be the default position and a much more social model must be added on to the medical model so that they complement each other.
Having said that, I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, but found it very difficult to understand what was required. She argued against the use of medication but then argued against quite a lot of the non-medicated issues. Her intervention was a bit confusing in terms of understanding what the importance was.
My amendments are predominantly about Clause 18, which is about the use of ECT. The clause allows for the emergency use of ECT based on a second medical opinion. The element I wish to speak to is the very wide Henry VIII power that the Government wish to give themselves in regulations to do away with the second medical opinion in an emergency. The Bill says:
“The appropriate national authority may by regulations amend this Act to provide for circumstances in which functions of a second opinion appointed doctor in relation to treatment falling within section 62ZA(1) may or must be carried out instead by the approved clinician in charge of the treatment in question”.
New Section 62ZB(3) then says:
“Regulations under this section may make … (a) provision subject to specified exceptions; (b) different provision for different cases; (c) transitional, consequential, incidental or supplemental provision”.
That is quite a wide Henry VIII power.
To prove that I really am Billy No-Mates and do not get out often on a cold night, I read the wonderful 10th report of this Session from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which makes exactly the same points but in more eloquent language. This is a very wide Henry VIII power, and the committee does not really understand why the Government are seeking—even though it is through the affirmative procedure—such wide powers in such broad language.
The committee said that it would expect the power to be drafted with significant limitations and a framework for when it could be used. My amendment seeks to do exactly that. It would not prevent the clinician in change from using ECT in an emergency case without referring to a second practitioner in certain circumstances, but the regulations would be within a framework laid out in Amendment 54B, that
“the treatment is immediately necessary to save the patient’s life … obtaining a second opinion would cause a delay that places the patient at a significant and imminent risk of death or serious physical harm, and … the treatment is reversible”.
The regulations would have to be written so that
“Any amendment made under subsection (1) must specify the exceptional nature of the circumstances in which the second opinion may be dispensed with”.
A report to Parliament on subsection (1) dispensations would also have to be made.
I believe, from reading the wise words of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report, that it is important that the regulations have a framework, so that the Minister still has flexibility but is constrained by what is in the Bill. That is why I have spoken to this amendment.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, I feel I must poke my nose in on these of amendments, even though I do not have an amendment. I support the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and his various amendments. I particularly like the amendment that would require children and their families to be asked the month after how it all went.
We are hearing described the appalling nature of many mental health services. It is not just children’s services. Although they may be a very good example, as many of them are not fit for purpose, we would get the same complaints and the same appalling state of affairs if we went around other mental health services across the country. It is heartbreaking. I truly believe that services have deteriorated since I practised in hospitals. People, including my former colleagues who are still practising, say that services are completely disorganised and not fit for purpose. We have known for 50 years that the social model of care was an appropriate model, and that you need psychological and social psychotherapeutic interventions, as well as any drugs that might be helpful. They are not going on because there is no availability anywhere.
We have known since at least the 1960s that patients with schizophrenia, for example, can benefit by being taught, one-to-one, about how to interact with people when they are recovering from an episode. That never happens, because we do not employ teachers in the NHS—we just do not do it. We do not employ the right sort of people and we do not have the right sort of facilities. When people are employed, there are so few of them that it is simply impossible to do what is necessary. I am not defending this, because there are some very good units—I am sure that there are some very good children’s and young people’s units—but they are not the norm anymore, and that is a very sad state of affairs.
Sadly, legislation through mental health Bills will not, unfortunately, solve the problem. What we are talking about is not only a fundamental change of culture and getting on with all the things that we know should be done; there needs to be investment and a totally different approach to mental health. All the things that we know should be done cannot be delivered by mental health legislation alone. I say that because we are trying to shove too much into the Bill and hoping for the best, but I do not think that it will work.
Later in the debate on these amendments, noble Lords moved away from talking about people who were very unwell and who need in-patient care to talking about this vast mass of people who are diagnosed with conditions where they cannot work. That is a whole new ball game. I agree with almost every word that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, because there is no doubt that there is a massive overdiagnosis of things that are called “mental disorder”, when they are in fact distress and need a different sort of approach.
A young friend of mine—a gentleman who is now in his final years training as a maxillofacial surgeon—had a period of great distress because of family circumstances. He sat down on his own one evening and went to a website, “Diagnose yourself”. He rang me and said, “I’ve been diagnosed as having ADHD”. I cannot imagine anybody who is less likely to have ADHD than this young man, who is the most socially competent young man I know. This morning, my husband and I had a go on the website together—he did one test and I did another—and we both came up with the same result: “You probably have ADHD”. Well, maybe I am, folks, but I am not going to go on the Ritalin yet. There are a lot of websites that are utter rubbish and encourage people to pay money to see psychotherapists and other counsellors to see what the matter is with them, so that other people can put money in their pockets for doing not much.
That is the different end of the spectrum. When we are thinking about these things, we have to think about what the patient has. Is it something that can be diagnosed—heaven knows that colleagues here were very keen that we should have a diagnosis—or something at the other end of the spectrum? With the Mental Health Bill, we are talking about when you can detain people, take away their rights and say, “We are detaining you”, to treat them, and protect them from wrong treatment, bad doctoring and bad staff. That is what the Mental Health Act is for.
But I am afraid that it is not to do with any of this other stuff. We have to think through what really has to be in the Bill to protect the patients and the staff and what cannot go in there because it is not relevant to these issues.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I want to ask the noble Baroness a question. I agree that this Mental Health Bill should be confined to and is about the people who are very poorly and could be in danger of being detained—I understand that. However, all the time when we have these discussions, we are talking about a problem with a lack of resources. In the noble Baroness’s experience, is the broader mental health crisis taking away resources and focus, not in this Bill but in society, from giving that acute mental health care the resources that it needs—because it is being spread far too thinly across ever greater numbers?
Baroness Murphy (CB)
Yes, I would say that indeed it was. That year when they gave an extra £400,000 to spreading psychotherapy around was the same time when we were having incredible crises in acute hospital services, and I thought that it was not justified. But the mental health crisis that we have in this country is the same one that they were complaining about in 1860, 1870 and 1880; every generation believes that it is worse off than the generation before, but there is not much evidence that it is.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, having just heard the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, I shall be extremely cautious about what I look at on the internet. I want to say just two or three words. I have experience from my own family and from my friends of two sets of drugs—anti-depressants and Ritalin—and they really should be used a great deal more cautiously.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, now is not the time to have the extensive debate that the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, has opened up. I said right at the outset that we are talking about legislation that comes into play when a person is going to be detained because they are very ill and at risk of harming themselves or somebody else. But I would say to the noble Baroness that the Wessely review looked at this issue at considerable length, and I was among the Peers who listened to Sir Simon Wessely when he came to present his findings. One thing that has stuck with me is the person who gave evidence to his review who said: “I was very ill. I had to have treatment. Why did it have to feel so awful?”—I am using parliamentary language there. Does the noble Baroness accept that mental health legislation debates such as this might be limited, but they do an important thing in sometimes challenging the prevailing orthodoxy among the professions, and they are an occasion where the experience of patients, which have built up over many years, gets a chance to change practice? That is why we should look at all the amendments in this group, and in particular those of the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, has said. She is absolutely right that professions should be challenged, and that is partly what legislation can do, particularly in debates such as this. But we are losing the very important amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about young people and what we can do to improve circumstances through the Bill, and I want not to lose them, because they are very important.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
Very briefly on the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, raised, the notion of supply-induced demand is a well-known phenomenon across health services. However, I have to say to her that I think that we are a long way off that being the problem that is principally confronting children and young people’s mental health services. We have a massive gap between the need for effective therapies for children and young people and their availability.
When the process of trying to expand children and young people’s mental health services kicked off several years ago, the goal was that we would get to a situation where one in three children and young people with a diagnosable mental health condition would get some form of specialist mental health support. That number has now been exceeded. I was just looking at the stats published last week and, although I do not see the most up-to-date number for it, I would be surprised if more than one in two are currently getting specialist mental health support for a diagnosable mental health disorder, not just distress. So, we are a long way off confronting this problem of supply-induced demand, whatever broader cultural or therapeutic labelling questions that she rightly points to may be in the ether. Fundamentally, we are going to need more services to benefit the children and young people who need them, not pretend that this is somehow all vapourware, imaginary or a cultural deformity, unlike our predecessors in the Victorian era.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions on this important set of amendments. I say at the outset that I note the various observations that are outside the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, pointed out, but I have noted them and I am sure we will discuss them on a number of occasions.
First, I turn to Amendments 46 and 47, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I have heard how many noble Lords are in support not just of those two amendments but all the amendments in the group. I am sure noble Lords will not be surprised to know that I understand where people are coming from and I will be pleased to go through the response to them.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, spoke about “troubling and sensitive matters” and about being inspired by testimonies that came through the charity Blooming Change—I express my thanks to that organisation for the work it does. Officials in the department have met the group and it made a very helpful contribution. Hearing from those with lived experience is crucial to making sure that this is the best Bill, and I know that many noble Lords have done that, so I thank the noble Earl for bringing that into these amendments.
Amendments 46 and 47 would change the definition of appropriate medical treatment to include treatment which
“seeks to minimise the patient’s distress and promote psychological wellbeing and recovery from any childhood trauma”.
Childhood trauma can of course have a devastating impact on psychological well-being. Effective and compassionate in-patient care must be informed, as I have said, in co-production with people with lived experience and be trauma informed. NHS England’s Culture of Care Standards for Mental Health Inpatient Services certainly underlines this.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and other noble Lords raised concerns around in-patient settings and how appropriate they are, which I understand. I hope it will be helpful to say in answer that the new definition of “appropriate medical treatment” introduces the requirement that treatment has to have a reasonable prospect of benefiting the patient. We would expect the setting in which someone is going to be detained to be considered as part of this. Of course, I am more than aware—without wanting to go into the generics in this group or any other group—that the place in which we start, in terms of the suitability and availability of the right settings, is not where I am sure any of us would want to be.
We also know that the sensory environments in settings can cause difficulties for people with sensory sensitivities. To support NHS services to address sensory aspects of the environment, which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to, NHS England has published a sensory-friendly resource pack, which outlines 10 principles to improve the sensory environment and signposts other resources.
The clause in the Bill that defines “appropriate medical treatment” already requires decision-makers to take into account the nature and degree of the disorder and all other circumstances, which could include childhood trauma, when considering whether medical treatment has a reasonable prospect of therapeutic benefit. The definition of medical treatment is unchanged and is indeed broad, including nursing care, psychological therapy and medication. All these interventions could include an overall aim to minimise distress and promote psychological well-being.
Amendments 50 and 51, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler and Lady Bennett, aim to ensure that the clinician considers non-drug-based interventions as part of the new “clinical checklist”. The checklist requires clinicians to identify and evaluate alternative forms of medical treatment when deciding whether to give a particular medical treatment to a patient. As I have already mentioned, the definition of medical treatment under the Act is broad. As well as non-drug-based interventions, it includes specialist mental health rehabilitation and care. On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which is an important one, it does include the therapeutic environment or setting. This requirement, as outlined, would apply to all patients falling under Part IV of the Act. It includes patients with a learning disability and autistic patients who are detained for assessment under Section 2 and patients detained for treatment under Part III.
With specific regard to those with a learning disability and autistic people, I recognise the concern that they are more likely to be prescribed an antipsychotic than the general population. I emphasise that psychotropic medication should only be given for the right reasons, in the lowest dose, for the shortest time. NHS England has a national programme of work to stop overmedication and the inappropriate prescribing of these medications, which is aimed in particular at people with a learning disability and autistic people. Noble Lords will be aware of the STOMP programme. Alongside it is a national supporting treatment and appropriate medication in paediatrics programme called STAMP—the two are not to be confused. These programmes work particularly closely with those with lived experience, families and carers organisations, and a wide range of health and social care professional bodies.
Amendment 53, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, would require the approved clinician to offer a patient any treatment that is appropriate, having applied the new clinical checklist. The reference to medical treatment in that checklist should already be read in accordance with Clause 8, which inserts a new definition of appropriate medical treatment to enact the principle of therapeutic benefit.
The clinician must also support the patient to participate in decision-making to make sure that they do not simply offer their preferred treatment to the patient, with no discussion or consideration of alternatives. The Bill also requires clinicians and, where relevant, the second opinion appointed doctor to provide a written record that the treatment being administered meets the definition of appropriate medical treatment. Therefore, it is felt that the Bill already meets the intention of this amendment. Furthermore, if the intention is to ensure that a range of treatments is being considered by the responsible clinician, I can reassure noble Lords that this is already the case, because, as I have said, the definition of medical treatment is broad.
Lord Scriven (LD)
The Minister has reeled off a very good list of what is already in place. Have the Government done an assessment to see exactly how that learning is ingrained and how effective it has been in changing mental health provision and mental health services? If not, could she please go back to her department to try to find that, and write to Members of the Committee so we can see that in writing?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I would be very pleased to look into it further, but, as I have described, this is a rolling programme. I emphasise that the CQC has that duty both to monitor but also to make the relevant bodies subject to sanctions if needed—in other words, more immediately. So I am concerned that through this amendment we could be creating a structure which is actually less flexible and responsive than the one we have now.
Amendment 148, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, would impose on integrated care boards—ICBs—a legally binding duty to provide local, in-person, specialist withdrawal treatments for patients on psychiatric medication prescribed during the course of their treatment by services under the Mental Health Act. In addition, there would be a duty on each ICB to send to the Secretary of State an annual report on the availability, uptake and outcomes of this support. Under this amendment, the Secretary of State would be obliged to lay these reports before Parliament. ICBs would also be subject to a requirement to provide a 24-hour helpline and online platform to support patients to receive withdrawal treatment.
Let me say at the outset that I recognise the difficulties that withdrawal can pose. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, spoke on this very point in the Chamber last month and was also good enough to speak directly to me. It is, I agree, an issue that will not go away and, per the noble Lord’s request, I would be happy to arrange a meeting. I feel there is a whole area here to which we today, considering amendments, cannot do justice, so I would be pleased to do that. To the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, who has tabled Written Questions, I say that I look forward to answering them, and I hope that he will look forward to reading my Answers.
Where relevant, we would expect the patient’s statutory care and treatment plan to include a tapering plan and put in place whatever additional support is needed to enable a patient’s recovery and effective discharge. On the requirement to provide support in the community and report on availability, this is the responsibility of local health commissioners. In 2023, NHSE published a framework for ICBs and primary care boards on how to optimise personalised care for patients prescribed medicines associated with dependence or withdrawal symptoms. With regard to the requirement in the amendment for a 24-hour helpline, this would not seem proportionate, given the relatively low numbers of people who might need this service, who should already have a support plan in place, including access to relevant local support services.
Finally, Amendment 154, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations giving people detained in hospital and those subject to community treatment or guardianship orders the ability to have certain care and treatment matters considered by a mental health tribunal.
This is a very complex area, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware. The amendment seems to draw on the recommendation made by the independent review to give patients a new right of appeal to a single judge of the mental health tribunal regarding compulsory treatment. I recall that the previous Government publicly consulted on this new right, and the majority of respondents raised major concerns in this regard. The consultation was followed by further long and careful consideration with stakeholders, which led the then Government to the conclusion that this safeguard is just not viable. A solution could not be found that provided an efficient and effective route of appeal for patients while avoiding the risks of the tribunal intervening in clinical decision-making, alongside significant resource burdens. Many of these concerns were reflected in the report of the pre-legislative scrutiny committee, which also acknowledged the complexity of the issue.
We believe that the other provisions in the Bill will better achieve the same objectives of providing patient choice and autonomy, so while we do not support introducing a new role for the tribunal, I assure your Lordships that the emphasis on therapeutic benefit within the detention criteria will mean that whether care and treatment are proving effective will play a role in the tribunal’s consideration of whether or not detention should continue to be upheld. With these explanations, I hope that the noble Earl feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate in such compelling ways, and I think we can see that when it comes to the experiences of children and young people in mental health units, we are dealing with a story that is a lot more substantial than mere anecdote. From briefing I have received, I am afraid I have been left in no doubt that the therapeutic environment in a number of mental health hospitals around the country—not all, of course—is, to put it mildly, a lot less than optimal.
Clearly, it is unacceptable for any patient, of whatever age, to be detained compulsorily without being offered treatment. It is unacceptable that drugs or restraint should be used as punishments. Challenging behaviour can be difficult to deal with, but staff should be trained to deal with it in a way that demonstrates that they understand the root causes of the behaviour. Those causes can be extremely complex.
To pick up another strand of the debate, I am in no doubt that medication has a place in mental health therapy. It can often be the treatment of choice. It is one tool in the toolbox. However, I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, had to say about social prescribing. It can not only be clinically effective but save costs if it is delivered, for example, by local charities that work in the fields of music, drama or art. Incidentally, it can help budding musicians, actors and artists in their downtime to train as music, art or drama therapists, which is an added bonus.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
“(7) In section 24 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (Advance decisions to refuse treatment: general), after subsection (5), insert—“(6) For an “Advance decision” in relation to a treatment for a mental disorder under the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983, a person may make a decision once they have reached 16.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends advance decisions to those who are 16 and over.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 55 I will speak to Amendment 136; both are in my name. This is another very important group, about children and young people’s competence and decision-making. Amendment 55 is about extending advanced decisions to those who are aged 16 and over. I recognise that there is also an important amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about advanced decisions—a similar issue, but perhaps taking a different approach.
The Bill will give legal weight to advance decisions within the Mental Health Act, which I very much welcome. Adults will be able to record their advance refusal of a particular treatment if they lose capacity. An advance decision will have the same effect as a refusal of treatment made with capacity and will ensure that the individual can access enhanced safeguards before the treatment can be given. Although advance choice documents, where advance decisions will be recorded, will be available to adults of all ages, the Bill as drafted does not permit under-18s to make advance decisions. As such, someone aged under 18 could say in an advance choice document that they refuse a particular treatment if they would not want it, but that would have limited weight. Specifically, it would mean that, if the child or young person lacked capacity or competence to consent to treatment when it was offered, their advance refusal would not give them access to the enhanced treatment safeguards that are available to adults, including tribunal appeal.
This means that, rather than being on an equal footing, children and young people would be disadvantaged compared with adults. Therefore, I see this very much as part of parity of treatment between children and adults. I am strongly of the view that the safeguards that flow from advance refusals of treatment should also be made available to young people. This is what my Amendment 55 is designed to do.
I add one more general point. We still have work to do in Committee to strengthen safeguards and protections for children and young people in mental health in-patient care. There should be a general principle of parity of treatment between children and young people and adults. Of course I recognise that some distinctions have to be made due to the legal status of under-18s, but I said at Second Reading, and it remains my view, that this Bill was never really designed with children and young people in mind, yet it can affect them greatly. In responding, can the Minister set out how much input DfE Ministers and officials have had on the drafting of the Bill?
It will probably help if I explain that Amendment 136 is closely related to Amendment 147, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, whom I have had the opportunity of corresponding with. I do not want, in speaking first, to pre-empt what the noble Lord will say, but I need to reference his amendment to explain mine. I share the concern that the Bill does not include a test to determine the ability of children under the age of 16 to make decisions—in other words, whether they are competent. Without such a test, this age group will not be able to benefit fully from the rights and safeguards included in the Bill; the question is how we best get there.
Under-16s are currently at a disadvantage. Whereas all those aged 16 and over are presumed to have capacity to make decisions for themselves unless evidence shows otherwise—in which case the Mental Capacity Act kicks in—under-16s are presumed to be unable to make decisions for themselves unless they demonstrate that they are competent to do so. There is also no clear and consistent approach for determining whether a child is competent. Although the concept of competence is generally understood, how to assess a child’s competence is not.
That is why I have a lot of sympathy with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, which would insert a test for determining the ability of someone aged under 16 to make decisions under this legislation. His amendment explicitly limits this test to decisions made under the mental health legislation and is explicitly focused on the criteria with which to determine whether a child is competent. No doubt he will explain his amendment far more eloquently than I could ever do. My amendment would require the Secretary of State to review whether a statutory test for under-16s would be expedient for the purpose of this Act and for mental health legislation more generally. It is very much a stepping stone towards that position and, I hope, supports change in this area.
Such a review is important because it could address some of the concerns that have been expressed in this area. It could include whether such a test should be in the Bill or in a code, how best to make it clear that a test will be specific to the scope of legislation rather than having wider application, and how such a test would help with the successful implementation of the Bill. It could help to establish that the test is specific to whether a particular child can make a particular decision at a particular time, and set out what information is required.
I am aware that, in some of our broader discussions, concerns have been raised about the possible unintended consequences of such a test in relation both to parental responsibility and to a child being seen as Gillick competent—that is, they have the ability to understand the decision. I feel that a review would be helpful in looking at these issues and addressing those concerns head-on. In that way, we would make important steps in ensuring that the whole of the mental health reforms work properly and fairly for all children and young people. I beg to move.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness has just said, my Amendment 147, which deals with competence and decision-making, would provide what I suggest is a necessary statutory test to determine the decision-making competence of children under 16 years of age in all matters under this legislation for which such a determination is required. The Joint Committee on the draft Bill pointed out, echoing what was said in the independent review of the 1983 Act, that attempts both to protect and to empower children have produced a complex mixture of statute and case law with no single method of assessment and no consistent criteria to establish either capacity or competence. This is a particular disadvantage for children and young people, who do not have the benefit of any statutory presumption of competence such as that which applies to adults.
Importantly, the amendment, although offering a test, does not create any presumption of capacity in a child. Moreover, the reason for the child’s inability to decide is irrelevant. It would, however, require that those determining whether a child is competent must give reasonable grounds for reaching that conclusion. It is important to emphasise that this amendment is concerned only with how to assess whether a child is competent and not with the consequences of any determination that a child is competent.
This Bill has been produced with numerous references to capacity and/or competence in various contexts, including consent to CETR meetings, “disclosure of information”, “consent to treatment”, making advance choice decisions,
“terminating the appointment of a nominated person”
and involving “mental health advocates”. However, the Bill is currently silent on what is meant by “competence” and how it should be determined.
The existing statutory test in the Mental Capacity Act does not apply to those under 16. The separate concept of Gillick competence—it is derived from the pivotal case of that name, decided in 1986—requires inherently subjective assessments of the child’s understanding and maturity. I speak with some experience of having to decide whether or not a child is competent to participate independently in court proceedings concerning them. That exercise sometimes feels rather paternalistic and is, as has been pointed out, really subjective, with the test in Gillick offering no guidance on the extent to which adjustment should be made for factors such as peer pressure, drug and substance abuse, family stress, emotional disturbance or illness.
More recent case law shows that the Mental Capacity Act can be used to inform an assessment of child competence, but it is not mandatory to do so. The factors set out in this amendment to indicate a child’s ability to decide are the features carefully identified by Mr Justice Cobb, as he then was, in a case decided in 2017 concerning the difficult question of whether or not a girl under 16 had the capacity to consent to her child being adopted.
I therefore suggest that there is now a need for clearer and more rigorous guidelines—structured guidelines that are not just mechanistic checklists—for mental health and legal professionals to work with. The assessments that have to be made of a child’s ability to understand and weigh relevant information need to be decision-specific, child-specific and time-specific, and they have to recognise that competence can fluctuate as well as evolve. These are not straightforward assessments and are certainly not a mere formality.
A statutory test would be welcomed by practitioners and the courts. This is too important to be left to the code of practice; such codes are intended to reflect and supplement the law, not to create law. A clear test in the statute would only be of assistance to practitioners and would allow children to benefit from the safeguards within the Bill.
Baroness Browning (Con)
With the wealth of his experience in dealing with children, could the noble Lord give the House a feel for whether, when assessing the competence particularly of children from a younger age group, there are cases where they understand the situation that is explained to them but, when a decision is subsequently required, there is less clarity on how to make it themselves? I ask that because I know that, often, certain adults on the autism spectrum in a similar situation can fully comprehend a situation that is explained, if necessary, and have capacity, but making the decision between one, two or more choices is much more problematic.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I understand the dilemma. The point I emphasise is that, in deciding this, one has to be clear that the child has a proper explanation of the ultimate decision that has to be made. It is to that end that the competence has to be assessed.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
For those of us who are not anywhere near as legally expert as the noble Lord whose wise deliberations we have just heard, could he clarify the amendment that talks specifically about ring-fencing this new test for the Mental Health Bill? To what extent would that be consistent or not with, for example, the ruling of the Court of Appeal in Bell v Tavistock—the NHS trust—in the case of puberty blockers, which concerned the interpretation that the High Court had given to the Gillick test?
Lord Meston (CB)
I am tempted to say that I really do not know. That was a faster ball than I expected to receive. I think the answer is that the case law would be consistently applied, even as it stands now, but would undoubtedly be aided by a statutory test. Whether it would apply in cases such as that which the noble Lord just mentioned, I do not know. The purpose of the amendment is to provide a test for decisions that have to be made consequential upon this legislation, not other situations.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, just said. The two interjections were very interesting but they do not really affect the guidance. That is crucial. The question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, as to whether you can understand it but cannot make a decision, may well affect how the person applying the guidance does so. That would be one of the issues for whoever has the uncomfortable task of making the decision.
I think the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, is too cautious. If we go back to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, there is clear explanation and guidance in primary legislation as to how anyone who has to judge capacity is to do it. What we are talking about here—incompetence—is quite simply capacity. For some reason, which I find quite difficult, we seem to think that children under 16 have competence or do not, but over-16s have capacity or do not. It would have been far more sensible to use the same word for every person who will, in fact, be judged on whether they do or do not have capacity to make a decision of great importance, as it would be, in relation to mental health issues. I find it very odd.
However, and equally importantly, if it is in primary legislation for over-16s, why on earth would it be in guidance for under-16s? If it is good enough for over-16s, why is it not good enough for under-16s? The way the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has set this out seems admirable. It is very close to the Mental Capacity Act. I take and entirely agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, but the Government seem to have ignored children to a very large extent, although children are a very important part of this Bill. I do not blame the Minister, because she did not draft it, but she has to bring it to us. I tabled a lot of amendments about parents and people with parental responsibility because they are largely ignored; I will speak about that later. But where we are dealing with children aged under 16, it is essential that they are treated in the same way as everybody else and that has to be in the Bill—in primary legislation.
Young people have had to deal with these issues ever since Lord Denning was presiding in the Court of Appeal in Gillick, but he did not help us at that stage as to how actually to deal with it. Like the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I have also had to make decisions as to whether under-16s were giving me advice that I thought was really worthy of listening to. Children of five can give extraordinarily good explanations, though I do not expect them to give them on mental health issues. I urge the Minister: it is crucial that everyone whose capacity is a matter at issue has it treated in exactly the same way. Therefore, to put it into guidance really will not do.
I will also speak on Amendments 55 and 56. I am very concerned about children. Bear in mind, however much we treat children aged over 16 with respect and as having the capacity to make decisions, and however much we listen to them, as we should listen to all children, there are stroppy teenagers—we all know about them—who, for one reason or another, will not do what adults tell or advise them. I am very concerned, and I am not quite sure about this because I am no expert on mental health legislation, that if a 16 year-old has the right to make advance decisions and they just say, “I do not want any injections, I do not want any pills, I absolutely refuse to have any treatment”, then unless there is an ability to override them they will have capacity and cannot be ignored. One has to view advance decisions for 16 to 18 year-olds with some degree of care. I am not saying that they should not happen, but I am not happy about them being universal and without some ability for them to be overridden.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 147. I find myself in agreement with much that has been said. It has been a consistent recommendation to His Majesty’s Government since the independent review that there should be a statutory test of competence or capacity for those aged under 16. Of course, that means it should be in the Bill. This has been supported by the Children’s Commissioner of late and by the Children and Young People’s Mental Health Alliance.
Therefore, I was disappointed to see the code of practice solution outlined in the Minister’s policy paper that we received yesterday. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, outlined, in the Mental Capacity Act, which applies to over-16s, there is a functional capacity test followed by the secondary mental impairment test. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, that under-16s are presumed to lack capacity, so you start from the opposite premise of the Mental Capacity Act for over-16s, who are presumed to have capacity. That puts them at an advantage: it has to be taken from them, rather than being given to under-16s.
I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. Great work is being done by clinicians up and down the country to apply Gillick competence tests, but throughout my time on the Joint Committee we did not seem to know whether there was any review or assessment as to how and when it is applied in hospitals and healthcare settings up and down the country. I fail to understand the Government’s reluctance to put this test in the Bill. How is such a reluctance compatible with one of the four guiding principles—to treat the person as an individual? Perhaps the Minister could outline the reasoning for this omission.
I also want to point to the problem of relying on the code of practice made under Section 118 of the Mental Health Act. On page 13 of the code of practice, there is a very clear description of the code and its legislative function:
“Whilst the whole of the Code should be followed, please note that where ‘must’ is used, it reflects legal obligations in legislation, (including other legislation such as the Human Rights Act 1998) or case law, and must be followed. Where the Code uses the term ‘should’ then departures should be documented and recorded”.
It then refers to explanatory paragraphs and continues:
“Where the Code gives guidance using the terms ‘may’, ‘can’ or ‘could’ then the guidance in the Code is to be followed wherever possible”.
In the Minister’s policy statements, there is often the use of “will”, which, as far as I understand, is a “must”. Bearing in mind what I just read, unless something is in the Bill then even putting this test into the Bill will mean that it is only, at the very best, a “should” and can be departed from. Obviously, that applies across all of the places in which the Minister relies on the defence of, “We’re going to put it in a code”. I note that it is a code that we have not seen and will be consulted on only after the passing of the legislation.
Dealing again with the amendment, it is important to determine capacity and, as Mind has said in its excellent briefing, the question of whether a person has capacity or competence to make the relevant decision is fundamental to the operation of key rights and safeguards. To build on the point from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, as I understand it the Bill contains 13 references to competence. It deals with such important matters as the appointment of their nominated person and, if you are under the age of 16, your freedom to choose someone other than the person with parental responsibility depends on your having competence. There is also the ability to refuse medication. To deal with the point made, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, who was concerned about leakage across, this is a very particular piece of legislation with such coercive power, as I am sure he is aware, that the case for putting the test in the Bill to open up those safeguards for young people is very important.
The Government’s response to the consultation stated:
“We are committed to ensuring that children and young people benefit from the reforms we plan to introduce”.
Will the Minister therefore explain again how the lack of a statutory test is consistent with maximising that choice and autonomy?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise briefly having attached my name to Amendment 147, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, was just speaking so powerfully. I will not repeat anything that people far more expert legally than me have already said, but will just make a couple of small points.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I make two specific points in response to what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said. The amendments refer to Section 24 of the Mental Capacity Act, but if one goes on to Section 25 of that Act, there are a number of conditions that have to be fulfilled in order for a record of an advanced decision to be deemed valid. I think it is worth pointing out subsection (5) to noble Lords, which states:
“An advance decision is not applicable to life-sustaining treatment unless … (a) the decision is verified by a statement by P to the effect that it is to apply to that treatment even if life is at risk, and (b) the decision and statement comply with subsection (6).
Subsection (6) states that it must be,
“in writing … it is signed by P or by another person in P's presence and by P's direction … the signature is made or acknowledged by P in the presence of a witness, and … the witness signs it, or acknowledges”
it to be true.
I am trying to convey to the noble and learned Baroness that these are very formal procedures. They are not taken lightly. That applies to somebody who is 18 and one day, and I think it should be applied to somebody who is younger than that with as much seriousness.
Noble Lords and others have referred to these decisions as advance decisions to refuse treatment. Advance decisions can also be for treatment. People can say in an advance decision, “I know that when I am in an episode of illness, I may be saying that I do not want medication. At this moment in time, when I have capacity, I wish it to be put down in writing that if I do that, you are to ignore it”.
I would like us to have a fuller appreciation of what it is we are talking about, although I do not detract from any of the considerations that people want to bring in about young people.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I venture to say that all the amendments in this group approach similar issues in not dissimilar ways. The most compelling point that perhaps should be underlined in relation to them all is that implied by the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston: that there is no earthly reason why the law should prohibit a young person with sufficient decision-making competence recording a valid expression of their wishes and preferences around their own mental health care, and the logical consequence of that is the need for a competence test, or a capacity test for child patients.
My Amendment 56 seeks to address an issue allied to those addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston. As it stands, the Bill does not permit a 16 or 17 year-old to make a valid advance decision about their mental health care. An advance decision has the same effect in practice as a capacity decision to refuse a particular treatment. It is important to understand that under the Mental Health Act, making an advance decision does not give someone an unfettered right to refuse that treatment. Treatment can still be administered notwithstanding the advance decision, albeit only if certain strict conditions are met. Nevertheless, an advance decision made by an adult patient carries a huge amount of weight, and placed within or alongside an advance choice document, which enables a patient to outline their treatment preferences, it does a great deal to ensure that the patient is placed genuinely in the driving seat when it comes to their mental health care and treatment.
Under the terms of the Bill, young persons aged 16 and 17 will be able to execute an advance choice document, but what they cannot do is to make an advance decision to sit alongside it. That means that an advance choice document that purports to include an advance decision made by an under 18 year-old is likely to carry a good deal less weight than such a document executed by an adult. My amendment invites the Government to put this right.
An associated but distinct issue arises in relation to children under the age of 16. I will not repeat the excellent arguments for a competency test put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, but I agree entirely with what they have said. The point that resonates most with me in the context of a Bill that places great emphasis on patient empowerment is that in the absence of a statutory competence test to determine a child’s decision-making ability, it will, in practice, be impossible for someone under 16 to execute an advance choice document and then expect professionals to take due notice of it.
Amendment 147, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, seems to me to be as good as it gets in articulating the key requirements necessary to establish decision-making competence in a child. My only hesitation about his amendment is that it invites us to place the terms of a competency test in the Bill without further ado. For a measure of this significance, I tend to feel that any final formula for a competence test merits a prior consultation exercise, and then encapsulation in regulations approved by Parliament. I fully agree with my noble friend Lady Berridge that relying on a code of practice in this context would be wholly unsatisfactory. For what it is worth, I suspect that a consultation would be likely to throw up some further considerations that would need to be factored in to the formula. That aside, I very much hope that the Minister will be receptive to the arguments she has heard. If we can deliver this added empowerment to children and, as regards advance decisions, to 16 and 17 year-olds, the prize will be very great, and I hope she agrees that the challenge is one we must address.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, if the noble Earl is suggesting that the provisions in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, should go either to consultation or to further consideration, will we not end up in a situation where this Bill becomes law and nothing is done to advise anyone, on the face of the legislation, how to deal with those under 16, although it is there for those over 16? Why should, in this particular instance, those under 16 basically be discriminated against? Whether or not they have capacity is the point of the amendment.
Earl Howe (Con)
I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness. I hope it was implicit in what I said that I would look to this Bill to include an order-making power that would enable regulations to be laid in due course that would cover not only 16 or 17 year-olds but also those under 16, and Parliament would then approve them. No doubt this is a matter that we can discuss further after this, but I hope that the point of principle is clear, which I fully support, that this issue needs to be sorted through this Bill.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I have listened to the noble Earl’s argument carefully, and in principle I support what he is trying to do. The only problem with leaving the matter to a statutory instrument, rather than putting it on the face of the Bill, is that it is far easier for the Secretary of State to change that, even despite the will of Parliament, based on the way that Parliament works. Why could it not be on the face of the Bill, to give absolute certainty, rather than in a statutory instrument, which normally gives flexibility and powers to a Minister?
Earl Howe (Con)
There are two answers to that. First, it is generally unthinkable for a Government to lay regulations without first having consulted the relevant parties. Secondly, if we are honest, putting something on the face of a Bill is not the whole story; there would need to be proper clinical guidance published alongside that for practical purposes for hospitals and elsewhere.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for examining the important issues that have been raised in this group of amendments.
Amendment 55, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, seeks to change the Mental Capacity Act to allow young people aged 16 or 17 the ability to make a binding advance decision to refuse medical treatment for mental disorder. I shall set out some concerns about the amendment that may be helpful.
First, the amendment would mean that a young person who is not detained under the Mental Health Act could refuse a mental health treatment, even if it was life-sustaining. While the Mental Health Act and the Bill currently provide safeguards that enable a person’s advance decision to be overruled, detention under the Act may not always be appropriate. For example, if a 16 year-old is left very unwell following an attempted suicide, then currently they may be given treatment on the basis of what is in their best interests, under the Mental Capacity Act, if they lack capacity to consent at the time. However, under the amendment, if the 16 year-old had made an advance decision to refuse treatment necessary for their recovery or to sustain their life, then they might need to be detained under the Mental Health Act simply so that their advance decision could be overruled. This is important in terms of timely access to treatment and to avoid loss of life, of course.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
What the Minister has just said is complex, but it strikes me, listening to that situation, that this might be a matter of hard cases making bad law. Could we be denying lots of people the chance to have a say because of the risk in a small number of cases? How would she respond to that?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The overall concern is as I have identified. Yes, indeed, as always, it is a complex area that we need to unpick, but our main concern has to be for the welfare of the young person. The concern about the amendment is that, inadvertently, it would work in the opposite direction.
To finish on Amendment 55—this might also be helpful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—we are of the view that the Bill strikes the right balance between self-determination and responding to the needs and vulnerabilities of children and young people. For example, in the clinical checklist, many of the new treatment safeguards and provisions around care and treatment planning apply equally regardless of age and aim to ensure that treatment is more patient-led.
Amendment 56, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, is somewhat similar to Amendment 55 in seeking to change the Mental Capacity Act to provide a mechanism by which children and young people can make an advance decision to refuse medical treatment for mental disorder. However, under Amendment 56, the child or young person’s advance decision would have legal weight only if they were detained under the Mental Health Act. As I have already discussed, while we recognise the principled position to extend the rights of adults to children, giving under-18s the right to make an advance decision to refuse treatment would conflict with a long- standing legal principle established by common law in the courts and codified in the Mental Capacity Act and would, therefore, mean that the amendment would not achieve its desired effect. This principle recognises that, in some serious cases, the courts, parents or those with parental responsibility may overrule the refusal of a child or young person, especially in cases where the child’s life is at risk.
I reassure noble Lords that we are nevertheless committed to giving children and young people a voice as far as possible when it comes to decisions about their care and treatment. I refer again to the example of the clinical checklist, which requires consideration of a patient’s wishes and feelings, including those expressed in advance.
Lord Scriven (LD)
What legal status does the checklist that the Minister keeps referring to actually have?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will come back to the noble Lord on that, and I thank him for asking the question.
I was about to refer to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. I may not be doing so in quite the right place, so I hope she will forgive me, but I do not want to lose this point. She asked what engagement we have had with the Department for Education. Our officials have engaged with DfE officials on the development of the Bill, including on the interaction between the Bill and the Children Act, which I know is of quite a lot of interest to noble Lords. We have also discussed questions around the statutory test with both the DfE and the Ministry of Justice, given that competency tests apply in wider children’s settings than mental health. I hope that is helpful.
Amendment 136, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, would require the Government to hold a review of whether a statutory test of competence should be introduced into the Mental Health Act for under-16s within a year of the Bill being passed. While we recognise that there are competing views about Gillick competency, it is nevertheless the established framework for determining competency for children. To introduce a statutory test for under-16s only under the Mental Health Act is likely to risk undermining Gillick, which remains the accepted competence test for under-16s across all settings, including reproductive health and children’s social care, and the wider legislative framework on matters related to children.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
The trouble with Gillick is that it does not provide, for those who have to make the decision, how to do it.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I appreciate the point that the noble and learned Baroness has made. As I said, I know there are competing views about its application. I reiterate the observation that it is the current established framework, but I hear what she is saying about what she believes are the implications of that.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
The Minister’s own policy document says that this test should be in the code of practice. How does that not also contribute to the undermining of Gillick that the Minister refers to?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Actually, my feeling about the code of practice is something that I wanted to bring up, because it has come up quite a lot. The code of practice is statutory and aimed at practitioners, and it allows nuance and so on, but Gillick is in case law and it guides us throughout. The point I am trying to make is that if it is changed in respect of this Mental Health Bill then that has implications across the wider question of competency for younger people, and that is of great concern.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness again, but the fact is—I speak as a former lawyer and judge who applied Gillick—it does not actually give guidance. All it says, as I understand it, is that under-16s have to be listened to. That is great, and I totally agree. What it does not do—but the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, would—is set out the guidance that those who make the decisions need to have.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Obviously, I am listening closely to the noble and learned Baroness’s experience and feeling on the matter, and I will certainly be pleased to reflect on the points that she and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, have made.
If I continue, that may be of some assistance—we will see. It is of concern to me that the possible creation of two different tests will potentially cause further confusion and uncertainty on the ground. We are therefore not in a position to welcome a statutory test of competence in the Mental Health Act.
Before I continue to Amendment 147, I will come back to the good question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, about the legal status of clinical checklists. Because they are in the Bill, they are a statutory requirement for clinicians, to be followed in respect of all patients. I hope that will be useful.
Lord Scriven (LD)
It is useful, but it is therefore contradictory to what the Minister has just said. If the checklist is statutory and it is legally binding that it has to be followed, how would a young person in that checklist having a view about their care be different from an advance directive? That is the issue. The Minister said the other alternative is that a person under 18 or 16 can make a decision in relation to the medical checklist, and she has just said that the decisions are legally binding. Alternatively, is it that carrying out the process is legally statutorily binding but the views of somebody who is 16 on that list are not?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I was referring more to situations, of which I know the noble Lord is aware, where there is a need for intervention. I think I used the word “overruling”, and I used some examples where there was a risk to life. So it is about application in that regard. I will look at that question in greater detail when I reflect on this area of debate and, if there is more that I can add to assist the noble Lord, I will be pleased to do so.
Amendment 147 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and spoken to by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. It would create a statutory test of competency for children in respect of decisions under the Mental Health Act. Under that test, competence for under-16s would be defined by reference to the functional test of capacity established in the Mental Capacity Act but without the diagnostic test, and by having due regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The courts have already made clear that the approach of the functional test is not suitable for children. We do not think that the functional test is appropriate or compatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the amendment itself makes reference to. The amendment, as drafted, is therefore not considered to be in line with established case law.
The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, asked about the justification for not including a test in the Bill. As I have mentioned, Gillick is established in case law, not statute, and the code explains how the Gillick decision is to be applied. But this does not mean that the House of Lords decision is not mandatory. There is a duty to follow case law. It is not discretionary, as I know noble Lords are aware.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that response. One thing we can all agree on from this discussion is that these are complex issues and people sometimes have rather different understandings of what certain things might say or mean.
Having said that, I would just like to say where I think we are on the two issues. First, on advanced decisions, I have a strong view that children and young people aged 16 and 17 should have choices that are made available to adults extended to them. As I think the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, it is about having a sense of agency and autonomy and feeling that their wishes and feelings are being respected. It may be that I did not draft it very well, but I was not suggesting that everyone was going to be forced to do it. It is there as an option, and that is a really important point that possibly did not come out sufficiently in the debate. The fault for that is mine. It may be that the approach that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, was suggesting is a better way forward. I do not know; I do not mind. I just feel that, because to me this is so fundamental and a question of human rights, we will need to return to this on Report.
I turn with some trepidation now to the statutory competence test for under-16s. I have been accused of being too cautious. That is fine. I understand where noble Lords were coming from. I did not say it when I introduced it, because I thought it would be a bit to odd to say it, but I was seeing my amendment as a bit of a backstop. In other words, if the Government are not minded to accept that recommendation, at least something would happen and at least there would be some sort of progress. As I said, I was very sympathetic to the test and the way that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, set it out. It had a fair amount of support, of course, across the Chamber, but the debate also showed that there are still some quite tricky issues that need to be teased out. I do not think it was quite as clear-cut as perhaps was being suggested, not least about issues around the consistency or otherwise of the application of Gillick.
It may be that, again, I did not get the wording right when I talked about a “review”. I accept that. Reviews can be kicked into the long grass and you never see anything again. But I thought the idea of a consultation was very important and, in fact, I think it would be quite difficult, having listened to this debate carefully, to move straight to having something in the Bill without having some sort of consultation first. It might be that you would want to take some sort of powers that would enable such a thing to be put in place after that consultation had happened, but to me it just felt that some issues still needed to be teased out.
Perhaps my initial amendment was not completely ludicrous, but it has been a really good and interesting debate—
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
Probing, absolutely. Thank you. And again, on this issue I sense that we will be returning on Report. But, having said those things, I thank all noble Lords who participated in this debate and thank the Minister for her responses. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I do not want to prolong this, but I have to say that, although I am disappointed and a little surprised by the response from the Government, the intention is to align the Mental Capacity Act and Gillick. It is frankly not correct, if I understand the situation, to say that it is not based on case law. I referred to a specific case in which the judge formulated, essentially, the test that appears in my amendment. As I say, I do not want to prolong this but, if necessary, I can refer the Government to that case.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Perhaps I can just say to the noble Lord that, when I reflect on the discussions on this group, as well as all the others, it may be helpful to discuss this further.
Lord Kamall
“(ba) is a patient who has been informally admitted to a mental health unit in accordance with section 131, or”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that patients who are admitted informally to a mental health unit will also benefit from a care and treatment plan.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 57 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe. The amendment is an attempt to ensure that patients who are admitted informally to hospital for a mental health disorder are also able to benefit from a care and treatment plan. As noble Lords will be aware, the Bill introduces statutory care and treatment plans but, as drafted, extends that right only to a select group of patients. As per the new Section 130ZA(2) of the Mental Health Act, patients who will be eligible for these plans are those who are formally detained under that Act, those who are subject to guardianship under the Act and those who are under a CTO.
I do not think there is any disagreement that these patients rightly deserve access to a care and treatment plan. But what about informal patients who voluntarily admit themselves for treatment? The Explanatory Notes explain that the purpose of putting these plans on a statutory footing is
“to ensure that all relevant patients have a clear and personalised strategy in place describing what is needed to progress them towards recovery”.
They also detail some of the possible inclusions in that care and treatment plan.
I note, however, that the exact inclusions in the care and treatment plan are to be made by the Secretary of State by regulations at a later date, possibly due to consultation. So, although we may have some idea of what might be included, it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm to your Lordships what the Government envisage will be included or could be included. I am not wanting to put the noble Baroness too much on the spot here.
As many noble Lords might well know, care and treatment plans have been part of the package of mental health treatment in Wales since June 2012 under Section 18 of the Mental Health (Wales) Measure 2010. Those regulations specify that the areas that must be included in the patient’s care and treatment plan include
“finance and money … accommodation … personal care and physical well-being … education and training … work and occupation … parenting or caring relationships … social, cultural or spiritual … medical and other forms of treatment including psychological interventions”.
Can the Minister confirm whether the care and treatment plans in England will follow the same format or possibly be inspired by the same format? Will there be differences? Are there England-specific issues?
I hope the Minister will understand that I have a few more questions. How will the Secretary of State decide what to prescribe in these plans? What level of consultation will there be? Indeed, what level of consultation has there been to date to inform this, particularly with the clinicians who will be responsible for drawing up the care and treatment plans?
One of the things that many noble Lords have discussed during this debate is the fact that we want to see evidence-led practices. We know that, particularly in mental health but also in physical health, these can help to inform care and treatment plans that have a positive impact on clinical outcomes and therapeutic benefit, because they are based on treatments unique to the patient’s needs.
A meta study in 2023 in the United States found that evidence-based practices
“improve patient outcomes and yield a positive return on investment for hospitals and healthcare systems”.
I note the Minister has referred a number of times to the Government making and implementing these changes when resources allow.
The Social Care Institute for Excellence has also highlighted the importance of person-centred care, writing:
“Research on mental health and wellbeing demonstrates that involvement leads to improved service outcomes and enhances mental wellbeing”.
The institute argues forcefully that care plans for mental health patients should include active involvement from the patient. It is therefore vital that care and treatment plans are not developed in a silo; they should be developed in conjunction with the patient. Given the benefits that access to care and treatment plans should bring patients with a mental disorder, it would be more than appropriate for informal patients to be included as well.
If anyone actually listened to what I said in the debate on our second day in Committee, they may be aware that I had some sympathy with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, who is not in her place. She argued that she did not want to extend the independent mental health advocates to informal patients, possibly because of resource constraints but also because of limited evidence on their therapeutic benefit. I could be accused of being inconsistent, but I would say that, for care and treatment plans, the issue is rather different.
The clinicians will draw up these plans. The Bill states that it is the “appropriate practitioner” who will already be treating that patient, so it may not be the same issue of resources. Perhaps it will take extra time, and I understand that time adds up the more you require of a clinician. But, given that the informally admitted patient will already be being treated by a clinician, we would not necessarily be adding much resource or burden on to the clinician, in the same way as if we had extended the IMHAs, as in the argument made the other night.
Therefore, I hope this amendment will extend provisions that will benefit informally admitted patients, as they will benefit the patients already decided upon in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment. I will not detain the Committee long, but I support the amendment and I want to flag the point my noble friend made about Wales and England. To my certain knowledge, when people living further north around the Shropshire border, for example, are admitted, they will almost certainly be offered placements in north Wales. It is important that there is some harmony in these regions; otherwise, it will cause additional problems. I hope my noble friend will press his amendment in due course to make sure that that harmony exists.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 61. I recognise that the purpose of the Bill is to give children and those under 16 greater rights and opportunities to be heard. I entirely agree with that; it is absolutely sensible. But there is a danger of ignoring the fact that parents are basically not considered anywhere in the Bill. They are not in the contents of the Bill or any of the schedules.
Most parents are suitable; some parents are not. It may be that my amendment should perhaps be put in slightly different way, as the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, has done. I recognise that there is a small percentage of parents who may not have total parental responsibility or, if they do have it, they are in the situation of one parent having what used to be called custody and the other having what used to be called access. For most parents, they care about their children. As far as I can see, they are completely ignored, but they do have something to contribute.
I am not suggesting for a moment that parents should make the decisions. What I am asking the Minister to do is to give them the chance to be heard; that is all I ask. They really should, throughout the Bill, be consulted where that is appropriate, but they are not put in for consultation, as far as I can see, in any part of the Bill. This is one place where that really will not do.
Speaking as a parent and grandparent, I would be extremely upset if my child was about to be detained and everybody was discussing what should happen to my child, but nobody asked me. At the moment, as far as I understand, the Government do not seem to think that parents, special guardians or anybody else who happens to have parental responsibility need to be consulted.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, my amendment is very closely aligned to the amendment just moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, but it is in relation to children. This is an issue that I raised at Second Reading. A number of children and young people are admitted to mental health settings informally on the basis of their own consent or parental consent—notwithstanding what was just said by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
Research from the Children’s Commissioner for England suggests that around one-third of in-patients aged under 18 are informal. However, NHS Digital does not publish data on the number of young people admitted informally so it is impossible to accurately track the total number of young people in hospital or to identify trends. Concerns have previously been raised, particularly by the Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition, that young people who are informal patients are often under exactly the same conditions as those who are detained but without access to the safeguards that children formally detained have. Many children and young people who are informal patients are also often unaware of their rights and, as has already been acknowledged, do not feel that their voices are listened to.
The coalition believes that it is crucial that informal patients aged under 18 have the same safeguards as those detained under the Act. There are two key provisions in the Mental Health Bill that can be strengthened to improve care for children and young people admitted informally. The most important, the coalition argues, is extending care and treatment plans to informal patients aged under 18, which is what my amendment is designed to do.
The reason for that is, if you manage to get somebody who is under 18 to accept informal care, they have no mental health formal record for their future. Most of us who have worked with young people under 18 bust a gut to get them to accept an in-patient admission if it is really necessary—I am talking about families as well as professionals—in order to ensure that they get treatment.
If that treatment is not guaranteed on discharge through a care and treatment plan, in the way that it would be for a detained patient, can your Lordships not see that families would be put in such difficult positions? They would ask, “Would it be better if my child is sectioned and detained in order for them to get long-term care?” This brings me back to my continued, impassioned plea that we need to think about proper standards of elective care for people with mental health problems, most importantly for those under 18.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the Committee of my entry in the register of interests that I am on the advisory board of the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute. I mention this particularly because the three amendments in my name, dealing with the financial implications for people who struggle with their mental health, have been based on the work of the institute.
As I have reminded the House on many occasions, these amendments speak to the undeniable but all too often overlooked fact that our mental health and money are closely linked. When someone is hospitalised for a mental health crisis, bills still need to be paid and debts can mount up, resulting in financial difficulties that greatly damage people’s prospects of recovery.
It is worth focusing on the numbers. In 2022-23, almost 90,000 adults were admitted to hospital for a mental health problem. The Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey indicated that around one-quarter of people experiencing a mental health problem are also in problem debt. The rate of problem debt is undoubtedly higher among people experiencing a mental health problem, which leads to hospitalisation. An earlier study from 2008 found that one-third of all people with probable psychosis are in problem debt.
The three amendments dealing with the link between finance and mental health deal with different aspects of the problem, and they are, quite rightly, being considered in turn in relation to the relevant parts of the Bill. Today, we start with my Amendment 59, and I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler of Enfield and Lady Neuberger, for their support for it. Like the other amendments in this group, it deals with care and treatment plans. Later, we will come to the implications of advance choice documents, which is currently in group nine, and then provision for mental health crisis breathing space, which is currently in group 17.
The Mental Health Bill provides an important opportunity to tackle the vicious cycle of poor mental health often leading to financial problems, and financial problems often leading to poor mental health. We must break that cycle and ensure that people’s financial needs are addressed as part of a supported recovery from a mental health crisis. That focus is missing from the Bill in its current form, and my amendments seek to address that gap.
As I have already indicated, these amendments are informed and supported by the independent charity, the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute, which has done considerable and excellent work in this area. They are small changes designed to improve the Bill and the outcomes for those it aims to help, by ensuring that a person’s financial situation is routinely considered and acted on as part of their treatment and recovery from a mental health crisis. Addressing a person’s finances is one of the many factors that mental health practitioners must consider in their assessment and care planning.
However, services cannot rely on patients to tell them when they are facing financial difficulties. The experience is that people rarely take the initiative to tell mental health professionals about money problems, often because they are too unwell or because the stigma around both mental health and financial problems acts as a barrier to disclosure. Adding an explicit prompt about people’s financial situation in care and treatment plans will ensure that this is routinely and consistently considered by healthcare professionals and will open up more opportunities to safeguard patients from financial harm.
There is a precedent for this. In Wales, “finance and money” is already included as a section in the care and treatment plan template. That does not mean that busy healthcare professionals are required to support people with their money in a way that they are not trained or intended to do. Rather, this is a case of empowering them to identify those in need and refer them to the relevant welfare adviser in their service, so that healthcare professionals can focus on medical care. Ultimately, that could free up time for health professionals, as well as improving outcomes for patients.
I will illustrate the need for this proactive inquiry with testimony from someone with lived experience of money and mental health problems, as they do it so much more powerfully than I can. A participant in Money and Mental Health Policy Institute research shared:
“I didn’t realise how much my mental health affected my finances and vice versa. I lived for years in shame and horrific anxiety about money which caused my mental health to spiral. I thought there was no help out there for me and I didn’t want to be alive, as I couldn’t see a way out of my money troubles”.
Legislating to include a consideration of people’s finances, when they are in a mental health crisis and throughout their recovery, will help prevent further illness, support recovery and reduce waiting lists, and will help people return to daily life, including work, more smoothly.
I can imagine what my noble friend the Minister’s response will be, because she has already written to the institute. She said in her letter: “We intend to set out in secondary legislation the required contents of the statutory CTP. However, we plan to further consult stakeholders to make sure that the CTP covers all the information that is critical to an individual’s recovery and timely and effective discharge from the Act”. I hope that she does not mind me taking the opportunity to stress the importance of this issue. Does she agree with that, including the importance of its place in treatment plans?
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 59, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, to which I have added my name. I must declare rather a lot of interests. I am chair of the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and of the Whittington Health NHS Trust, which provides child and adolescent mental health services. I was also one of the vice-chairs of the independent review of the Mental Health Act in 2018, which feels like a long time ago.
I am keeping my comments in Committee fairly short and sparse, because I feel that I have had quite a lot of say already, having been involved in that review. However, I want to speak about the issue of financial difficulties and mental health problems, because we should have looked at it in greater detail when we were conducting the review. It was an omission on our part, as we did not focus on it in any detail. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, cited one of the people who spoke incredibly movingly to our review and who talked about how awful it is to be an in-patient. She said that she recovered and was given the care she needed, but she asked why it had to be such an awful experience.
One of the things that is becoming clearer—the noble Lord, Lord Davies, alluded to it—is that when you have had a mental health crisis and your finances are in an absolute mess, because you did not get it together to do anything about them, why does your recovery have to be so awful because nobody helped you and gave you the advice you needed at the time? That is why this is so serious. If you are in hospital, you may not even get access to your computer, you may not be using your mobile phone all the time, you may be in something of a mess and your cognition may be severely affected. If that is the case, you will not be paying your bills, claiming your benefits or paying your rent. When you recover, it will take you ages to get into a situation where you can live a normal life again and not be hugely in debt.
I was going to cite some of the experts by experience—the quotations have been given to me by the amazing Money and Mental Health Policy Institute, to which I am extremely grateful. However, since I do not want to take much more of your Lordships’ time, I shall just say that, although NICE stipulates that assessments in care and crisis plans at present should consider patients’ holistic social and living circumstances, which would include things such as housing and finance, mostly, in normal circumstances, the issues are too great. Often, the mental health needs are at crisis point and it just does not happen, and the same will happen with care and treatment plans unless we put this in the Bill.
I ask the Minister—I have already heard what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has said—whether she will think quite hard as to whether this could be in the Bill, along with parental involvement. I agree with all the amendments in this group. There are some things that need to be in the Bill that would make sure that, when we see treatment in place—and I see a lot of it in what I do in the other part of my life—those things are taken into account. If it is in secondary legislation, it is much harder and much less likely.
UK-Ukraine 100-year Partnership
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, for nearly three years now, we have been steadfast and united in our unwavering support for the brave people of Ukraine. Their extraordinary determination, unparalleled courage and steadfast bravery in the face of unimaginable horror, terror and brutality have inspired nations across the globe. It is impossible not to feel profound sorrow for the pain, loss and suffering inflicted on the Ukrainian people by Putin’s illegal and barbaric war. This unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation is not just an attack on Ukraine but an assault on the principles of sovereignty and human rights that underpin global peace and security.
I am delighted to say that, from the very beginning of this crisis, we in the UK have stood shoulder to shoulder with President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people in their valiant fight for freedom. We recognised early on the grave threats posed by Russian hostility, which began with the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and continued with ongoing incursions in Ukraine’s eastern territories. The previous Government took decisive and swift action, providing vital military equipment, financial aid and humanitarian support—and I am delighted to see that the current Government have continued that policy. We established bespoke pathways to safety for Ukrainians seeking refuge in the United Kingdom, and I am proud to note the extraordinary response of the British people. Across the country, households opened their doors and their hearts, welcoming those fleeing violence and oppression. This collective effort has been a testament to the strength of our shared humanity and values.
Through the leadership of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak, Ben Wallace and others, the UK spearheaded diplomatic efforts to galvanise international support for Ukraine and helped to isolate Russia on the global stage. Those efforts included imposing one of the most comprehensive sanctions regimes ever implemented, targeting not only the Russian state but its ruling elites, businesses and entities complicit in supporting the Russian war machine. The commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity was unshakeable. Over three years, we provided £12.8 billion-worth of support, including an unprecedented £7.8 billion in military assistance. This support encompassed advanced weaponry, vital training and intelligence-sharing to enable Ukraine to defend itself against Russian aggression. Equally crucial was our promise to provide at least £3 billion annually in military aid for as long as is required—a pledge that I hope that the Government will be able to continue with, without hesitation.
As we reflect on these achievements, it is imperative that we remain steadfast in our support for Ukraine and its people. The road ahead will not be easy, given Trump’s election, and the sacrifices that will be required are considerable. However, the cost of inaction—of failing to defend freedom and democracy—would be immeasurably greater. I want therefore to pose the following questions to the Minister.
Can the Government provide an update on the current levels of military and humanitarian aid being delivered to Ukraine and how they see this support continuing in future? What steps are being taken to ensure that sanctions against Russia remain robust, effective and tightly enforced, including measures to address any potential evasion? How are the Government working with international partners to ensure that Ukraine continues to receive the long-term economic and political support that it needs to rebuild and secure its future? What plans are in place to enhance the UK’s refugee resettlement schemes for Ukrainians, and how can we further support host families who have welcomed those fleeing this terrible conflict? Finally, in the context of ongoing geopolitical instability, how do the Government intend to strengthen and deepen the UK-Ukraine partnership to promote shared values and mutual security in the years ahead?
We owe it to the people of Ukraine, and to the principles of freedom and justice that unite us, to stand resolute and united in their hour of need.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am very happy to align myself and these Benches with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has said. If we think back over this three-year period in British politics, we see that consensus has been hard to reach—but this is an area where there has been no division between any of the Benches within the two Houses of our Parliament. Indeed, in respect of the position of the previous Administration and this one, this agreement brings together both government-to-government relations, or the nine pillars within the agreement, and people-to-people relations, which, as the noble Lord said, are becoming ever deeper.
I also agree with the noble Lord’s observations on the coming period, when there will be an area of uncertainty, especially since the new President was elected in the United States, in the context of our main ally being the United States. But I am happy that UK policy is set by the UK and that the consensus in Parliament is therefore rock solid.
A 100-year agreement is unique. I looked at what Ukraine was like in 1925—and when you search for that, Ukrainisation comes up as the top element. There were attempts to ensure that the identity, language, culture and literature of Ukraine were protected. That was diminished under later Soviet rule—but to my mind that suggests that, whether it is with Stalin or Putin, there is an identity for an independent and autonomous people in Ukraine who wish to ensure that their own destiny is in their hands. The UK will be a stalwart ally over this Government and their successor Governments. While this is unique for being a 100-year agreement, we support it.
We support in particular the areas where we would use what are to some extent our best global assets, on renewable technology, the National Health Service, education and culture. The partnership with Ukraine within those pillars is to be welcomed. Can the Minister say, when it comes particularly to energy, renewables and green steel, whether the Government will be open to ensuring that all parts of the UK, especially our devolved Administrations, are deeply involved in this 100-year agreement? I live in Scotland, and the people of Scotland have opened their hearts and homes to those who have fled Putin’s illegal war—but we also have strategic advantage, especially when it comes to renewable energy and technology.
Economic and technical support will be incredibly important. As we debated just last week, one consequence of the illegal war on Ukraine is that 40% of the Ukrainian economy is now dedicated to defending itself. Technical support and partnership with the UK for economic reconstruction will be to the advantage of both countries. The Minister will have been briefed on assets, because we debated them fairly recently. She will be aware that these Benches are making the case that assets should be seized and used for the immediate and medium-term reconstruction of Ukraine, as well as for Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. If she could outline a bit more the timetable of when Ukraine will, we hope, be able to use some of the assets that we approved in legislation last week, that would be helpful.
I end with an appeal and an observation. The appeal is that one of the elements that I have found very important in Ukraine’s defence is the Verkhovna Rada—the Ukrainian Parliament. I had the privilege of visiting it before the war on three occasions and met many MPs and staff. It was telling that one of the first military objectives of the Russian assault on Ukraine was, within the first 48 hours, to seize the Verkhovna Rada, to cease its functioning, to ensure that MPs could not carry out their constitutional role in representing the people and to stop all legislation. It has carried on and shown incredible resilience. As a Parliament, it is a model around the world for being able to carry on its legislative and representative functions in incredibly difficult circumstances.
I hope the long-term relationship will be not just Government to Government but Parliament to Parliament. I know Mr Speaker and the Lord Speaker have extremely close relations with their counterparts in Kyiv, but I hope the Minister might be able to say that in those areas that the Government fund, whether the Westminster Foundation for Democracy or other technical assistance, we can support the Verkhovna Rada in carrying out its functions and the critical role it will play to ensure that any reconstruction is open, transparent and representative.
I close by repeating the words of my honourable friend Calum Miller. He said to the Foreign Secretary:
“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”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/1/25; col. 738.]
I am certain that the Government’s intent is one we can support wholeheartedly. I would be grateful if the Minister would outline certain areas where we can use this as not just a statement of intent but a practical relationship that can help Ukraine be both resilient in war and successful in peace.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I am incredibly grateful for the words of the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Purvis of Tweed. As they both said, it is so important that we commit ourselves to maintaining the unity that we have held so clearly for the three years that Ukraine has been experiencing the illegal invasion.
It is right that I pay tribute to the work of the previous Conservative Government—the Prime Ministers, Foreign Secretaries and Secretaries of State for Defence who worked so hard to support Ukraine during their time in office. I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, made that point. I am happy to agree with him and I thank him for the support that his party is providing in opposition to this Government. I also echo his comment about the people of the United Kingdom who, as he said, have been welcoming and, in many cases, hosting families from Ukraine in their homes. The support in our communities up and down the country remains as firm as it has ever been. I am happy to assure him that we will keep the commitment to £3 billion a year for as long as it takes to support Ukraine in its defence.
The noble Lord asked for an update on spending on military and humanitarian work. As I think I have said before, there is £7.8 billion of total support, including £3 billion for 2024-25. We have a commitment to provide £3 billion per year until 2030-31, and for as long as it takes, and for the UK to contribute £2.26 billion to the $50 billion of extraordinary revenue acceleration loans for Ukraine agreed by G7 leaders in June. The Government have laid legislation to facilitate disbursement. On humanitarian aid, the UK is providing at least £120 million in humanitarian assistance through to the end of financial year 2024-25, bringing our total contribution to Ukraine and the region to £477 million since the start of the full-scale invasion. Another £15 million delivered through UNHCR and UNICEF will support those most in need this winter.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, asked about those from Ukraine living here and their status. Obviously, this is a matter for the Home Office, but we are all glad that their status has been renewed and that their ability to stay here is now secure for the time being. I am sometimes asked what this will mean in the longer term. I am very mindful of the words of President Zelensky, when he said that he wanted people to be able to go home. We do not want to compound Ukraine’s problems by keeping people here when they can be at home in Ukraine, contributing to the rebuilding of their community and their country.
I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, for highlighting pillar 9 of the agreement on the people-to-people work. This is so important for morale in Ukraine and it will be vital as we move forward in the years and decades to come. He also raised the very important point—Speaker Hoyle will be glad that he did—about Parliament-to-Parliament work and rebuilding democratic structures and institutions. Speaker diplomacy is underpriced when we consider this work, and I know there will be much to be done and said, and links to be forged. It is wonderful to have his support in that. He is right too to remind us of history and to look back at 1925: that is an interesting thing to do. Let us just hope that the partnership we are agreeing between our countries today means that, in 100 years’ time, we can look back and see what was agreed in 2025 as a turning point for Ukraine, having endured so much.
The noble Lord also raised questions about climate and energy. This is vital and is covered in pillar 5 of the agreement. He is absolutely right—and I am as passionate as he is about this—that we must enable our regions and nations fully to take part in this work. It is vital that we do that.
The noble Lord also asked about assets. As he will know, we put into law an agreement enabling us to use the profits from seized Russian assets, but he will also understand that we have to proceed carefully. We are very actively discussing all this and want to make sure that we can do everything we can in this regard. Those discussions are very much live within government, I can promise him that.
To conclude, I thank both Front-Bench speakers once again for their continued support for Ukraine.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, to date, the UK has given £7.8 billion-worth of military assistance to Ukraine and that has been paid for from the Treasury reserve. Under this agreement, we commit to give a further £3 billion per year until 2030. Can the Minister say whether that will continue to be paid for from the Treasury reserve, or will it, as some fear, be transferred to the defence budget, because without the appropriate baselining that would effectively negate any increase in the defence budget to 2.5%?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for his steadfast support and championing of the need to have sufficient resources for the MoD; I have seen him do this on many occasions. Of course, this will be subject to discussion between the Treasury and the MoD, and my understanding is that it will be allowed for within the MoD budget. We will make sure at every stage that our troops have everything that they need. We are committed to the 2.5%, and we are committed to providing the £3 billion per year to Ukraine.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I hope the thin attendance tonight does not mean that we in the United Kingdom are losing interest in Ukraine, especially when I think of the huge number that gathered in Westminster Hall when President Zelensky came and spoke to us, and when many of us went across and sat in the Gallery in the other place when he spoke on a Zoom-type link in the early days of the conflict.
It is my privilege, as the Bishop of Manchester, to regularly attend social functions at the Ukrainian Cultural Centre, which is only about a mile away from my home. We have had a strong Ukrainian community in Manchester since the Second World War, if not before. That has been greatly increased in recent times, by those who have come as refugees. I share the comments that others have already made about hoping that many of those people will want to go back and rebuild their countries.
We are talking about friendship and a 100-year friendship at that, but a partnership has to be built on more than just defence spending or mutual hatred of a common enemy; it needs to be about building connections at every level. I am pleased to hear what was said about parliamentary connections, but I am thinking in terms of the church connections that I build with my friends in the Ukrainian Catholic Church. What other civil society connections can we strengthen and grow if this friendship or partnership really is to last and be of benefit not only to the people of Ukraine but to this country as well?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
First, I think the lack of attendance this evening is probably something to do with a couple of late nights of voting. It is not lack of support at all; it is a lack of disagreement between our parties. If we disagreed, this place would be full, and the fact that we agree so strongly means that noble Lords feel confident in all Front Benches being here and saying things with which they would agree.
I am so glad that the issue of people-to-people links is featuring so much in this discussion. It is true that this cannot only be Government to Government or Parliament to Parliament; it needs to encompass the whole of civil society. We are speaking to the British Council, the Premier League and many other organisations so that there is a real depth to that partnership, under pillar 9 in the agreement, which is something we feel passionately about. I know that Members from across the House will want to bring their contacts, expertise and experience to contribute to making pillar 9 as deep and meaningful as we can.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s clarity on the moral and strategic necessity of supporting Ukraine, and the House’s full support—from those who are here—for the future of Ukraine, and what both we and the Government have done previously. But the West’s longstanding appeasement of Russia, from Moldova to Georgia to Crimea, emboldened Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. A pre-emptive and timely response would have been far less costly in lives and resources than addressing the aftermath. However, we are where we are. We now risk repeating the same mistakes in the western Balkans. Sadly, today’s Serbia mirrors Russia’s 2014 trajectory, engaging in large-scale rearmament and actively backing secessionists in Bosnia and Kosovo. With that in mind, can the Minister say what concrete steps the Government have taken in the western Balkans not to have the Ukraine scenario repeated there? Can she clarify the Government’s position on rejoining Operation Althea?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for reminding us of the wider context—it is very important—as well as reminding us of the not-too-distant history of this conflict. I can assure her that my honourable friend, Minister Stephen Doughty, is in regular contact with our friends and allies in the Balkans, and he is working very hard to prevent the situation that she warns us of. It is right that we do not take our eye off the situation which she discusses.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
With your Lordships’ indulgence, I will ask one more question since we have lots of time. I want to pick up on a point that the Minister made in her initial response about the status of refugees in the United Kingdom. I declare an interest in that my wife, Caroline Dinenage, the MP for Gosport, and I have hosted a Ukrainian family for the last two and a half years. They are very happy here and are pleased that there is clarity that, with their initial visa due to end shortly, they will be allowed to apply for a further 18-month extension, which, of course, takes them to four and a half years—some six months shy of the five years required to apply for indefinite leave to remain. Notwithstanding the Minister’s comments about not wishing to hold them here, the brutal reality is that they have made their home here and they wish to stay. They do not wish to go back to Ukraine because they simply do not have anything to go back to. While I realise the Minister cannot commit as to their status, will she perhaps take this opportunity to say that the one thing the Government will not be doing is forcing people to go back to Ukraine?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
First, I acknowledge that the noble Lord and Caroline have done so much to support a family from Ukraine. Although many families are doing this, it is still an exceptional act of generosity and welcome. It is truly something we should acknowledge and thank him and Caroline for. I respect that he has taken this opportunity to raise this issue and highlight the feelings and thoughts of some people who are here from Ukraine who may feel as he describes. Clearly, this would be a matter for the Home Office at the point at which their status comes up for renewal again. I would not want to prejudge what the Home Office might decide, but he has made the case very strongly and clearly, and I am sure that that will be heard by colleagues at the Home Office.
Mental Health Bill [HL]
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 60A. At this time of night, I do not intend to make a very long or detailed speech; I simply wish to make two points. Previous speakers, such as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, talked about factors that should be included in care and treatment plans and often are not, for a variety of reasons. But they are crucially and directly important to the health and well-being of an individual.
I wish to talk about the inclusion of housing, for two reasons. First, housing is a source of anguish and mental strain, full stop. It does not matter whether people have mental health problems, but if they have and they find themselves in an acute hospital, either detained or as a voluntary patient, I am sure that, when they come back, there will be a very high incidence of them losing their tenancy and then being unable to find suitable accommodation, particularly if they are young.
Members of your Lordships’ House have already spoken about the fact that there are very few treatment centres dotted around the country for young people with eating disorders—here in the Bill we are talking about England. That therefore means that young people are having to go very long distances for treatment, which can have a significant disruptive effect on their living circumstances.
The other reason I thought it was worthwhile to table this amendment and have the debate was that the other day, we had a wider debate about care and treatment plans. The one question many of us were trying to ascertain the answer to was: who is responsible for them? Who is responsible for drawing them up and implementing them? Crucially, who is responsible if they are not implemented and there is a consequence to that for an individual? If we cannot focus our minds on that now, given what has been going on in the country, we never will. The only thing I could take away from our discussion the other day was that nobody is responsible for it at all; nobody is going to carry the can.
When we are talking about people who have been in acute care, very little attention is paid to their housing needs, because that is not the duty of that service provider, whose focus is on acute care. We know that local authorities are already required to provide aftercare and advice to individuals, but advice in the face of a bailiff turfing you out of your house is frankly of limited use. So, I would like the Minister to please consider this amendment and give assurances that, when we ever get to the bottom of who is responsible for these care and treatment plans, this is on the list of things for which they can be held accountable.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 62 in this group, which is in my name, and I will try to be as brief as possible. This group is all about the statutory care and treatment plans, and I very much welcome them. They are a very positive part of this legislation and should help patients achieve recovery and hopefully discharge from mental health in-patient units as quickly as possible.
My amendment seeks to ensure that individuals who are turning 18 during a care and treatment plan have their plans reviewed to ensure that there is continuity of care when transitioning from child to adult services. I spoke earlier about the tricky issue of transitioning from child to adult services. It is important for three reasons. Young people aged 16 to 25 experience high rates of mental health problems but are less likely to access the support they need; young people often experience tricky transitions, meaning that too often they fall through the gaps—we have heard so many stories about in this Chamber in the past; and, again as we have said earlier today, young people really should have a say in their care and treatment.
We know that there is a high level of mental health need among young people in the 16 to 25 age group and that it is going up. I have no wish to return to the earlier debate about whether that rise is real, but the numbers according to NHS Digital are very much on the increase. So, while 16 to 25 year-olds are experiencing high levels of need, they are often having real difficulties accessing support. It is sometimes talked about as the treatment gap, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, talked about earlier on, and it is far wider here than for other age groups.
These poor transitions between CAMHS and adult services are generally the problem because, after someone reaches their 18th birthday—which is the upper limit for CAMHS—young people too often face a real cliff edge when trying to access mental health support. They are no longer in the age range for CAMHS and simultaneously may not reach the threshold for adult services. Effectively, it leaves young people in limbo, with no access to the mental health support they require.
There is a range of reasons for these challenges, including poor information and, very importantly, a difference in treatment models. While children’s services are generally seen as more nurturing, with a focus on treating developmental and emotional disorders, adult services in contrast focus on treating severe and enduring mental illness, meaning that young people with these diagnoses are less likely to be accepted. Just as I have mentioned, the high thresholds for support often result in young people being told that they are not ill enough for the services they need, so unfortunately things get worse and they end up being detained. Without that support during transition, young people can experience all sorts of worsening symptoms and other life outcomes. That is the rationale behind my Amendment 62.
I will mention another couple of amendments in this group that have my strong support. Amendment 64, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, from whom we have still to hear, really emphasises the critical importance of ensuring that, where young carers are involved in a family situation, they are identified, particularly by adult mental health practitioners, who may not have them in mind first and foremost, that people proactively look for them, and then that the young carers—who are often hidden, with their needs only identified when there is a crisis—are supported. That amendment has my full support.
Lastly, I support Amendment 59, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies. At this point—because I have not done it yet—I refer to my interests in the register, both as a member of the Financial Inclusion Commission and president of the Money Advice Trust. I absolutely support what the noble Lord said about the importance of these plans, including matters to do with finance. The links between money problems and mental health are now well proven and this legislation should reflect them. The Bill provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that people’s holistic needs, including finances, are considered as a key part of supporting recovery from a mental health crisis.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to explain the significance of Amendment 64 in my name, which aims to cover the situation of both young carers and young children in a family where a care and treatment plan is being prepared for their parent. I thank the Carers Trust for suggesting this amendment and providing a briefing on this issue. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for his support for the amendment and, of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, who has just spoken of her support for it.
Briefly, the amendment adds the requirement that a practitioner preparing or reviewing a care and treatment plan must ask whether there are children in the family and take actions to respond if the children need help or protection from harm. This amendment would, as I said, cover young carers, but it would also cover young children where there may be safeguarding concerns—a topic which the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel highlighted as a theme in its latest annual report.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, just touched on, young carers are so often hidden, and often their needs are identified only when there is a crisis. Even then, the extent of their caring role and the impact it has on the child’s development may not be recognised quickly or fully assessed. This amendment would help to ensure earlier identification of children who might be in need of information, support or protection from potential harm. It would mean staff asking the right questions early on to ensure that the right information is recorded and actions taken. It would help with adequate signposting of information and a chance to offer appropriate support to avoid a crisis or manage it appropriately.
The amendment also mirrors the new wording in the Working Together to Safeguard Children statutory guidance, which covers adult social practitioners:
“When staff are providing services to adults, they should ask whether there are children in the family and take actions to respond if the children need help or protection from harm. Additional parenting support could be particularly needed where the adults have mental health problems”.
There is evidence that having a parent with a mental health problem is one of the biggest risk factors for a first episode of major depressive disorder in children and adolescents.
This is not inevitable. Research suggests that intervention can enhance parenting skills in households affected by parental depression, and it can change the way that children cope. In turn, this can reduce the risk of children internalising problems that may threaten their life chances. The amendment is designed to enhance the ability of agencies working individually and together to identify and respond to the safeguarding needs of families. It is about supporting the challenging work of finding out what is happening to children and anticipating risks and harm, of knowing when action is needed. In most cases, children receive the support, help and protection they need, but sometimes children are seriously harmed or, worse, they can die because of neglect.
Policy initiatives in recent years have called for a wider family focus on safeguarding children so that all staff recognise that meeting the needs of family members who may put children at risk benefits the child, the adult and the family as a whole. This amendment would support those efforts. The amendment is in keeping with guidance from the Social Care Institute for Excellence to “Think child, think parent, think family”, to ensure that the child is heard and their needs are met.
The Carers Trust believes that the amendment would unlock additional support from mental health professionals to work with parents and children to enable the child to have age-appropriate understanding of what is happening to their parent and information about what services are available for them in their situation and how they can access them.
To illustrate the need for the amendment, I have two short case studies. Aidan was four when his mother was first sectioned under the Mental Health Act. Throughout his childhood, Aidan’s mother was regularly sectioned and would sometimes be in hospital for a number of months. There were many occasions when the police were involved because his mother had disappeared, which was particularly scary for Aidan. In his words:
“To me, you only ever saw the police if you’d done something wrong, so I remember when they turned up at our house, I thought mum was in trouble”.
Seeing his mother being taken into hospital on a regular basis meant that Aidan had lots of questions and worries. In his words again:
“There were so many times where I wondered whether mum would ever come home. I knew she’d been sectioned but I had no idea what that actually meant or if she would ever get better”.
Staff at the hospital who were treating Aidan’s mother would regularly see him visiting. Despite this, none of the staff there told Aidan or his father about support that might be available or asked whether Aidan might need any help. It was only when Aidan was 12 and his attendance dropped at school that he was identified as a young carer.
The second case is Vamp’s story. This is a pseudonym chosen by her family. The case study is taken from a recently published child safeguarding practice review which found that a 13 year-old girl died as a result of taking drugs sold to her in a park. It was identified that her mother had had a period of serious mental illness, and that illness was identified as the catalyst for things deteriorating for the young person. Tragically, two years on, the young person had died. This is taken from the relevant extract from the child safeguarding practice review:
“Vamp’s mother did not feel that her daughter had been a young carer … as the mental illness was short term. However, Vamp’s sister described the situation as being so difficult for both. When their mother was discharged home from hospital, it was only Vamp and her mother at home. Vamp’s sister was only a young adult, and with her own baby to care for. She … said she felt that no one checked in on their mother. Vamp’s sister … said that professionals expected her mother to manage to parent Vamp, which she was not able to do alone, she needed professional help”.
This is a simple but important amendment to protect young carers. I urge my noble friend the Minister to consider it, and I commend the amendment to the House.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 64, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, and shall speak briefly in support. I have not contributed to this Bill before, but I have sat through many of the debates. Without sounding pompous, it struck me that this was our House at its best, dealing with a complicated Bill in a sensitive and non-partisan way and drawing on the unique expertise we have in our House.
As I listened to the earlier debates on detention and community treatment orders, I asked myself how the children in the families concerned would be informed and what the impact on them would be. We have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, the impact on Aidan when his mother was sectioned. By definition, the people covered by the Bill are vulnerable people; many of them will have carers, and many of those carers will be young carers. As the noble Baroness has just said, this amendment simply helps improve the earlier identification of children of parents being detained under the Act and to ensure that they have access to support, if they need it, and are safeguarded where necessary.
The 2021 census showed that there are 50,000 young carers caring for over 50 hours a week. An astonishing number—3,000 of them—are aged between five and nine. The Carers Trust has shown that those young carers at school are at risk of a poorer attendance record, lower academic achievement and more liable to social isolation and, sadly, bullying, if they are not identified early. As the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, just said, having a parent with a mental health problem is actually one of the biggest risk factors for depression in children and adolescents. But it is not inevitable: research suggests that intervention can reduce that risk and change the way that children cope.
As a vice-chairman of the APPG on Young Carers, I know that we took evidence last year from young carers, and we heard that on average it takes three years for a young carer to be identified, with some of them taking over 10 years before being identified. Improving early identification is one of the top priorities of the all-party group, so that they can access support and not be negatively affected by their caring situation.
This amendment will help to tackle the issue, which is reported by young carer services, that many potential young carers are not identified by adult mental health services. For example, one young carers service, the Young Carers Alliance, reported that 20% of the young carers it supports are supporting a parent with a mental illness, yet they did not receive a single referral from the adult mental health services in the space of an entire year.
In our inquiry, we also heard from the charity Our Time how, when it comes to identifying young carers by mental health professionals, we are way behind countries such as the Netherlands and Norway. Both those countries have introduced requirements for health professionals to consider whether adults with mental health problems have children. This referral may not be a one-way process; if the child is a carer, he or she may have an insight into the events that trigger an episode in the parent and may actually help the professionals to identify an appropriate treatment pathway.
A final benefit of this amendment is that it would help adult mental health in-patient units ensure that they are complying with the duty under Section 91 of the Health and Care Act 2022 to consult with any carers, including young carers, before discharging an adult from hospital. Again, last year, we heard of patients being discharged without the young carer being informed, often where they were the principal carer. For these reasons, I hope that the Government can support this amendment. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I add my support for Amendment 58, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, and to which I have added my name. Briefly, given the time, the care and treatment plan is a major plank, a pivotal safeguard of the Bill. The safeguard is not open to voluntary patients. As the noble Baroness outlined, we want to encourage many young people to voluntarily enter a hospital to get the treatment that they need. A 2021 UCL research project found that only 23.6% of young people were detained involuntarily. The large cohort would be those who have consented by parental consent and those who voluntarily entered the treatment. As such a high proportion of the under-18 population are entering voluntarily, it is imperative that they also have a care and treatment plan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the pertinent points that they have made.
I will start with Amendments 57 and 58. There is no doubt that all patients who are in a mental health hospital for care and treatment should have a care plan, whether or not they have been detained under the Act. This is already set out in guidance for commissioners and in the NHS England service specification and care standards for children’s and young people’s services. In line with the independent review’s findings and recommendations, care and treatment plans for involuntary or detained patients are statutory. This is because such patients are subject to restrictions and compulsory orders, including compulsory treatment, which places them in a uniquely vulnerable position.
Rather than bringing voluntary patients into the scope of this clause, we feel it is more appropriate to use the Mental Health Act’s code of practice to embed high standards of care planning for all patients—voluntary and involuntary. Specifically with regard to children and young people, any provisions that are relevant to voluntary patients are already met by existing specialist care planning standards and the NHS England national service specification for children’s and young people’s services, which providers are contractually obliged to follow. NHS England is already in the process of strengthening that current service specification.
Regarding points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and my noble friend Lord Davies on the contents of the care and treatment plan and patient discharge plan, as my noble friend Lord Davies kindly set out for me, which I appreciate, the Government have consulted on the required contents of the care and treatment plan, as originally proposed by the independent review. The expected contents of the plan are described in the delegated powers memorandum, which has been published online. I understand the points that my noble friend made; we will return to them regarding what we intend to include in the patient discharge plan.
I turn to Amendment 59, tabled by my noble friend Lord Davies and supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler and Lady Neuberger. The plan needs to include details of interventions aimed at minimising financial harm to the patient where this is relevant to their mental health recovery. My noble friend asked for my agreement on this point. I hope that he will take that in this way. We intend to set out in regulations, rather than in primary legislation, what that plan must include. We will consider personal financial matters that are relevant to a number of the elements that we intend to require in regulations, such as the services that a patient might need post discharge. My noble friend’s point, and that of the noble Baronesses, is very well made and is taken on board.
Turning to Amendment 60A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, I confirm that the Bill sets out who is responsible for the statutory plan. For in-patients, this is the clinician who is responsible overall for the patient’s case. The quality of plans for detained patients is monitored by the CQC. Any housing, accommodation or wider social care needs that are relevant to the patient’s mental health recovery are already captured within the scope of the statutory care and treatment plan. We intend to require in regulations about the content of the plan that a discharge plan is a required element of the overall care and treatment plan—which noble Lords rightly have pressed the need for. Existing statutory guidance on discharge sets out that a discharge plan should cover how a patient’s housing needs will be met when they return to the community. Currently, where a mental health in-patient may benefit from support with housing issues, NHS England guidance sets out that this should be offered, making links with relevant local services as part of early and effective discharge planning.
Where a person is receiving housing benefit or their housing is paid for via universal credit, there are provisions already in place that allow them to be temporarily absent from their property for a limited duration. We know that the vast majority of people entering hospital will return home before the time limit expires, therefore avoiding a negative impact on their living situation.
We intend to use the code of practice to clearly set out expectations on mental health staff around care planning, including consideration of accommodation and housing needs, and also to highlight existing provisions that protect a person’s living arrangements while they are in hospital.
On Amendment 61, tabled by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, we of course recognise the importance of involving parents, guardians and those with parental responsibility in decisions around care and treatment. We have already provided for this in the clause by stating
“any … person who cares for the relevant patient or is interested in the relevant patient’s welfare”.
The clause seeks to include also carers and other family. As I said last week, this is consistent with existing established terminology used in the Mental Capacity Act and the Care Act.
The amendment would also make this a requirement for all patients, not just children and young people. We do not think it is appropriate here to give an automatic right to parents to be involved in an adult patient’s care. However, we have made provisions to ensure that anyone named by an adult patient, including parents, are consulted where the patient wishes them to be.
Baroness Browning (Con)
On that last point about adults, I realise this is a more difficult area, but we have debated in this House reports from the charity Mind about adults, and young adults at that, who, when they have been admitted not just to mental health hospitals but to general hospitals and have had difficulty communicating —I go back to autism, but it might not be uniquely autism—hospital staff have said, “They are over 18, so we’re not listening to you, mum”, while standing by the bedside asking why a person is not eating, when there is probably a very good reason why not. We have recorded deaths of young adults because the parents of people over 18 have not been listened to. It is a mantra that I have heard many times, in many situations: “They’re over 18, it’s up to them”, when, in fact, quite clearly, their lives could be saved, or their health improved, if hospital staff had listened to mum or dad at the bedside. That is on the record and we have debated it in the past, so I wonder how the Minister thinks we can resolve it as far as mental health patients are concerned.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right to raise that point. This is the difference between legislation and practice, and we have to bridge that gap. We are very alive to the point she makes, but the important point about this amendment is that we are trying to include all those whom the patient wants to be involved, not just restricting it to parents. I take the point she has made and will, of course, ensure that we attend to that. I would say that that is, as I say, more a case of how things are implemented.
On Amendment 62, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, it is important that the transition of a young person to adult services is planned and managed with the utmost care by the clinical team. This is reflected in existing care standards and guidelines, which set out what should be met, what relevant teams should meet and how to provide specific support where a young person’s care is being transferred to adult services. This should take place six months prior to the patient turning 18 years of age. On reviewing the patient’s statutory care and treatment plan when they reach adulthood, in Clause 20, subsection (5)(d) of new Section 130ZA already sets out that that plan must be reviewed following any change in circumstances or conditions. We think that turning 18 and transitioning from children and young people’s services to adult is a significant change and absolutely requires review of the plan. We will make this explicit in the code of practice.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 64. I thank my noble friend Lady Keeley for sharing the reality of how this manifests itself by sharing with us individual circumstances. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, whose work on young carers is well known and respected. We support the intention to ensure that children are properly safeguarded. If a person is known to services, immediate safeguarding needs to form part of the planning by approved mental health professionals on behalf of the local authority and others involved in the Mental Health Act assessment before bringing a person into hospital. If a person is not known to known to services, the professionals should work with the relevant agencies to make sure the necessary steps are taken. The statutory guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children sets out how all practitioners working with children and families need to understand their role in this regard.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
I just want to reflect that the noble Lord, Lord Young, said in his speech that young carers services almost never receive any referrals from adult mental health services, despite the provision that already exists and has done for a number of years in codes of practice. This is a difficult thing—I tried to bring in legislation for that in the other place on a number of occasions. I just thought that was worth pointing out.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for pointing that out. On the points raised about protections for young carers, the code highlights that children who are caring for parents with severe mental illness are entitled to request a young carer’s needs assessment under the Children Act. It goes on to cover the information that young carers should be offered to help navigate such a challenging time.
Returning to the guidance about which I was speaking, as has been identified, it already outlines the responsibility of multiagency safeguarding partners. Protecting children at risk of abuse and stopping vulnerable children falling through the cracks is very much at the heart of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which was introduced to Parliament last month.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
I thank the Minister. I want to raise the issue that so many children and adolescents are placed for care out of their area, which makes the subsequent treatment plan hard to manage. Can the Minister at least look at whether the code of conduct needs strengthening on that issue? For example, it could include a recommendation that a local team visits the person in the hospital before they are discharged. Of course, I would like to see more beds closer to home, but we have to face the reality.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I appreciate that point, and I certainly would be happy to have a look at that.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in the debate on this group. In responding to the Minister, I will touch briefly on some of the other amendments, but particularly on Amendment 57 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe. I thank my noble friend Lady Browning and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for adding their names to it.
On Amendment 61, I agree very much with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, on the importance of parents and guardians, not only in respect of this amendment but all throughout the Bill and in the subsequent amendments that she tabled. It is very important that we do not forget that point and that we keep coming back to it.
On Amendment 58, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins, and my noble friend Lady Berridge, we are very sympathetic to the idea of extending this to under-18s. We have to reflect and may come back to this on Report.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, and I were fortunate enough to have a conversation about his Amendment 59 during the dinner break. It is on a fundamental issue and we need to raise awareness of the link between finance and mental health. One can lead to the other: you might start off with financial difficulties and then find yourself with mental health issues, or mental health issues make it far more difficult to manage your finances. Frankly, when there are banks that do not necessarily understand the individual circumstances or are moving toward semi-automated decision-making, this is a whole minefield that we ought to tackle as soon as possible and not wait 20 years for the next mental health Bill.
On Amendment 62, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, continuity of care is absolutely important, and not just for mental health; I have been in debates in this House where it is really important for allergies or diabetes. When children are treated for a condition by children’s services they then worry, when they transfer to adult services, about whether they will continue to receive the same level of care, particularly if the clinician is different when they move over. They may well have had a very good relationship with that clinician as a child, but then they feel that they have to explain everything all over again, even though there are patient records.
Amendment 64, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, and my noble friend Lord Young, seems eminently sensible. It almost seems obvious; I was surprised that it does not happen at the moment. I take on board what the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, said about previous attempts to put it into legislation; it must be fiendishly difficult.
One of the points that the Minister made was that young carers are entitled to some of the things that the noble Baroness was asking for. How do they know they are entitled to them? It is all very well to be entitled to them, but how do they know? This is true for physical health as well, but given it was raised on this specific issue, I would be interested in the Minister’s response. If she is not able to give that response, thanks to technology, over the airwaves to the iPad then perhaps she could include it in her letter to noble Lords afterwards.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, made an important point about Amendment 60A and housing. Housing, like finance, is one of those things that could lead to mental health issues, or having mental health issues makes housing much more difficult. The lack of adequate accommodation could lead to readmission, when we think about discharge afterwards, suitable accommodation and suitable circumstances.
I should be positive. I am grateful to the Government for the care and treatment plans in the first place. I think they are very sensible, which is why many noble Lords want them extended to not just that cohort of patients. I understand that sometimes we have to roll things out and learn from experience, and perhaps that can feed into future rollout—I understand sometimes not going for the big bang, as it were. On Amendment 57, I will read Hansard carefully and reflect on what the Minister said. I particularly thank her for the reference to the link to see what is being considered for inclusion in the care and treatment plan. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Whitaker
Member’s explanatory statement
The appropriate practitioner must provide culturally appropriate information when preparing or reviewing a care and treatment plan.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I have apologised that I was not able to be at the Second Reading of this most welcome Bill. I declare interests as a former member of the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust board and various positions in Gypsy, Traveller and Roma organisations as set out in the register. I read the Hansard record of the Second Reading debate and was particularly heartened by my noble friend the Minister’s acknowledgment of previous legislation’s lack of attention to racial disparities.
This deficiency is especially applicable to the situation of Gypsy, Traveller and Roma people, which Amendments 63, 101, 107, 113, 116 and 124 address, but I warmly support the other amendments in this group. The communities I speak of are usually airbrushed out of consideration of race discrimination. That is partly because their numbers have been small when national surveys have been made in the past, even though the proportion within their populations who suffer the multiple effects of discrimination is larger than in any other recognised minority-ethnic group, and perhaps partly because they are not distinguished by colour.
I am grateful to the Traveller Movement for detailed briefing and to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for their support. The amendments I speak to are all intended to probe how this Bill can avoid the same cruel mistake of omitting ways to deal with the mental health effects of discrimination against these communities. Basically, they stipulate that mental health practitioners must be trained and obliged to ensure that the care, treatment, advice and information they give are attuned to the culture of the people they are looking after. In healthcare generally, almost one-third of respondents to a Traveller Movement survey said that they experienced discrimination. These are the voices that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to, and I thank her for adding her name to one of my amendments.
There is reason to believe that this discrimination experience applies significantly to mental ill-health because this is not a familiar concept to some in the more traditional communities. Most of the rare, targeted provision has come from the voluntary sector. ONS research, which has now begun to put right the gap in our knowledge, shows that mistrust and fear of discrimination have delayed them seeking help. We do, however, still need its data to be disaggregated with regard to Gypsies and Irish Travellers, which are very different communities. Incidentally, the NHS data dictionary is not collecting such data at all, so the full picture may be even worse.
Amendment 63 applies the principle of cultural attunement to care and treatment plans. Only then would new subsection (6), which requires consultation to establish the patient’s wishes and needs, be properly fulfilled. This will mean taking account of possible mistrust, literacy rates, digital exclusion and any language barriers, because although Romani Gypsies and Irish Travellers have been in the UK for centuries, there may also be new arrivals from the Roma communities of east and central Europe.
Let me quickly sketch in the context. At present, one survey found that 66% of domestic abuse service providers—professionals—did not know how to engage with Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people. There is in particular a fear on the part of those communities that their children may be taken into care if they seek support for acute mental health problems, and some cases of suicide have thereby resulted. In fact, suicide is, tragically, much more common in these communities than in other groups. The NHS’s own research, carried out by the University of Worcester, cites an estimate that suicide is seven times more likely. It makes recommendations mandating specific cultural training in all aspects of healthcare. Research by Friends, Families and Travellers has found that lack of support from mental health and other public services is specifically mentioned by those affected to be one of the causes, together with cultural stigma. Anxiety is three times more likely and depression over twice as likely. The Roma Support Group also picks out cultural stigma as one of the barriers to effective treatment for mental illness, as well as lack of knowledge on the part of practitioners about the background of Holocaust survival experienced by older members of the Roma community, and often transmitted over the generations. Where literacy is low, it has been found that there is little understanding of mental health and insufficient access to services; and 46% from these communities reported that they had no access to digital primary care services.
Amendments 101 and 107 apply the same principles of trained cultural access to the provision of an independent mental health advocate, as does Amendment 112 to giving information about the complaints procedure. Amendment 113 brings in the providers of information on complaints for community health patients, and Amendments 116 and 124 do the same for advance choice documents in England and in Wales.
Finally, the Women and Equalities Committee pointed out in 2019:
“Despite the fact that information and guidance has been available to frontline healthcare staff for some time, discriminatory practices are more widespread than they should be”.
Apart from the new, most welcome planning policy, very little has changed since then, no doubt because the committee’s other recommendation, that there should be a cross-departmental strategy to tackle the overlapping inequalities faced by these communities, which have resulted in the worst health outcomes for any minority-ethnic group, was never developed by the previous Government despite the initial steps taken by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, when Minister for Communities. The Minister has cited the NHS role in a
“wider equality monitoring review programme”
in a Parliamentary Answer. Can she tell the House how this will cover access to mental health services? The present lack of engagement is why cultural understanding, created by specific training, must be in the Bill. These amendments would help the Bill realise its ambition of fully informing patients of the choices available to deal with serious mental ill-health, strengthening their voice and improving their involvement in their own care. I beg to move.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 65 and 133, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Scriven, are both about tackling racial injustices in the operation of the Act. I am sympathetic to the amendments that we have just heard about from the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, who set them out eloquently. I also strongly support Amendment 138, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall.
As I have said in previous debates, a primary driver of the review of the Mental Health Act was the shocking racial injustices in the use of the Act, and we need to have that front and centre in our minds as we work our way through the Bill. Addressing racial inequalities is one of the key issues identified in the 2018 review, and there remain concerns that the Bill still does not go far enough to address that deeply entrenched inequity. As I set out on the first day of Committee when introducing my amendment on including equity as an additional principle in the Bill, black people are more than three and a half times more likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act than white people and over seven times more likely to be placed on a community treatment order. I make no apology for repeating those figures because I think they are scandalous.
Evidence shows that, on average, people from racialised communities experience greater difficulty accessing mental health services and have poorer experiences and outcomes, and we have heard examples of that. For example, black or black British people are more likely to be detained for longer and to experience repeated admission. They are also more likely to be subject to police powers under the Act and experience higher levels of restraint. It is worth noting that the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, in his recent report on the NHS, said the use of restrictive interventions in in-patient mental health settings had continued to rise, and the most recent data shows that people from a black or black British background are still significantly more likely to be subject to restrictive intervention.
I readily acknowledge that there are some measures in the Bill that should have a positive impact for people from racialised communities—for example, the introduction of the advance choice documents that we were talking about earlier, which I very much welcome—but, in my view, the Bill in its current form still only scratches the surface, really. It does not take on many of the recommendations in this area from both the independent review of the Act and the pre-legislative scrutiny committee. Can the Minister explain why those recommendations were not taken on board?
I turn to my amendments. Amendment 65—and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for adding her name—is a probing amendment designed to understand better the Government’s thinking on how they intend to address racial disparities in the use of community treatment orders, which we debated at length on Monday. I do not want to repeat that, save to say that community treatment orders have been used more widely than anticipated and disproportionately on individuals from particular ethnic backgrounds. It is vital that this is closely monitored to ensure that the disproportionality in use is tackled head on. We must not focus just on reductions in the overall numbers of CTOs. Does the Minister agree that that should include collecting evidence on the effectiveness of NHS England’s patient and carer race equality framework and its approach to reducing the overrepresentation of people from black and minority ethnic communities?
Just to show that, rather like my noble friend Lord Scriven, I do not get out enough, I noticed that page 88 of the lengthy impact assessment talks about 13 pilots—trusts that have already started to make changes as a result of this anti-racism framework. Can the Minister update the House on their progress? If she cannot do so now, perhaps she could write to me.
We know that people from these racial backgrounds may also be reluctant to seek help from formal services, based either on previous negative experiences or in some cases because of social stigma attached to mental health issues within their own community. Amendment 133 would require mental health units to appoint a responsible person to address and report on racial disparities and other inequalities relating to the use of the Act. This is really important and it is vital that a new responsible person role is introduced at hospital level to oversee race equality and address inequalities in the operation of the Act.
The responsible person would be responsible for publishing a policy on how that unit plans to reduce racial and other disparities which are based on protected characteristics in that unit or community mental health service. They would have responsibility for monitoring data on equalities as well as overseeing workforce training and policies and drawing up policies to address bias and discrimination. In my view, the creation of a responsible person role at local level would materially help us to move forward to a more transparent and accountable mental health system, and this accountability would be reinforced and amplified by the responsibility this amendment also places on the Secretary of State to report on progress made on reducing inequalities at national level. That is set out in proposed new Section 120H.
I really believe that such a dual-pronged approach to clear and transparent accountability could make a tangible difference in this critical area of public policy, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, as has already been acknowledged, I have put my name to Amendment 63, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and Amendment 65, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. Both of them have done a comprehensive job of introducing the amendments so I will be extremely brief.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, is well known in your Lordships’ House for championing the many issues affecting Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people. I particularly wanted to sign Amendment 63 because it is a very broad-ranging amendment—it is crucial that everybody gets culturally appropriate forms of explanation. It struck me as we were debating that we are focused now on mental health, but I think this probably would also apply right across the NHS to physical health because there are, of course, cultural differences in understanding our bodies, et cetera.
If we imagine the case, perhaps, of a refugee who suffers mental health difficulties, having fled their home country, where they were subject to abuse by the authorities. It is important to make sure, if they are to be sectioned, that that is carefully explained to and understood by both the patient and potentially the patient’s family. There needs to be an extra level and a sensitivity to that person’s circumstances. We will all have different circumstances, but it is important to look at it in that broad frame.
On Amendment 65, we have already canvassed quite extensively the way in which minoritised communities are currently seeing significant disparities in the way they are treated under the law in the area of mental health, particularly in community treatment orders. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, described this as a probing amendment. Whether this is the exact means or not, it is clear that we have to have much better data and to make sure that as soon as trends and patterns emerge in that data, they are acted on. It is encouraging to hear that this is being piloted and work is being done but it is crucial that this becomes standard and that is why it is tempting to feel that it really has to be in the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. I also want to communicate the support of my right reverend friend the Bishop of London, who apologises that she cannot be in her place this evening.
Turning to the amendments led by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, on culturally appropriate care, I appreciated the noble Baroness’s references to the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. I have worked with that community much over many years and very much enjoyed my interactions with it.
These amendments highlight issues that my right reverend friend has spent a lot of time considering, particularly from a faith perspective. I do not think we have heard that in the debate so far tonight. It is sometimes hard to grasp just how differently our health, especially our mental health, is culturally understood across different communities and faith groups. While our ability to discuss our own and others’ mental health may be generally improving—I think it is—it remains an extremely difficult discussion point for many cultures and many communities.
When you combine that with the extensive inequalities of outcomes that we find, and many people’s experiences of culturally inappropriate care in mental health and other settings, it is inevitable that many people are reluctant to engage with preventative services. It was said at Second Reading that minoritised communities are likely to engage at a crisis point rather than seek early interventions. My wife worked for many years as a maths specialist in the home and hospital tuition service of a large urban authority. She regularly found that she was working with pupils whose mental health needs had been picked up late, if at all, because the culture of the parental home saw mental health issues as shameful, and not something you could raise with external service providers. So culturally appropriate care is a crucial step if we are to build the trust that is ultimately vital to reducing health inequalities.
In order that culturally appropriate care is deliverable, training on faith literacy, as well as different cultures and beliefs, will be crucial. Again, I have found that myself; I have been working with my fellow faith leaders in Greater Manchester, including the excellent Caribbean and African Health Network. I make no apology for banging on about religious literacy in your Lordships’ House on yet another occasion: it does really matter. Service providers in all sectors do us a huge disservice when, through their own faith illiteracy, they operate with a presumption that religion matters only in the realm of private affairs. Getting it right in this Bill will of course necessitate additional resource. In supporting these amendments, I hope that sufficient resources will be allocated to this work.
I turn finally to Amendments 65, 133 and 138, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. I am a statistician by background. We know the importance of good and useable data to ensure that we have an understanding not just of the gulfs of inequality of outcomes but of the more nuanced and complex patterns that lie underneath them. Amendment 133 recognises the need for regular training and has a consultation element as part of the policy. I hope this will be taken up and I hope that will include consultation with faith groups. We must commit to work with such groups to build trust with communities that service providers are wont to call hard to reach. I do not believe we should call any group in our society hard to reach. What we do have, all too often, are service providers who just do not make enough effort to reach. So instead, let us work with organisations such as CAHN, which I mentioned earlier, to ensure earlier interventions than those we often see.
I also warmly welcome Amendment 138, which, as others have said, highlights an appalling scandal in our society. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for tabling that amendment.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I know the hour is late, but I want to note the irony that the issues covered by these amendments are central to the whole process of why we have arrived at this Bill. In a sense it is unfortunate that, because of the hour, there are so few of us present. I want to stress that we cannot assume it is job done. It is really important to keep this whole area under review, whether we do it precisely in the terms of the amendments before us or not. I urge my noble friend the Minister to give an assurance that this issue will not be left for another 17 years before we decide that we have got it right, and that the workings of the Bill in this central area will be kept under close and continued review.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support Amendment 133. I know the hour is late. As I asked the Minister, why is it that issues relating to this focus, which was the focus of the Bill, seem always to end up at the end of our debates? I am not sure why, but they are some of the most important issues. I reflected at Second Reading and earlier in Committee on the Joint Committee’s work and our concern about the strength of civil society and media focus on this issue. Although what we saw seemed expert, we then saw a comparison with what I would call Premier League—which was learning disabilities and autism in terms of that focus.
I turn to new Section 120H, which the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, mentioned, and the statistics I cited before. The right reverend Prelate mentioned the importance of data. It is very concerning that, when we talk about the data on under-18s, we are not quite clear about what is going on in relation to it. The data on under-18s that I mentioned has three subgroups: those who are detained, those who are in the cohort because their parents have consented and those who have consented themselves. It is imperative that we know exactly which subgroup is which in the under-18s group—which, thankfully, is a small group of about 1,000.
Even in the data I cited from the UCL study, of the 23.6% of under-18s that were detained, three times as many black young people were detained as their counterparts. That issue is starting early. What is happening even at that early stage—the disproportionate number detained under the Act—was also reflected in the data on the lack of parents consenting to children going into hospital for the treatment that they need.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, during the debates on this Bill—and throughout my time in this place—I have learned that there are specific topics about which other noble Lords are passionate. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, who is not in her place for sad reasons, is passionate about many issues; but, in the context of this Bill, she has long championed issues around the detention of those with autism and learning disabilities, as has my noble friend Lady Browning. My noble friend Lady Berridge is very passionate about children and young people and about tackling racial discrimination, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is very passionate about the link between finance and mental health. Many noble Lords are passionate about specific issues. For me, Amendment 138, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe, goes to the heart of an issue in which I very strongly believe, based on my own experiences of racism while growing up in Britain.
Before I go into that, I will touch on the amendments from by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. In one of my first work experiences—in Chase Farm Hospital many years ago—I got to know and speak to a young patient from the Traveller community. He told me about the problems that the Traveller community had in getting access to medical care, and how members of the community were always treated with suspicion and not in the same way. So I am very sympathetic to those amendments.
To get back to my own experience, the Britain of recent years, which my children grew up in, is much less racist than the Britain that I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, when it was common to be called offensive names or to be chased by skinheads, sometimes actually with weapons and knives. But my experience was a lot better than the racism that my father faced when he came here in the 1950s. There are horrendous stories that he told my siblings and me when I was younger. I believe that we can be proud of that progress, as a country and a society.
When I was a Member of the European Parliament, I used to chat to the taxi drivers in Belgium and France. I would tell them that I was from London, and not all of them but many of them would say how lucky I was, since they had a friend or relative in London and they thought that London was incredibly diverse and tolerant compared with where they lived. That was very touching to hear—but I have to admit that that is my experience, and some will have had different experiences. Even my experience does not mean that the battle against racism and racial disparities is over. As many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Davies, the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lady Berridge, have rightly said, we have to be vigilant on this.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, one reason for the review and this Bill is because my noble friend Lady May commissioned the Wessely review due to the disproportionate number of black people being issued with community treatment orders or being detained; noble Lords have referred to this. We have known about that issue for a long time. Although politicians in the other place and many noble Lords here have raised the issue many times over many years, we do not really seem to have grasped the issue or to be on top of it. When I ask colleagues and medical experts about the disparity, I get a variety of answers. In the absence of any widely distributed and comprehensive study, the vacuum is filled by anecdotes or assumptions, sometimes racial stereotypes. One of the most common responses I have heard is that it is complex or multifaceted.
I remember when I did not initially get into the local grammar school, despite having the best grades in the class—better than some of the white pupils who got into the school; it also happened the previous year, in the year above me, when one of my friends who was black, an Afro-Caribbean, topped his class and did not get into the local grammar school—and my mother challenged the decision and asked for the reason, she was told “It’s complicated”. Fortunately, she persisted, and I got my place thanks to the help of my local Member of Parliament, who later became the late Lord Graham of Edmonton, may he rest in peace.
So when I hear the response, “It’s complicated”, I hope noble Lords will understand that I am simply not satisfied with that answer. It is just not good enough any more. The purpose of my amendment is to probe the Government to understand what they know and what research they are aware of, so we can understand the reasons for these racial disparities and put in place measures to tackle them. If it is complicated, can the Government or NHS list the various reasons and say what they are going to do about it? As noble Lord after noble Lord has said, we need the data.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who is not in her place, reminded noble Lords that many of the answers from the Minister sound similar to the responses from 20 years ago. That is not a political point. I suspect that the answers given by the Minister, who is well liked and respected, would not be very different from the answers prepared by officials for any Health Minister of any party. Some of the answers are probably very similar to answers that I gave when I was a Minister. That is not to disrespect the diligent civil servants in the department, who work really hard, but we need answers to the following questions.
What studies are the Government, DHSC and NHS aware of? What do we understand from the various studies? What secondary data do we have, and what are the known unknowns? What do we know that we need to know more about? Has there been any attempt from that secondary data to generate the questions for the primary research so that, once and for all, we can understand why a disproportionate number of black people are subject to community treatment orders and to being detained? Do the Government, DHSC or the NHS, if they have the data, know how to use it to reduce those disparities? If so, when will they begin to reduce these disparities?
I was very pleased to hear a reference to some of the pilot schemes. Perhaps the Minister can refer to some of those schemes, and maybe that would be helpful. But I have to say that if the answers that we receive to these questions, either tonight or when the Minster writes to noble Lords between now and Report, are not adequate, I suspect that noble Lords will have to send the Minister back to the department to kick the tyres and get a better answer. It is as simple as that; otherwise, I am afraid that we will return to this issue on Report. If it comes to that, I hope that we will not see a Government urging noble Lords from the governing party to vote against an amendment that would seek to tackle these huge racial disparities in a methodical way and with an evidence-led approach. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for the points they have made. I shall start with those from my noble friend Lady Whitaker regarding Amendments 63, 101, 107, 113, 116 and 124 and immediately address the point about the limited available data on Roma communities.
I absolutely acknowledge that the data on Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities is indeed very limited. I emphasise that I say this not as an excuse; it is just what I have discovered. This is largely due to lower numbers, but we are working with NHSE to improve ethnicity reporting for all patients. More broadly, the Office for National Statistics is working with a range of government departments to undertake research into the barriers and enablers for this community in accessing a range of public services, including mental health services. Findings are expected later this year. I know my noble friend has been very active in pursuing this point and I am grateful to her for doing that. I hope that will be a generally helpful response.
I add to all noble Lords that I absolutely agree that information, communication and support should be provided in a culturally appropriate manner. However, we do not believe that the amendments would achieve that aim, nor are they necessary. The duty to take cultural differences into account in how services are delivered is already enshrined in the Equality Act 2010. These existing duties are the legal basis for ensuring that services are culturally appropriate. That said, we absolutely acknowledge that, in practice, many services still fall short, but that is the position that we find ourselves having to tackle. This is where we need to strengthen guidance. The patient and carer race equality framework is already in place to strengthen the application of these principles, and we will strengthen guidance in the code to ensure that duties under the Equality Act are embedded in practice. We therefore believe that these amendments would not have any additional benefit above what is already in place and what is planned.
On Amendment 65, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, we recognise that there are very significant disparities in the use of community treatment orders between different groups. This data is published as part of the annual Mental Health Act statistics. As the noble Baroness said, in 2023-24 it certainly was the case that patients from black and black British ethnic groups were around seven times more likely to be placed under a CTO than those from white groups. I add that patients from all minority ethnic groups are more likely to be subject to the use of a community treatment order than patients who are white. These disparities are explored in the impact assessment.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, drew on his personal experience, for which I thank him. I am sorry that he has to bring that personal experience here, but of course it is the case that the battle against racism and racial disparities is far from over—I completely agree. I am sure he will have noted the commitments made by this Government to tackle racism and racial inequalities, particularly in the NHS and social care.
The reality is—many noble Lords have spoken about this—that we are in a position where we have less data on outcomes and patient experience of being subject to community treatment orders. Officials are now working with NHS England and system partners to understand what additional data it would be wise and helpful to collect. We will cover CTOs in the planned independent evaluation of the reforms but, as ever, I have to share, in honesty, that it will take time to gather new data. A review after 12 months would be premature, not least because it would mean it was based on data from before any reforms commenced. I do not feel that that would be helpful. I assure noble Lords that, rather than committing in legislation to a review at a fixed date, we are committed to keeping existing and additional future data under review.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I think one of the reasons why people are asking for an open and transparent review—and, in some cases, one that reports back to Parliament—is that this is about not only the data but accountability for carrying out actions and implementation. That is the bit that is missing. Everything I have heard from the Minister on this subject so far—maybe she is coming on to say something else—suggests that without accountability, and overview and transparency of that accountability, the guidance is not going to work. Believe me, as somebody who used to work in the service: if you know that the Government were looking at this and that it was going to Parliament, it sends a powerful message for action to be taken in each individual unit. That is what is required, and I do not see that coming from the Minister’s answers. Can she tell me where that accountability streak will be, and how we, in this House and the other House, can put pressure on if the guidance is not being followed, based on the process she has outlined?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand the point the noble Lord makes. However, it does not lead me to accept the amendments. I understand the intent and I am sure noble Lords realise how sympathetic I am to it, but I repeat the point I made earlier: if one looks at what the amendment actually does, it will not serve that purpose. I take the point about transparency and accountability, and I hope the noble Lord has heard many times that that is very much the mode of direction. Perhaps it will be of some assistance to say that the PCREF will improve data collection on racial disparities over the coming year, and the CQC has existing duties to monitor and report on inequalities under the Act. We will continue to monitor racial disparities in the use of CTOs. That situation will be ongoing. If it is not doing the job that it is meant to do, we will not be complacent and will seek to act.
We agree there is a need to improve organisational leadership—
Baroness Berridge (Con)
Just before the Minister talks about that point, I understand her concern about the 12-month time limit, because it would be before the reforms are introduced. However, is she satisfied that there will be a robust baseline before the reforms are introduced so that we know what we are measuring against? Otherwise, in a few years’ time, we could be asking whether the reforms have worked, but we would not know because we did not have the baseline data. That is the starting point.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness is quite right: one has to be able to compare, and that baseline will be in place. You could collect all the data you like, but it has to be meaningful. Her point is well made.
There is a need to improve organisational leadership to improve data collection and change culture across the mental health system. Again, this is exactly what the PCREF is designed to do and something we want to embed further through the revised code of practice.
The creation of a responsible person was an additional recommendation from the pre-legislative scrutiny committee, and it is one we have considered in some detail. However, ultimately, we think that the role is not necessary, because it would duplicate existing roles and duties. There are already duties on providers of mental health services to identify and address inequalities relating to protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and specifically the public sector equality duty. CQC already has a duty under the Mental Health Act to monitor as health services exercise their powers and discharge their duties when patients are detained in hospital or are subject to CTOs or guardianship. It publishes an annual report, Monitoring the Mental Health Act, which includes detailed commentary on inequalities. The PCREF is now part of the NHS standard contract. It has created new contractual obligations on providers to ensure that they have a framework in place to record and address racial inequality in mental health systems and to look at training and other policies to address racial disparities. Ultimately, we do not think that a responsible person is necessary to achieve all the aims, which are understood, set out in the amendment.
Finally, I want to turn to Amendment 138 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and supported by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. We recognise, as I have said, that there are significant inequalities in the use of detention under the Mental Health Act and of CTOs between different minority-ethnic groups, and in particular the overrepresentation of black men. We monitor those inequalities through routinely published data and are improving this data through the PCREF. The CQC, as I have mentioned, reports on inequalities in its annual report under existing duties, but we agree that we lack robust evidence on what drives those inequalities, and that has been a matter of considerable debate in your Lordships’ House. We need to conduct research into this, and we are exploring with experts, including academic researchers, the best way to tackle it.
I am concerned that two years is not enough time to scope and commission the report, collect and analyse new data, and form meaningful recommendations. Additionally, we hope that through improved decision-making under the reforms we will see a reduction in the number and proportion of black men who are subject to the Act and a reduction in racial disparities more generally. It is a major driver of why we introduced the Mental Health Bill. A report after two years feels premature, because it would be likely to be based in reality on data from before the reforms were commenced.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way and sorry for interrupting her flow again. The point about having a staging report after two years is to get ahead and upstream of what is happening rather than retrospectively being able to do stuff after it has gone on. Two years in management terms to be able to determine trends of intended or unintended consequences and then put different things in place is really important. I believe that this amendment, with a report back to Parliament, would send a very strong signal and allow the Government, the department and NHS England to pick up trends, even if it was not the total picture, which would determine different policies and practices and potential changes in the code as well as management action. I think that is what lies behind the noble Lord’s amendment.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt at this time. I note that the noble Baroness thinks that 12 months is too short, and many noble Lords can perhaps see the point that two years is too short. Does the department have any idea of what a reasonable timeframe is? There has to be some accountability, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said. We could accept the warm words and the intentions of the Minister here tonight, but what happens if nothing changes? Where is the accountability? Can the Minister think about asking the department whether there is a reasonable timeframe for some meaningful research? I have supervised academic theses over time. You can have the one-year and then you go on to the three-year for PhD, and sometimes that is quite comprehensive data. There might be a meta study that could be done of lots of existing studies. First, what is a reasonable time? The noble Baroness does not have to answer now; it can be in writing. Secondly, if we let this go, how do we make sure there is accountability? How do we come back to this in three years or four years or five years? I look forward to the answer.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I was about to say that I do understand the need for pace, but I know that noble Lords understand the need to get this right and I know they are not suggesting that we should get it wrong. I will certainly be glad to look at the points that have been raised. I assure noble Lords that I do not want this to be warm words and I understand what noble Lords are seeking. I want to ensure that it is right and that the pace is right. I will look at the points raised because—although I do not think anyone is accusing me of this—it is the exact opposite of avoiding accountability and transparency; it is just about dealing about what is in the amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked me a number of very pertinent questions and to do justice to them I will write to him. In conclusion, I hope that noble Lords—
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
Before the noble Baroness sits down, could I tease out from her a few words about the religious literacy point that myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, raised earlier? While we have rightly focused much on race and ethnicity this evening, which is important, I find that sometimes people take a pride in being religiously illiterate and in not paying attention to somebody’s faith in a way that they would probably not take a pride, as a professional, in not attending to somebody’s ethnic background. Does the Minister have a little word to say about that?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I suspect that the right reverend Prelate knows where I would be coming from on this. He and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, are quite right that consideration of one’s religion and religious practices and not making assumptions about them are absolutely crucial.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her understanding of the crucial meaning of the data shortage and for her very helpful account of further work. The problem with relying on Gypsy, Roma and Traveller being covered by equality legislation guidance is that, unless they are specifically named as what they are, lots of people have no idea that they are there, that they are subject to an appalling level of discrimination and that they need a targeted response, directed—as it would be with a faith community or other community—at the reason they are so discriminated against.
But, on the whole, I am glad that the Minister has got the point about so many things and I sense that she has sensed the depth of feeling raised in this very short debate. I will thank very briefly everyone who joined in. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, quite rightly pointed to the range of cultures that are potentially alienated by not being understood at all, as well as the need for data. I was very grateful for the support of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, because what he says is based on his real experience. I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Davies went on about the centrality of this issue; it is not a marginal add-on, it is part of our society. Of course, the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for more research and proper data is really essential. I enjoyed his note of hope and I hope very much that we will be able to continue it and increase the progress. I had better withdraw my amendment for the time being, but we may need to return to this.